What is biblical theology?

C. THEOLOGY (cf. Kattenbusch, in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia, vol. xi:, pp. 394-397), concerned with systematic, logical development of TRUTH (see Fairbairn, p. 263), as a process collects and formulates religious ideas; in the form of "Biblical" Theology doing this for Revelation in the light of the periods during which that was vouchsafed; in the form of "Symbolic" Theology treating of the fundamentals of the Faith as these were investigated in the age of the first Church Councils, which issued "Catholic Creeds" (cf. note on Luke 18:8); whilst "Dogmatic" Theology has to do with the development of such doctrine in the light of spiritual experience; and so on.

We shall not take up the criticism of the separate Books, as for instance, to consider the titles of the Psalms; or the larger question of historical sequence as affecting interpretation: this would be to enter upon 'Special Introduction.' We would here, once for all, indicate that, to employ the language of Schaff's Encyclopaedia (Art. 'Biblical Theology'), our study will be based upon 'the necessarily close connection between the two Testaments,' and will 'repudiate a biblical theology that makes too much account of historical sequence: in other words, that refuses to see the Old Testament in the New, and the New in the Old.' Questions affecting the New Testament in particular will not be treated of otherwise than incidentally.

It may be desirable here to note the characteristics of theology, or reasoned development of Biblical doctrine, which it has been since the time of Origen. One whose writings are not sufficiently known shall speak. "When a man's mind apprehends the truth, and he seeks to give it a form, he does it according to the capacity of man, which is not its source; the truth as he expresses it, even were it pure, is separated in him from its source and its totality; but, besides this, the shape that a man gives it always bears the stamp of the man's weakness. He has only apprehended it partially, and he only produces a part of it. Accordingly, it is no longer the truth. Moreover, when he separates it from the whole circle of truth in which God has placed it, he must necessarily clothe it in a new form, in a garment which proceeds from man: at once error mixes with it. Thus it is no longer a vital part of the whole: it is partial, and thereby not the truth; and it is, in fact, mixed with error. That is theology" (J. N. Darby, Synopsis," vol. v., on 2 Timothy).

The Bible is not a book of theology. Its truths are not arranged in what we might call a logical manner. In one sense the chronological method is followed. Doctrines are revealed as the occasion for making them known is reached; but even this is hardly sufficiently clear. Doctrines are found, like the precious ore embedded amongst the rocks, distributed throughout the entire Scripture. To gather these doctrines, therefore, requires a survey of the entire word. of God. Of course, in the Epistles we have doctrinal truth presented in a more abstract, connected way, but even here it remains true that the Epistles are instinct with life, and every truth presented has its experimental connection with the soul.

Even though dispensationalists may not have clearly communicated the teachings of their system along these lines, it must be remembered that the system is not at fault. Dispensationalism alone has a broad enough unifying principle to do justice to the unity of the progress of revelation on the one hand and the distinctiveness of the various stages in that progress on the other. Covenant theology can only emphasize the unity and, in so doing, overemphasizes it until it becomes the sole governing category of interpretation. Any seeming disunity in the dispensational scheme is superficial, and in reality one feels that the much publicized supposed conflicts of dispensationalism exist in the minds of the covenant theologians and are aggravated by their own unwarranted and forced unified approach to the Scriptures. Variety can be an essential part of unity . That is true of God's creation; it is also true of God's revelation; and only dispensationalism can adequately account for the variety of distinguishable economies or dispensations in (not apart from) the outworking of God's purpose.

To summarize: Progressive revelation views the Bible not as a textbook on theology but as the continually unfolding revelation of God given by various means throughout the successive ages. In this unfolding there are distinguishable stages of revelation when God introduces new things for which man becomes responsible. These stages are the economies, stewardships, or dispensations in the unfolding of His purpose. Dispensationalism, therefore, recognizes both the unity of His purpose and the diversity in the unfolding of it. Covenant theology emphasizes the unity to the point of forcing unwarranted, inconsistent, and contradictory interpretations of the Scriptures. Only dispensationalism can maintain unity and diversity at the same time and offer a consistent system of interpretation

Progressive revelation is the recognition that God's message to man was not given in one single act but was unfolded in a series of successive acts and through the minds and hands of many men of varying backgrounds. It is, so to speak, a theistic view of revelation rather than a deistic view. The pages of the Bible present "not the exposition of a revelation completed, but the records of a revelation in progress. Its parts and features are seen, not as arranged after their development, but as arranging themselves in the course of their development, and growing, through stages which can be marked, and by accessions which can be measured, into the perfect form which they attain at last."[22]

The principle of progressive revelation is evident in the Scriptures themselves. Paul told his audience on Mars Hill that in a former day God overlooked their ignorance, but now He commands repentance (Acts 17:30). The majestic opening of the book of Hebrews emphatically outlines the various means of progressive revelation (Heb. 1:1 -- 2). One of the most striking verses that shows the different ways of God's dealing with mankind is John 1:17: "For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ." Other examples may be found in John 14:16 -- 17; 14:26; and 16:24. God's truth was obviously not given all at one time, and the varying stages of revelation show that He has worked in different ways at different times. The Bible interpreter must observe carefully this progressiveness of revelation, and dispensationalism helps promote accuracy in this regard.

Now if this progress of doctrine be borne in mind we shall be saved from the error of expecting to find the revelation of truth before its time. We shall find that what is revealed, and the way in which it is revealed, will exactly suit the people to whom it is revealed. We shall be delighted of course to find that when any given truth is revealed, there is nothing that contradicts it in what has previously been revealed. The earlier revelation will state the fact in broad outline with not much in the way of detail. The later revelation will fill in details and show us developments which nobody had expected, yet when we turn back to the earlier word we find there is nothing against them, and sometimes we can discern how room has been left for them. If this feature be really grasped we also shall be saved from the attempt to make the later revelation only say what has already been said in the earlier, or from the attempt to make the earlier instructions the measure and standard for those who belong to a later development or dispensation.

The Scriptures per se are not a philosophy of history, but they contain one. It is true that the Bible deals with ideas -- but with ideas that are interpretations of historical events. This interpretation of the meaning of historical events is the task of theology, and it is a task that is not without its problems. The chief problem is that both covenant and dispensational theologies claim to represent the true philosophy of history as contained in the Scriptures. The problem is further complicated by the fact that, if a philosophy of history is defined as "a systematic interpretation of universal history in accordance with a principle by which historical events and successions are unified and directed toward ultimate meaning,"[26] then in a certain sense both systems of theology meet the basic requirements of the definition. However, the way in which the two systems meet these requirements affirms that dispensationalism is the more valid and helpful system. Notice that the definition centers on three things:

(1) the recognition of "historical events and successions," or a proper concept of the progress of revelation in history;

Nothing is more damaging to the truth of God, more withering to the soul, or more subversive of all spiritual growth and progress than mere theology, high or low--Calvinistic or Arminian. It is impossible for the soul to make progress beyond the boundaries of the system to which it is attached. If I am taught to regard "the five points" as "the faith of God's elect," I shall not think of looking beyond them; and then a most glorious field of heavenly truth is shut out from the vision of my soul. I am stunted, narrowed, one-sided; and I am in danger of getting into that hard, dry state of soul which results from being occupied with mere points of doctrine instead of with Christ.

311 "And truly, it is much better thus to consult scripture, and take it for a guide, than to resort to it merely for confirmation, contained in detached verses, of the several parts of some system of theology, which the student fixes on as reputed orthodox, and which is in fact made the guide which he permits 'to lead him by the hand'; while passages culled out from various parts of the sacred writings, in subserviency to such system, are formed into what may be called an anagram of scripture; and then by reference to this system as a standard, each doctrine, or discourse, is readily pronounced orthodox, or Socinian, or Arian, or Sabellian, or Nestorian, etc.; and all this on the ground that the theological scheme, which the student has adopted, is supported by scripture. The materials, indeed, are the stones of the temple; but the building constructed with them is a fabric of human contrivances. If, instead of this too common procedure, students would fairly search the scriptures, with a view, not merely to defend opinions, but to form them; not merely for arguments, but for truth: keeping human expositions to their own proper purposes (see Essay 6, first series), and not allowing those to become practically a standard - if, in short, they were as honestly desirous to be on the side of scripture, as they naturally are to have scripture on their side, how much sounder as well as more charitable would their conclusions often be!"