1. Definition of Biblical Theology
D. A. Carson admits the difficulty of defining Biblical Theology because of the diversities of views of Biblical Theology: “To relate the nature and functions of systematic theology and biblical theology respectively proves distractingly difficult because various scholarly camps operate with highly divergent definitions of both disciplines and therefore also entertain assumptions and adopt methods that cannot be reconciled with those of other scholarly camps.”[2] Klink and Edwards discuss the Chicago School, Dallas School, and the Philadelphia School of Biblical theology. All three have different views of what constitutes Biblical Theology.
The Chicago School is thus named because of the influence of D. A. Carson at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Chicago. He takes a whole-bible approach to Biblical theology.
D. A. Carson defines Salvation history as “the history of salvation — i.e., the history of events that focus on the salvation of human beings ... it is the account of what God has done, of the events and explanations he has brought about in order to save lost human beings.” Then Carson adds that “one might summarize salvation history in four words: Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Consummation ... That is the entire story, painted with the broadest brush.”[2] Carson numerous times equates “the history of redemption” with the “history of salvation.”
The Dallas School view is represented by Dallas Theological Seminary which takes more of a book or author approach to Biblical theology.
The Philadelphia School is based on the Biblical theological approach of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. This is the Christological approach which sees Christ on every page in the Old Testament. Edward Klink III gives a good explanation of these three views in Understanding Biblical Theology.
Brian S. Rosner’s definition is comprehensive enough to cover most views of Biblical theology: “Biblical theology is principally concerned with the overall theological message of the whole Bible. It seeks to understand the parts in relation to the whole.”[3]
2. The Strengths and Weaknesses of Biblical Theology
A. The strengths of Biblical theology. Biblical theology is more text-based than systematic theology and is described by many as the “bridge” between exegesis and systematic theology. All three disciplines are necessary for a biblical hermeneutic and serve as a check and balance on each other. Biblical theology shows the unity of God’s Word with themes that are progressively revealed beginning in Genesis and concluding in the Book of Revelation. The doctrine of the Kingdom is an example.
B. The weaknesses of Biblical theology. Some Biblical theology theologians are more likely to exaggerate the importance of types and present a Christocentric emphasis, especially the Philadelphia School. “The Philadelphia school argues that this focus is theologically (i.e., hermeneutically) required because all Scripture is about Jesus (Luke 24:44–47).”[4] Michael Lawrence advocates this view: “However when you read the Old Testament with a canonical view, you begin to see that Jesus leaps off every page.”[5] Carson seems to exercise more caution when he notes his “enormous sympathy with efforts to preach Christ from all the Scriptures.” However, he cautions that “the most responsible of such efforts … depend on the legitimacy of complex (and textually authenticated) typologies … rather than on a kind of homiletical fiat that simply declares a particular passage is talking explicitly about Jesus.”[6]
Two authors from Dallas Theological Seminary give a proper view and some helpful tips for interpreting types. Roy Zuck gives the following guidelines on interpreting types that avoid extremes in some Biblical theologies:
1. There must be a resemblance between the type and the antitype. But there must be more than a resemblance.
2. There must be a historical reality (Hebrews 8:5; 9:23-24).
3. There must be a prefiguring. Does this mean that people in the OT knew that various things were types? The answer is no according to Hebrews 9:8.
4. There must be a heightening of truth. The antitypes were on a higher plane than the types.
5. There must be divine design.
6. There must be a designation of a type in the New Testament. Scripture must in some way indicate that an item is typical.[7]
Dr. Jerry Hullinger gives a few examples:
The brazen serpent in Numbers 21 was a type in the mind of God that was pointing forward to the death of Christ. The reason we know it was a type is because of Jesus’ words in John 3:14. Another example of a type was Melchizedek. He was a real, historical man and though he was not aware of it, his life and circumstances typified what would be true of Christ. We know this is the case because of the comparison between Melchizedek and Christ in Hebrews.[8]
3. Value of Biblical Theology of the New Testament
The Biblical theology of the New Testament is valuable because Biblical theology gives systematic theology the biblical basis to apply theology to the current generation. Biblical theology enables the preacher to preach the great themes of Scripture and also themes of books of the Bible. This also shows the preacher’s congregation how to study the Bible. A proper Biblical theology provides the means to correctly interpret the Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament and also types without allegorizing these fulfillments.
[1] D. A. Carson, B. S. Rosner, T. D. Alexander, G. Goldsworthy. eds., New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic) 2000, 89.
[2] D. A. Carson, What is Salvation History? at Crosswalk.com, September 7, 2018.
[3] Brian S. Rosner. New Dictionary of Biblical Theologyå (Downers Grove: IVP Academic; Edition) 2000, 3.
[4] Edward W. Klink, III and Darian R. Lockett. Understanding Biblical Theology (Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition) 2012, 72.
[5] Michael Lawrence. Biblical Theology in the Life of the Church (Crossway. Kindle Edition) 2010, Location 1182.
[6] Edward W. Klink III and Darian R. Lockett. Understanding Biblical Theology, 84.
[7] Roy Zuck. Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton, IL: Victor) 1991, 174-176.
[8] Jerry M. Hullinger. From Ezra to Gnostic Devotions: The Importance of Interpretive Method (Charleston, SC: Amazon) 2016, 129.