Preaching a Biblical Theology in Your Sermon
What
does it mean to say that we should use biblical theology in preaching?
Biblical
theology, in contrast, to systematic theology focuses on the biblical
storyline, whereas systematic theology, though it is informed by biblical
theology, is a temporal.
What
is biblical theology? Don Carson argues that biblical theology stands closer to
the text than systematic theology, aims to achieve genuine sensitivity with
respect to the distinctiveness of each corpus, and seeks to connect the diverse
corpora using their own categories. Ideally, therefore, biblical theology
stands as a kind of bridge discipline between responsible exegesis and
responsible systematic theology (even though each of these inevitably influences
the other two).2
In
other words, biblical theology restricts itself more consciously to the message
of the text or corpus under consideration. It asks what themes are central to
the biblical writers in their historical context, and attempts to discern the
coherence of such themes. Biblical theology focuses on the storyline of
scripture—the unfolding of God’s plan in redemptive history, so that in every
passage we preach we consider the place of that text in relationship to the
whole storyline of the Bible. It should be apparent, therefore, that any systematic
theology worthy of the name builds upon biblical theology, though systematicians
also rightly explore themes that are implicit in biblical writings but do not
receive sustained attention in the biblical text.
The
distinctive accent of biblical theology, as Brian Rosner notes, is that it “lets
the biblical text set the agenda.”3
Systematic
theology, on the other hand, also poses questions to the text that reflect the
questions or philosophical concerns of our day. Kevin Vanhoozer articulates the
specific role of biblical theology in saying, “‘Biblical theology’ is the name
of an interpretive approach to the Bible which assumes that the word of God is
textually mediated through the diverse literary, and historically conditioned, words
of human beings.”4 Or, “To state the claim more positively, biblical theology
corresponds to the interests of the texts themselves.”5
Carson
expresses well the contribution of biblical theology, “But ideally, biblical theology,
as its name implies, even as it works inductively from the diverse texts of the
Bible, seeks to uncover and articulate the unity of all the biblical
texts taken together, resorting primarily to the categories of those texts
themselves. In this sense it is canonical biblical theology, ‘whole-Bible’
biblical theology.”6 Biblical
theology
may limit itself to the theology of Genesis, the Pentateuch, Matthew, Romans,
or even all of Paul. And yet biblical theology may also comprehend the entire
canon of scripture, in which the storyline of the scriptures as a whole is
integrated.
Too
often expositional preachers limit themselves to Leviticus, Matthew, or Revelation
without considering the place they inhabit in the storyline of redemptive history.
They isolate one part of the scripture from another, and hence preach in a
truncated way instead of proclaiming the whole counsel of God. Gerhard Hasel rightly
remarks that we need to do biblical theology in a way “that seeks to do justice
to all dimensions of reality to which the biblical texts testify.”7 Doing such
theology is not merely the task for seminary professors; it is the
responsibility of all preachers of the word. We think again about the
differences between systematic and biblical theology. Carson again charts the
way for us.8
Systematic
theology considers the contribution of historical theology, and hence mines the
work of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, etc. in formulating the
teaching of scripture. Systematic theology attempts to speak directly to our cultural
setting, so that it speaks forth the word of God to our day. Obviously, then, any
good preacher must also be rooted in systematics to speak a profound and
powerful word to his contemporaries. Biblical theology is more inductive and
foundational, whereas in systematic theology the worldview of all of scripture
is formulated. \
Carson
rightly says that biblical theology is a “mediating discipline,” but systematic
theology is a “culminating discipline.” We can say, then, that biblical
theology s intermediate, functioning as a bridge between historical and
literary study of scripture and dogmatic theology.
Biblical
theology, then, works from the text in its historical context, but Scobie rightly
argues that biblical theology is not a purely neutral or objective enterprise. The notion that we can neatly separate what
it meant from what it means, as Krister Stendahl claimed, is a chimera. Scobie rightly
says the following about biblical theology: “Its presuppositions, based on a Christian
faith commitment, include belief that the Bible conveys a divine revelation, that
the Word of God in Scripture constitutes the norm of Christian faith and life, and
that all the varied material in both Old and New Testaments can in some way be
related to the plan and purpose of the one God of the whole Bible. Such a
Biblical Theology stands somewhere between what the Bible ‘meant’ and what it
‘means’.”9
It
follows, then, that biblical theology is not confi ned only to the New Testament
or the Old Testament, but that it considers both Testaments together as the
word of God. Indeed, biblical theology works from the notion that the canon of scripture
functions as its norm, and thus both Testaments are needed to unpack the theology
of scripture.
There
is a wonderful dialectic between the OT and the NT in doing biblical theology. The
NT represents the culmination of the history of redemption begun in the OT, and
hence biblical theology is by definition a narrative theology. It captures the story
of God’s saving work in history. The historical unfolding of what God has done may
be described as salvation history or redemptive history. It is also fruitful to
consider the scriptures from the standpoint of promise and fulfillment; what is
promised in the OT is fulfi lled in the NT. We must beware of erasing the
historical particularity of OT revelation, so that we expunge the historical
context in which it was birthed. On the other hand, we must acknowledge
progress of revelation from the OT to the NT. Such progress of revelation recognizes
the preliminary nature of the OT and the definitive word that comes in the NT.
To say that the OT is preliminary does not downplay its crucial role, for we
can only understand the NT when we have also grasped the meaning of the OT, and
vice-versa. Some are hesitant to embrace typology, but such an approach is
fundamental to biblical theology, for it is a category employed by the biblical
writers themselves. Nor is typology limited to the NT, for the OT itself
employs the exodus theme typologically, for both Isaiah and Hosea, among
others, predict a new exodus that is patterned after the first exodus. In the
same way, the OT expects a new David who is even greater than the first David.
We see in the OT itself, then, an escalation in typology, so that the fulfi
llment of the type is always greater than the type itself. Jesus is not only a
new David, but the greater David.
Typology
acknowledges a divine pattern and purpose in history. God is the fi nal author
of scripture, i.e., the story is a divine drama, and God knows the end from the
beginning, so that we as readers can see adumbrations of the fi nal fulfi
llment in the OT.
