The Nature and Aims of Biblical Theology

“The Nature and Aims of Biblical Theology”

The Union Seminary Magazine 13:194-199. [1902]

Biblical theology is a comparatively recent arrival in the theological family. In view of this, it can create little surprise that a wide divergence of opinion prevails in regard to the place she ought to occupy and the rights to be accorded to her, or even in regard to the question whether she can claim any rights or place at all. Many look upon the newcomer with suspicion, while others run into the opposite extreme of paying her such exclusive honor and attention as to treat her older sisters with unmerited coldness and neglect.

The question whether there is need for a new theological discipline of this general character can best be answered by asking ourselves whether a well-defined field of theological knowledge exists for whose exploration hitherto recognized departments do not make adequate provision, and which is of sufficient importance to deserve not only incidental, but separate and detailed treatment. It can be shown, we think, that this latter question permits of an affirmative answer.

Among the fundamental subjects which lie at the basis of our entire Christian system, there is scarcely one that has received such scant notice as the great subject of supernatural revelation in its historic aspect. From an apologetic and philosophical standpoint much has been done for it; but historically considered, it still awaits the first turning of the sod. Back of the formation of the Scriptures as a whole, back of the writing of the single books of Scripture, lies the great process of the supernatural self-disclosure of God in history by word and act. Surely it cannot be superfluous to ascertain its laws, to observe its methods, to trace the mutual adjustment of its various stages, to watch the ripening of its purposes—in a word, to investigate its philosophy, so far as this is possible to the human mind. But this is precisely what Biblical theology sets out to do. Whatever may be thought of the manner in which the task has been hitherto performed, the legitimacy of the undertaking will not he denied by any one who is a firm believer in the

supernatural.

It might be said, however, that adequate provision is made, or can be made, for all this in the already existing and generally recognized theological disciplines. Systematic theology deals with the revelation of God. But systematic theology deals with it not as a process of divine activity in history; here revelation appears as a finished product, to be logically apprehended and systematized. With more show of reason, sacred history might be expected to take charge of the subject, inasmuch as it describes the unfolding of the plan of redemption in the life of the chosen people, in which, of course, revelation played a most prominent part. Still it is obvious that even thus but very partial justice could be done to so fundamental and complicated a problem.

In sacred history revelation appears as one of the factors which have exercised a determining

influence; that is to say, it does not form the center of the discussion. Sacred history deals with

the redemptive realities created by the supernatural activity of God. Biblical theology deals

with the redemptive knowledge communicated in order to interpret these realities. From this

it follows, that while the two are intimately associated, yet they are logically distinct. The one

moves in the sphere of being, the other in the sphere of truth.

In order to obtain a more definite conception of Biblical theology we must ascertain the general

features of God’s revealing work. The first of these is its historical progress. The self-revelation

of God is a work covering ages. In the abstract, it is quite conceivable that the entire context

of revealed truth should have been communicated at once. That God has not done this may be

in part explained from the finiteness of the human understanding. There exist, however, much

deeper reasons for it in the nature of revelation itself. Revelation is not an isolated act of God. It

constitutes a part of the formation of the new world of redemption, and this new world does not

come into being suddenly and all at once, but is realized in a long historical process. This could

not be otherwise, since at every point its formation proceeds on the basis of, and in contact

with, the natural development of this world in the form of history. It is simply owing to our habit

of unduly separating revelation from this comprehensive background of the total redeeming

work of God that we fail to appreciate its historic, progressive nature. From the dependence

of revelation on redemption, we can also explain why the history of the former had to come to

a close when redemption, in the objective sense, had been completed. Revelation is designed

to prepare, to accompany, and to interpret the great objective redemptive acts of God, such

as the incarnation, the atonement, the resurrection. It is not intended to follow the subjective

appropriation of redemption in its further course. To expect revelations after the close of the

apostolic age would be as unreasonable as to think that the great saving facts of that period can

be increased or repeated.

A further ground for the historic character of revelation may be found in its eminently practical

aspect. The knowledge of God communicated by it is nowhere for a purely intellectual purpose.

From beginning to end it is intended to enter into the actual life of man. Hence God has

interwoven his revelation with the historic life of the chosen race, so as to secure for it a practical

form in all its parts. This principle has found its clearest expression in the idea of the covenant

The Writings of Geerhardus Vos - www.biblicaltheology.org

as the form of God’s self-revelation to Israel. The covenant is an all-comprehensive communion

of life, in which every self-disclosure is made subservient to a practical end.

The historic progress thus ascribed to supernatural revelation may be more closely defined as a

species of organic development. Although the knowledge of God has received material increase

through the ages, this increase nowhere shows the features of external accretion, but appears

throughout as an organic unfolding from within. The elements of truth are seen to grow out of

each other. The gospel of paradise is a germ in which the gospel of Paul is potentially present.

Dispensation grows out of dispensation, and the newest is but the fully expanded flower of the

oldest. The result of this organic character of revelation we witness, in its progressive delivery,

an ever-increasing multiformity. In the Old Testament already, and still more in the New, there

are clearly-distinct types of teaching. Further, there are numerous other variations closely

associated with the peculiarities of individual character in the organs of revelation. This individual

coloring is not only not detrimental to a full statement of the truth, but directly subservient to

it, because God’s method includes the very shaping and chiseling of individualities for his own

ends. The human is but a glass through which the divine light is reflected, and all the sides and

angles into which the glass has been cut serve no other purpose than to distribute to us the truth

in all the riches of its prismatic colors.

After what has been said, it may be in order to frame a definition of Biblical theology. We have

seen that the revelation of God constitutes a sphere of supernatural divine activity distinct from

other spheres, determined by laws of orderly historic sequence, such as are subject to scientific

theological investigation. Biblical theology, rightly defined, is nothing else than the exhibition of

the organic progress of supernatural revelation in its historic continuity and multiformity.

It must be admitted, however, that not everything at present passing under the name of Biblical

theology satisfies the requirements of the definition just given. The evolutionistic philosophy,

which has so strongly influenced the course of theology in other departments, has affected the

treatment of Biblical theology more than that of any other discipline. The reason is obvious.

The principle of historic progress in revelation, on which Biblical theology rests, presents

certain analogies with the principle of said philosophy. These analogies are merely formal; the

development sketched in the Bible is totally different from the naturalistic evolution, by the help

of which present-day philosophy seeks to explain the history of the universe. Nevertheless, the

formal similarity has not unnaturally aroused suspicion against Biblical theology as such, all

“The Nature and Aims of Biblical Theology”

the more so since, as a matter of fact, many modern theologians have applied this naturalistic

principle to the explanation of the growth of Biblical truth. Thus, in harmony with the agnostic

character of the philosophy of evolution, which claims that man can know phenomena only,

the treatment of the science has been entirely subjectivized, so that our modern Biblical

theologians professedly deal, not with the progress of supernatural revelation, in which they do

no longer believe, but with the development of subjective religion in Biblical times, and devote

their labors to the discovery and reproduction of a number of diminutive doctrinal systems,

often contradictory among themselves, which they profess to find in the Bible. And from this it

further follows that the development traced by such writers is not a development remaining in

all its stages within the sphere of absolute, perfect truth, but a development largely consisting

in the elimination of error. All this, however, while deeply deplorable, and imposing upon every

student of Biblical theology an increased responsibility, lest by his own attitude he should give

countenance to this fatal tendency, has nothing to do with the nature of the science itself. It

represents a perversion and corruption of it, which should not be allowed to prejudice us against

its cultivation in a proper Biblical spirit. If the objective character of revelation, its infallibility,

the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures as containing its record be firmly upheld, there is no

danger that anti-Christian principles will creep in to exercise their destructive influence upon the

minds of our students.

Much more, however, can be said in favor of Biblical theology, as a theological discipline, than

that it admits of treatment in a harmless spirit. The practical results which may be expected to

follow its cultivation are by no means inconsiderable. It exhibits to the student of the word the

organic structure of revealed truth. By doing this it interprets to him the meaning and relative

importance of the single aspects and elements of truth. There is no better safeguard against that

one-sidedness in the appreciation of truth, which is the source of all heresy, than an intelligent

insight into the vital, organic relation which any one doctrine sustains to all others. Besides

this, Biblical theology imparts new life and freshness to the old truth by placing it in its original

historic setting. The Bible is not a handbook of dogmatics: it is a historical book full of dramatic

interest. Familiarity with the history of revelation will enable the student to utilize the concrete

realistic interest attaching to the truth and so to guard against a too abstract presentation of

it. Still further—and this is a matter of great importance at the present day—Biblical Theology

bears witness to the indispensableness of correct knowledge of the truth for every healthy

religious development because it shows what infinite care God has taken to reveal truth to us.

Again, Biblical theology meets the charge that the fundamental doctrines of our faith rest on

The Writings of Geerhardus Vos - www.biblicaltheology.org

an arbitrary exposition of isolated proof-texts. That system will hold the field which can show

that its doctrines grow organically on the stem of revelation, and are interwoven with its whole

structure from beginning to end. This our Biblical theology should do for our dogmatics. In doing

this it will also help to keep dogmatics in touch with the realities of actual revelation, so as to

guard it from losing itself in fruitless speculations. Finally, the highest practical aim of Biblical

theology is that it grants us a new vision of the glory of God. As eternal, he lives above the

sphere of history. He is the Being, and not the becoming one. But, since for our salvation he has

condescended to work and speak in the form of time, and thus to make his work and his speech

partake of the peculiar glory that belongs to all organic growth, we must also seek to know him

as the One that is, that was, and that is to come, in order that our theology may adequately

perform its function of glorifying God in every mode of his self-revelation to us.

In the foregoing the question has not been raised in how far the name Biblical theology fits

the discipline we have endeavored to describe. It cannot be denied that this name lies open to

serious objection, although it may be impossible to displace it, now that it has become almost

generally adopted. The appropriation of the adjective “Biblical” would seem to call in question

the Biblical character of the other theological disciplines, which, from a Protestant point of view,

would be tantamount to denying their right of existence altogether. If the usual division of

theology into the four departments of Exegetical, Historical, Systematic, and Practical Theology

is to be retained, the designation of a subdivision of one of these four by a phrase constructed

on the same principle as the names of the main divisions, must inevitably lead to confusion of

thought. These difficulties can all be obviated by substituting for Biblical Theology the name,

“History of (Special) Revelation,” which has actually been adopted by some writers.

“The Nature and Aims of Biblical Theology”