What
is biblical theology? Is it a historical study of the Bible as an historical
artifact or a theological interpretation of the Scripture? Does the Bible
contain its own theology that needs to be unearthed? Did it speak only to the
audience back then or does it also speak to the contemporary readers? Is it
descriptive (historical description) or prescriptive (contemporary application)?
In their Understanding Biblical Theology,
Klink and Lockett “attempt to draw attention to some of the central issues
attending the task of biblical theology” (p.183).
Klink
and Lockett recall J.P Gobler’s inaugural address at the University of Altdorf
in 1787 that claims biblical theology is pure historical argument independent
from the church’s dogmatic. Interestingly, about a century later, Geerhordus
Vos in his inaugural address at the Princeton Theological Seminary in 1892
argues that biblical theology and systematic theology are siblings (pp.14-15). Hence,
biblical theology and systematic theology work in a parallel motion in which
systematic theology relies heavily on logic whilst biblical theology relies
heavily on history (p.16). In order to validate their arguments, besides laying
out their theory in five categories of doing biblical theology, they also
include modern theologians who they think to be the practitioners of the
biblical theology within their category. However, it is important to note that this
history-theology parameter serves only as “cartograph”, never “intended to be a
definitive account of biblical theology” (p.21). They hope that their book helps
to explicate “why the academy finds it so hard to make sense of the differing
versions for “biblical” in biblical theology” and “how the church has and
should continue to express their “theology” by means of biblical theology” (p.
185).
In
their thesis, Klink and Lockett use history and theology as the bipolar
parameters to understand biblical theology. They highlight the major issues
pertaining biblical theology – Old Testament’s connection to the New Testament,
historical diversity versus theological unity, scope and sources of biblical
theology, its subject matter and who should work on biblical theology - the
academy or the church. They attempt to classify biblical theology into five
categories by evaluating the theory and practice of the practitioners. As they
have explicitly pointed out, the five categories are meant for study purpose, “hoping
to encourage its practice in the life of both the academy and the church (Klink
and Lockett, 185).
The
two diagrams below succinctly summarize Klink and Lockett’s five categories of
biblical theology:
BT 1 (Historical
Description), the prominent characteristic of BT1 is
its descriptive approach as advocated by Krister Stendahl (29). It understands
that the task of biblical theology is to discover “what it meant” and leave
“what it means” to systematic theology. Due to its historical and descriptive
nature, the sources of BT1 are the Christian canon and all related texts
(extracanonical) for historical excavations. Its subject matter is the “life
situation of the documents” (p.39). James Barr’s methodology of biblical
theology matches BT1 as he believes biblical theology has to be executed by
“professional historians” (p.45). For Barr, historical criticism is the tool to
access the narrative or story of the bible (p.53). The story serves as the “raw
material” for theology (p.54). Therefore, such strenuous work of doing BT1 can
only be carried out by the academy.
BT 2 (History of
Redemption) emphasizes on God’s redemptive work in
human history revealed in the Bible. The Old Testament and the New Testament
present God’s progressive redemptive acts in a narrative. The varieties of BT2
are placed into three schools of thoughts – the Dallas School (from text to
themes), the Chicago School (from themes to text) and the Philadelphia School (macro
context synthesis) (p.67). BT2’s subject matter is “the progressive unity of
God’s redemptive acts” in Jesus Christ (p.74). D. A. Carson is the practitioner
theologian of this type. He focuses on “salvation-historical study of the biblical
texts” built on “coherent and agreed canon” using inductive method to excavate
the text (p.82). The final purpose of biblical theology is for preaching and
teaching in the church (p.84).
BT 3 (Worldview-Story) attempts
to balance history and theology in light of the narrative. It views the whole Bible
in light of the story line (the main plot) as a coherent whole. For example, N.
T. Wright focuses on the Second Temple Judaism as the worldview story
(historical) and repentance (theological) as the response in order to gain
restoration. Canon is not only its source but it also includes extra-canonical
sources as well. In this approach, both the academy and the church have their
contribution to biblical theology.
Well,
it may be difficult to draw a clear line between BT 2 and BT 3 meaning can we
exclude Christ as the climax of the story? If we take out Christ from being the
climax of the story, the narrative in BT 3 is reduced to mere story from
Creation to New Heaven and New Earth. Frankly, it is difficult to maintain the
main plot if we take away God’s redemptive acts through Christ from the
narrative.
BT 4 (Canonical
Approach) brings together
history and theology under the umbrella of the canon. It embraces both descriptive (historical) and prescriptive
(theological) nature of Scripture as the canon contains both history
(historical process) and theology (theological reflection (p.143). Christ is
the subject matter of BT 4 (p.135). The Bible has to be read within the
relationship of the readers with God and His Church as its main purpose is
towards an understanding of God (p.151).
BT 5 (Theological
Construction) rejects historical criticism and lays
heavily on theological approach. Its primary subject matter is God and his work
and its secondary subject matter is the people of God. The theology of the
church serves as a tool to study the Bible. For Francis Watson, the historical
background of the Bible does not truly matter, what matters most is its
contemporary message. In other words, the ecclesial community is “the primary
point of reference” (p.179).
Jakarta Selatan, 29 Nopember 2013
Johan Newton Crystal
