View
45
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Introduction:
How does “Biblical Theology” differ from
“Systematic” theology?
- Systematic (aka: “dogmatic”) Theology:
‣An ordered account of Christian doctrine and
practice, which engages with the Scriptures as
illumined by tradition, reason, and experience.
‣Often has categories like:
๏God, Humanity, Christ, Sin, Atonement
Introduction:
How does “Biblical Theology” differ from
“Systematic” theology?
- Biblical Theology:
‣The discipline evades simple definition because it
has meant so many different things.
๏Klink and Lockett:
KLINK AND LOCKETT:
“BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
HAS BECOME A
CATCHPHRASE, A WAX
NOSE THAT CAN MEAN
ANYTHING FROM THE
HISTORICAL CRITICAL
METHOD…TO A
THEOLOGICAL
INTERPRETATION OF
SCRIPTURE THAT IN
PRACTICE APPEARS TO
LEAVE HISTORY OUT
OF THE EQUATION
ALTOGETHER.”
Introduction:
How does “Biblical Theology” differ from
“Systematic” theology?
- Biblical Theology:
‣The discipline evades simple definition because it
has meant so many different things.
Thus we must trace the history of the term and movement…
Introduction:
A Brief History of “Biblical Theology” (BT):
- J.P. Gabler first used the term in 1787
‣Distinguished his rationalist project from the
church’s “dogmatic” biases.
‣Rejected the connection between OT and NT.
Introduction:
A Brief History of “Biblical Theology” (BT):
- In 1892, Geerhardus Vos set forth a more
orthodox definition.
GEERHARDUS VOS(1862-1949)
FOUNDER OF
“CALVINIST BIBLICAL
THEOLOGY”
BORN IN
NETHERLANDS.
TAUGHT AT
PRINCETON.
Introduction:
A Brief History of “Biblical Theology” (BT):
- Geerhardus Vos:
‣Both Biblical and Systematic theology are (or,
should be) equally based in the Bible.
‣ “BT draws a line of development [historically]
while Systematic Theology draws a circle.”
‣The emphasis in BT is upon constructing a
“narrative” of God’s work in the world.
These three statements will guide our own use of BT.
Introduction:
A Brief History of “Biblical Theology” (BT):
- Geerhardus Vos:
‣Yet…Vos’ influence was largely confined to
conservative Reformed circles.
Introduction:
A Brief History of “Biblical Theology” (BT):
- Karl Barth
‣Barth’s break with liberalism came with his
Commentary on Romans: Der Römerbrief (1922).
‣Now a pastor, he found that his higher critical view
of Scripture left him with nothing to preach.
‣Many complain, however, that Barth left Romans
(i.e. history / original context) far behind in his so-
called “commentary.”
Introduction:
A Brief History of “Biblical Theology” (BT):
- Today BT is characterized by a diversity of
approaches.
‣Klink and Lockett (2012) provide
a spectrum:
Introduction:
Today BT is characterized by a diversity of
approaches.
1.Historical Description (Krister Stendahl)
KRISTER STENDAHL(1921-2008)
HARVARD DIVINITY
FAMOUS ESSAY: “PAUL
AND THE
INTROSPECTIVE
CONSCIENCE OF THE
WEST.”
Introduction:
Today BT is characterized by a diversity of
approaches.
1.Historical Description (Krister Stendahl)
• BT tells what texts meant “back then,” Systematic
theo. tells us what they mean now.
• The goal is to reconstruct the “theologies” of the
Biblical books, not to meld them together.
Introduction:
Today BT is characterized by a diversity of
approaches.
1.Historical Description (Krister Stendahl)
• PRO: Avoids Anachronism.
• CON: Harms Biblical unity (esp. NT / OT); makes
application difficult.
• More open to higher criticism.
Introduction:
Today BT is characterized by a diversity of
approaches.
2.Redemptive History:
• Example: D.A. Carson
Introduction:
Today BT is characterized by a diversity of
approaches.
2.Redemptive History:
• Carson sees BT as a “Bridge Discipline” between
Exegesis and Systematic Theology.
• A Helpful (but imperfect) diagram.
EXEGESIS BIBLICAL THEOLOG
Y
HISTORICAL
THEOLOGY
SYSTEMATIC
THEOLOGY
Carson’s Diagram
on Biblical Theology as a
“Bridge Discipline”
EXEGESIS BIBLICAL THEOLOG
Y
HISTORICAL
THEOLOGY
SYSTEMATIC
THEOLOGY
Carson’s Diagram
on Biblical Theology as a
“Bridge Discipline”
Tends to
focus on
analysis
of
passage
s &
themes
EXEGESIS BIBLICAL THEOLOG
Y
HISTORICAL
THEOLOGY
SYSTEMATIC
THEOLOGY
Carson’s Diagram
on Biblical Theology as a
“Bridge Discipline”
Tends to
focus on
analysis
of
passage
s &
themes
Tends to
focus on
synthesi
s of
passage
s &
themes
EXEGESIS BIBLICAL THEOLOG
Y
HISTORICAL
THEOLOGY
SYSTEMATIC
THEOLOGY
Carson’s Diagram
on Biblical Theology as a
“Bridge Discipline”
Tends to
focus on
analysis
of
passage
s &
themes
Tends to
focus on
synthesi
s of
passage
s &
themes
What did
Luther,
Calvin,
or
Augustin
e say?
EXEGESIS BIBLICAL THEOLOG
Y
HISTORICAL
THEOLOGY
SYSTEMATIC
THEOLOGY
Carson’s Diagram
on Biblical Theology as a
“Bridge Discipline”
Tends to
focus on
analysis
of
passage
s &
themes
Tends to
focus on
synthesi
s of
passage
s &
themes
Putting
all this
together:
What
should
we
believe?
What did
Luther,
Calvin,
or
Augustin
e say?
EXEGESIS BIBLICAL THEOLOG
Y
HISTORICAL
THEOLOGY
SYSTEMATIC
THEOLOGY
The diagram is admittedly Imperfect (or naive) because:
1. Exegesis is never done in a presuppositional vacuum.
(Hence the value of Postmodern critics…[a brief overview])
Carson’s Diagram
on Biblical Theology as a
“Bridge Discipline”
POST-MODERNISMJ-F. LYOTARD:
“INCREDULITY
TOWARD
METANARRATIVES.”
“TRUTH” IS BUT A
FUNCTION OF POWER
PLAYS.
JACQUES DERRIDA“DECONSTRUCTION”
UNMASKING DRIVING
MOTIVES (POWER
PLAYS) BEHIND TRUTH-
CLAIMS VIA A
“HERMENEUTIC OF
SUSPICION.”
EXEGESIS BIBLICAL THEOLOG
Y
HISTORICAL
THEOLOGY
SYSTEMATIC
THEOLOGY
The diagram is admittedly Imperfect (or naive) because:
1. Exegesis is never done in a presuppositional vacuum.
2. The meaning of BT has been variously defined.
Carson’s Diagram
on Biblical Theology as a
“Bridge Discipline”
EXEGESIS BIBLICAL THEOLOG
Y
HISTORICAL
THEOLOGY
SYSTEMATIC
THEOLOGY
The diagram is admittedly Imperfect (or naive) because:
1. Exegesis is never done in a presuppositional vacuum.
2. The meaning of BT has been variously defined.
Carson’s Diagram
on Biblical Theology as a
“Bridge Discipline”
With these caveats in mind, the diagram is still very helpful.
Introduction:
Today BT is characterized by a diversity of
approaches.
2.Redemptive History:
• Carson sees BT as a “Bridge Discipline” between
Exegesis and Systematic Theology.
• A Helpful (but imperfect) diagram.
Introduction:
Today BT is characterized by a diversity of
approaches.
2.Redemptive History (D.A. Carson):
• Carson often stresses so-called inter canonical
themes (e.g. King and Kingdom; Image and
Likeness; Marriage and Faithfulness).
‣Jesus becomes the fulfillment of these themes.
Introduction:
Today BT is characterized by a diversity of
approaches.
2.Redemptive History (D.A. Carson):
• Pro: This approach pays close attention to exegesis
while also attempting to read the Bible as God’s
inspired progressive Revelation.
• Con: Carson may underestimate the extent to which
his “exegesis” is itself influenced by theological
presuppositions (especially Reformed ones).
Introduction:
Today BT is characterized by a diversity of
approaches.
3.Worldview Story
• Example: N.T. Wright
Introduction:
Today BT is characterized by a diversity of
approaches.
3.Worldview Story
• It is from Wright that we will take our notion of a
“Biblical Meta-narrative”
• “A script in search of actors.”
• Creation-Fall-Israel-Jesus-Church-New Creation
Introduction:
Today BT is characterized by a diversity of
approaches.
3.Worldview Story
• Pro: The attempt to see the Bible as a continuous
story helps the reader to see how the various bits of
Biblical material fit together in a coherent whole.
• Con: Some question Wright’s sweeping
generalizations and his starting point in history
rather than “dogma” or faith.
Introduction:
Today BT is characterized by a diversity of
approaches.
4.Canonical Approach:
• Example: Brevard Childs
Introduction:
Today BT is characterized by a diversity of
approaches.
4.Canonical Approach (Brevard Childs):
• While higher criticism tried to separate the
“authentic” bits of Scripture from the later redactions
(i.e. edits), a canonical approach assumes
redaction, while also viewing the finished product
(the canon) as that which we must study and live by.
Introduction:
Today BT is characterized by a diversity of
approaches.
4.Canonical Approach (Brevard Childs):
• Pro: This blunts the liberal critique by
acknowledging redaction (etc.) while avoiding the
destruction of the canon itself. It also seeks to listen
to and deal with the whole Bible.
• Con: Is this mix of liberalism and conservatism
sustainable?
Introduction:
Today BT is characterized by a diversity of
approaches.
5.Theological Interpretation (Francis Watson):
FRANCIS WATSON(B. 1956)
BRITISH NT SCHOLAR
AND THEOLOGIAN;
INFLUENCED BY BARTH
UNIVERSITY OF
DURHAM.
Introduction:
Today BT is characterized by a diversity of
approaches.
5.Theological Interpretation (Francis Watson):
• Fuses theology (tradition) and Biblical studies.
• The Bible is exclusively for the church.
• Precedence is given to the NT in interpreting OT.
• Historical Criticism is largely eschewed.
Introduction:
Today BT is characterized by a diversity of
approaches.
5.Theological Interpretation (Francis Watson):
• Pro: The ability to fuse disciplines and deal with the
text as inspired is laudatory.
• Cons: Does this do justice to history? Is the mixture
of disciplines too ad hoc (doing justice to none)?
While “Type 3” will largely form the basis for this course,
we will also borrow from other approaches.
Covenantal Systems:
Intro:
- One of the key tasks of Biblical Theology is how to
relate the New and Old Testament.
‣ i.e. God made promises to Israel that do not seem
to have been fulfilled (at least not literally).
‣God also made various “covenants” throughout
history, and the commands in the OT differ from the
requirements in the NT (e.g. circumcision).
Various covenantal systems address such issues in different ways
Covenantal Systems:
Dispensationalism
- Founded by John Nelson Darby
- Popularized in America by D.L. Moody (MBI)
- Affirmed by C.I. Scofield in the Scofield Ref. Bible
C.I. SCOFIELD(1843 - 1921)
PRODUCED THE
SCOFIELD REFERENCE
BIBLE WITH
DISPENSATIONALIST
HEADINGS AND NOTES
Covenantal Systems:
Dispensationalism
- Founded by John Nelson Darby
- Popularized in America by D.L. Moody (MBI)
- Codified by C.I. Scofield in the Scofield Ref. Bible
- An admittedly biased historical overview:
‣https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_cVXdr8mVs
Covenantal Systems:
Dispensationalism
- Four Characteristics:
1.Literal reading of Scripture (esp. prophecy)
2.“Israel” promises are not fulfilled by the church
๏Israel remains God’s special people.
๏God’s “Israel plan” has essentially been put “on hold” until the end of history.
Covenantal Systems:
Dispensationalism
- Four Characteristics:
3.The Millennium (Rev. 20) is crucial as the time when God’s “Israel promises” will be fulfilled.
๏Rapture theology
4.The Bible evidences a series of “dispensations” in which God asks for somewhat different things.
• Suggestions regarding these dispensations:
Covenantal Systems:
Dispensationalism
- Four Characteristics:
4.The Bible evidences a series of “dispensations” in which God asks for somewhat different things.
• Suggestions regarding these dispensations:
Covenantal Systems:
Dispensationalism
- Positives
• Dispensationalists tend toward a high view of Scripture.
• Virtually everyone recognizes at least two “dispensations” (Old Covenant / New Covenant).
• If a literal reading of certain texts is correct, then so is (at least parts of) Dispensationalism.
- E.g. 1 Thess. 4; Romans 11; Rev. 20
Covenantal Systems:
Dispensationalism
- Negatives / Cautions
• It’s New (and, largely, an American) development.
• It may fail to account for Biblical symbolism/metaphor.
• It risks the appearance of a “different God” in each dispensation.
• Only a small portion of the Bible is actually “for us.”
- E.g. Jesus’ words are for the Jews; Epistles…for us.
Covenantal Systems:
Progressive Dispensationalism:
- An attempt to soften Classical Dispensationalism.
- While ethnic Israel still has a future, the church is a fulfillment of OT promises to bless Gentiles, and not merely a parenthesis in God’s “Israel plan.”
- Prophecy can have a “duality” of fulfillments.
- Some NT “Israel” passages refer to church
- Often associated with Dallas Theological Seminary.
Covenantal Systems:
Covenant Theology (Reformed):
- Uses the idea of “covenant” as an organizing principle.
- God established a “covenant of works” with Adam, the federal head of all humanity.
‣Hos. 6.7: “Like Adam they transgressed the covenant”
- The Mosaic Law (Old Covenant) is fulfilled by Christ.
‣Those saved are saved by “works” (works of Christ)
- New Covenant is one of grace (trusting Christ’s work).
Covenantal Systems:
Covenant Theology (Reformed):
- Hinges on the idea of Federal Headship—all humanity is united with Adam, our head.
‣Adam’s obedience would have secured our salvation.
‣Adam’s sin did justify our damnation.
How you are united with the Old Adam—by being born.
How you are united with the Second Adam—by being born again.
Covenantal Systems:
Covenant Theology (Reformed):
- As the Second Adam (the true Imago Dei), Christ functions similarly to the First Adam.
‣Questions / Critiques:
๏Logic/Justice: How can one stand in for another?
๏Science: What if there wasn’t one historical Adam?
THE DEBATE ABOUT THE HISTORICAL ADAMSOME GENETIC
SCIENTISTS NOW
SUGGEST THAT
HUMANS EMERGED IN
MULTIPLE PLACES
FROM MULTIPLE
ANCESTORS.
Covenantal Systems:
Covenant Theology (Reformed):
- As the Second Adam (the true Imago Dei), Christ functions similarly.
‣Questions / Critiques:
๏Logic/Justice: How can one stand in for another?
๏Science: What if there wasn’t one historical Adam?
๏Theology: If Christ is second (and greater) Adam, why not Universalism?
Covenantal Systems:
Covenant Theology (Reformed):
- Positives:
‣Greater unity/continuity between NT / OT
‣Longer tradition: Calvin (sort of) ; Wesley; etc.
Covenantal Systems:
Covenant Theology (Reformed):
- Questions / Problems:
‣What about the numerous covenants in OT? Are these not separate “dispensations”?
๏The “covenant of works” does not refer to a specific OT covenant (i.e. Abraham, Noah, Moses).
‣Can the idea of Federal Headship hold up?
‣Does it ignore God’s promises to Israel?
๏Supersessionism? / Replacement Theology?
Covenantal Systems:
Lutheran
- Abraham reveals salvation by grace through faith alone.
- Moses (Law) sent to reveal our inability to earn salvation
‣Purpose of Law: To drive us to the gospel
- Christ accomplishes salvation for us
‣ Our Part: faith alone
These three covenantal systems can be differentiated
largely by how they view the Law
Covenantal Systems:
The Primary Role of the Law
1.Lutheran:
‣Law brings a personal experience of inadequacy before God (frustrates our attempts to “earn it”).
2.Covenantal:
‣Law as an historical reality fulfilled by Jesus.
3.Dispensational:
‣The Law was for Jews; Obedience postponed till Millennium.
Covenantal Systems:
Conclusion:
- While some knowledge of these approaches to the Bible
(i.e. covenantal systems) is helpful, one need not
subscribe wholesale to any one of them.
The Meta-narrative
The rest of the class will involve walking through
the “chapters” or “Acts” within the Big Story of the
Bible.
Creation Fall Israel Jesus Church New Creation
Recommended