In his blog on NTE, Dannii said

biblical theology. Sigh. I’m not a huge fan of BT, and doing so much of it, most of which I’ve covered before in According to Plan

I’m interested to know from Dannii, firstly, what he doesn’t like about Biblical Theology, and why. I’m also interested to hear other’s thoughts - for and against.

Anyone?

Cheers,
Andrew

Everyone has a ‘theology’, even atheists. The only real question is whether it is good or bad theology. It seems to me that the one of the best things a Christian can do is to become aware of what their own theology is, and then repent of the parts that are unbiblical. I’m not sure where the question of being a ‘fan’ comes into it, though.

I like the term Conforming Theology for what you have described, Gordon. I hope mine is becoming closer to the theology God had in mind when he caused holy men to write what he wants us to know.

I would have thought that Biblical Theology was essential for understanding the bible properly.

I have been to so many churches where the OT and NT are disconnected. How do they make sense of many of Paul’s writings and the book of Hebrews?

David Ashton - 11 December 2007 11:45 AM

I would have thought that Biblical Theology was essential for understanding the bible properly.

I have been to so many churches where the OT and NT are disconnected. How do they make sense of many of Paul’s writings and the book of Hebrews?

I agree, David. I suppose that that’s why I’m asking the question - and hoping to hear from Dannii!

Cheers,
Andrew

I’m not sure that the kingdom model (God’s people, place and rule) works for everything or is even helpful for much at all. The bigger problem is that it seems to be promoted to the exclusion of other models.
And as apparently Goldsworthy admitted, it’s not exegetical. And such comments like all the covenants are fulfilled in Jesus (or the OT is all about Jesus, which is subject to much misunderstandings by other critics of BT, hopefully not by me though) seem to be unsubstantiated.

What are these other models?

What’s wrong with God’s people, place and rule?

Further while I am in no place to defend biblical theology as a whole, presuming you have accepted that the books themselves of the bible are inspired, you have to accept that there is a larger theological picture that encompasses all the books, otherwise you make God out to be a short-sighted fool who just changed his mind (and thus his word) as time went along with no proper plan for the long term.

One fairly simple model sees the entering of the promised land of Exodus through to Judges being an analogy of how God saves, sanctifies and perfects the believer. Yes this period of history covers three or more GGBT periods with different places and rules.

It’s not so much that the GGBT categories are wrong, but that they seem to simplify things too much. There’s a lot more than just identifying God’s people, place and rule throughout the OT. The place category also seems to exist to serve the later periods. The only place that really seems to make sense to me is Canaan. The temple is not a new place but an embellishment of the old place of Canaan. The Ark is not a place, nor does it make sense to me to call Noah’s flood a period. I’d call it a quick transition between two other periods.

Michael, of course I accept that the Bible is consistent with a single overarching story to tell. I just don’t think that GGBT helps us understand it well.

Aaahhh, this forum is warming my heart. I am a massive fan of BT and a massive fan of Graeme Goldsworthy etc etc.

I think there are two issues here
1. Is the way we do BT boring the socks of our people?
2. Is the BT we teach too narrow/ simple?

On question 1 - I think perhaps yes. When you first discover BT through Into to the BIble PTC (MTC) or According To Plan (GLG) or **GOD’S BIG PICTURE ** by Vaughan Roberts (can’t recommend it highly enough) it is revolutionary to the way you understand the BIble. But then, we take what Goldsworthy says and have to find Jesus in every text in the BIble. Sadly, too much BT becomes an exercise in connecting any passage to one of the 6 boxes in two ways to live. Now we may well argue that the problem is the practitioner not the model but remember that the motivation for this ‘hunt’ comes from the model:
a. “Every text in the BIble speaks of Christ” - Preaching the Whole BIble as Christian Scripture page 23
b. “The bottom line in all this is that all texts somehow testify to Jesus” - PWBCS page 73
c. “...the application of the meaning of any text must proceed theologically via the application it has to Christ” - PWBCS pg. 113

With these pronouncements in mind, many OT preachers and students miss all the colour and pizazz of the OT.

I have really enjoyed the BT of Webb, Hafemann and Goheen because they have opened my eyes to a Biblical Theology that is much bigger than just a hunt for Jesus.

On question 2 - it is true that Graeme has always said that his model is not substantiated exegetically. It is substantiated theologically. Now I do not want to turn this forum into a debate about how we do theology - that is for somewhere else - but when you do the exegesis on the key texts, I think there is much more to be discovered than what we find in the simple introductory tomes on BT. Amoing others I am thinking of John 5:39-40, 1 Cor 10:6, 2 Tim 3:16, James 5:7-11.

So enough stirring the can of worms for now…

NIgel said:
On question 1 - I think perhaps yes. When you first discover BT through Into to the BIble PTC (MTC) or According To Plan (GLG) or **GOD’S BIG PICTURE ** by Vaughan Roberts (can’t recommend it highly enough) it is revolutionary to the way you understand the BIble.

Hi all,
Hmmm, I find this comment interesting…
it prompts me to ask:

When in its history did the SydAng tradition (or the broader evangelical traditon?) previously lose the strong sense of the shared purpose of the OT and NT?

Grace & peace,
Terry

It’s interesting to compare a Goldsworthy-type Biblical theology with the approach to OT interpretation by someone like Calvin.

At the risk of over-simplifying it seems to me that Goldsworthy sees the canon telling one continuous story, with the OT telling the opening chapters and the NT the concluding.  Calvin sees the OT and NT as telling the same story twice over, albeit the former in shadows, the latter more clearly. 

This is one reason why Calvin’s application in his OT sermons sometimes seems more direct than some of us are comfortable with eg his referring to the people of Israel as ‘the church’ without qualification. 

I’ve sometimes heard it suggested the Reformers didn’t have a Bibiblical Theology ; I think they did but it was just different to the one prevalent in SA circles.

Also on the exegetical basis of Biblical theology, it’s interesting that in Luke 24 when Jesus gives his disciples an OT hermeneutic he says nothing about people/place/rule but more about suffering > glory. 

Mark.

I’ve been teaching Biblical Theology to students in Kenya and South Africa for 4 years now - and I can’t help but think there is a hint of ‘we don’t know how good we’ve got it’ in this discussion.

In my experience the alternative to a Biblical Theological approach to the Bible is finding an application/inspiration solely about yourself, or, as in the case of many poor Kenyan churches - about a building program or an inspirational leader. This all comes out of a failure to read the text in context and see that any text is part of a larger story line, rather than just an isolated idea.

When I talk to these students (many of whom have done degree or Masters courses in Theology) about the concept of reading the Bible as a whole and what does Jesus mean in Luke 24 when he’s talking about himself being what the OT is about - they without fail look at me blankly (and its not just my dodgy accent!)

But when we work through some of the ideas - I consistently hear comments like ‘So this is not talking directly about me’ (in relation to Is 53-54). For them, to have their eyes opened to the way the Bible fits together, the way Jesus fits into the Bible, and the way that grows their understanding and trust in God is almost unbelievable.

Its this idea of continuity and devlopment leading to Jesus that is so refreshing (and so Biblical) in the work of Goldsworthy, Webb, Woodhouse and others - especially as they do such great work on the Old Testament. It is only because we believe that the Bible is a whole and is wholly for us that we can read it correctly. I’m really looking forward to John Woodhouse on 1Sam at CMS Summer School - because he is such an expert on preaching Biblically Theologicalllllly!

So do we have to keep on teaching the fundamentals? Absolutely - we cannot assume that this idea of readin gthe Bible as a whole is just the norm - a quick look at Christian bookstalls or mp3s will tell you that is not the case. (apart from an excellent series on 7 minor prophets featured on SydAnglicans at the moment .... if I may say so myself...)

and I can’t help but think there is a hint of ‘we don’t know how good we’ve got it’ in this discussion.

We’ve got it very good, but at the same time there’s room for great improvement.

Mark Short - 18 December 2007 03:00 PM

It’s interesting to compare a Goldsworthy-type Biblical theology with the approach to OT interpretation by someone like Calvin.

At the risk of over-simplifying it seems to me that Goldsworthy sees the canon telling one continuous story, with the OT telling the opening chapters and the NT the concluding.  Calvin sees the OT and NT as telling the same story twice over, albeit the former in shadows, the latter more clearly.

I’m a little surprised you say this, Mark. (Or that you type it. Perhaps you don’t speak as you type like some of us do.) Any reasons?

I’m surprised because I think Goldsworthy has the Bible tell the same story three times over. His biblical theology is not ‘people, place, rule’ - that’s just as expression of the oneness of what God has done. Goldsworthy’s three-peat is: the kingdom in Israel’s history, the kingdom in prophetic eschatology, the kingdom fulfilled in Christ.

Even the NT side of things he has tell the same story three times: Christ for us (in history), Christ in us (by the Spirit), Christ with us (his second advent)

The more I type, the less I agree! So I’ll stop because I know you will have better thoughts than mine. Cheers, Little c

Dannii Willis - 18 December 2007 12:00 AM

The temple is not a new place but an embellishment of the old place of Canaan.

The Ark is not a place, nor does it make sense to me to call Noah’s flood a period.

I’d call it a quick transition between two other periods.

These sentences don’t mean anything at all.

I am willing to make an immediate donation to TEAR fund on your behalf if you, or anyone really, can explain what you are on about in even one of these three quotes.

Alternatively, I put it to you that you have no clear understanding of whatever it is you think you are criticizing.

If it turns out I’m wrong in this I will apologize for my unkindness.

Very simply, the summary tables in According to Plan suck.

More complexly, the ‘place/world’ category of GGBT doesn’t seem to work well to me. There are really only two ‘places’ of significance in the Bible, the earthly land of Canaan and perhaps the heavenly world. These are the places where the Kingdom of God is. And yet realistically, there is a great deal of the OT in which neither has even been conceived of, or in which the prophets are either looking forward to the kingdom and land or back in lament of it. GG would have us read everything in terms of the ever-becoming-more-detailed kingdom, but I don’t think we should.

Doubt that will clear anything up in that head of yours though…