the practice and promise of biblical theology ~ a response to hamilton and goldworthy - robert...

8/10/2019 The Practice and Promise of Biblical Theology ~ A Response to Hamilton and Goldworthy - Robert Yarbrough

1/978

The Practice and Promiseof Biblical Theology:

A Response to Hamiltonand Goldsworthy

Robert W. Yarbrough

Athletic coaches sometimes remind frus-trated players, If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. Anyone responsiblefor interpreting the Bible, and then com-municating their interpretation, needs to

remember that adage. Everybody does nothit home runs, throw touchdown passes,dunk over opponents, or shoot below par.And everybody who interprets the Bibledoes not achieve notable success.

Of course, the goal in interpretingGods word, the Bible, is not success inthe normal sense; it is to glorify God andengage in a use of his word with which hewill be pleasedperhaps to evangelize or

edify, perhaps to correct or condemn. Thisis where the studies of Graeme Goldswor-thy and James Hamilton elsewhere inthis journal are of value. 1 The approachesthey set forth are not guaranteed to makehermeneutical or homiletical superstarsout of anyone. But I believe that carefullyheeded and discerningly appropriated,they shed valuable light on the interpre-tive labors of everybody who reads, lives,

and seeks to share Scripture.Below I will comment rather briefy on James Hamiltons study, before interact-ing more extensively with the lengthierremarks of Graeme Goldsworthy. Both havemuch to offer in commending the practiceand promoting the promise of a neglectedapproach to Scripture: biblical theology.

The Hamilton Hypothesis:Perceiving Patterns

The great strength of Hamiltons studyis to have restated the case for a tried-and-true means of making connections

between Scripture passages that mightotherwise seem disjointed. Typology,in one form or another, is as ancientas biblical writers themselves, whopioneered this mode of understandingGods word once it had come to theprophets, was written down, and as timepassed came to be interpreted by subse-quent generations. Thanks in part to theirGod who was so emphatic that his people

should remember former times, godlyHebrew and eventually Jewish readerslooking back began to note likenesses orpatternsin Gods faithfulness, in his judgments, in Israels ckleness, in sinscostliness, in redemptions gloriousness.Later writers of the Old Testament takeup themes, mention gures, and extendlessons found in writings predating theirtimes so as to shed light on their pres-

ent situations. God, the inspired biblicalwriters were made to see, was not onlyat work vertically from above, injectinghis presence into situations according tohis aims and will. He was also at workalong the horizontal continuum of cir-cumstances and human affairs we callhistory. To detect that horizontal con-

Robert W. Yarbrough is Chair of

the New Testament Department and

Associate Professor of New Testament

at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in

Deereld, Illinois. He also serves as the

Editor ofTrinity Journaland as Chair ofthe theological and exegetical depart-

ment at the Institutul Biblic Emanuel in

Oradea, Romania. Dr. Yarbrough has

written numerous scholarly articles and

is the author ofThe Salvation-Historical

Fallacy? Reassessing the History of

New Testament Theology (Deo, 2004),

Encountering the New Testament: A

Historical and Theological Survey (Baker,

2005), and1, 2, and 3 John in the BakerExegetical Commentary on the New

Testament (Baker, 2008).


2/979

nection, and to view Gods word now,as biblical writers did, in organic andsigni cant connection with Gods wordto and for former days, was the core ofthe typological impulse.

It is helpful that Hamilton works out

his views in dialogue with a range ofinterpreters both from current and pastgenerations. The old-timer anchoringmatters 2 is Leonhard Goppelt, whoseTypos rst appeared in German in 1939. 3 Senior scholars like E. Earle Ellis, RichardLongenecker, and the late Hans Frei alsoappear; they are certainly part of thehermeneutical mix in discussion of typol-ogy (or lack thereof) in the last coupleof generations. Then a welter of newerthinkers and studies is cited: MichaelFishbane, Francis Watson, Mark Seifrid,G. K. Beale, Grant Osborne, RichardHays, Rikk Watts, and others. Hamiltondoes not urge his case by ignoring rivalviews but by conceding their existenceand considering their arguments, thenattempting to see if he can more convinc-ingly go beyond them. This platform ofdiscussion furnishes a strong basis for hisown proposal.

I agree with Hamilton that we can,with both con dence and caution, readthe Old Testament alert to the kind oflikenesses that we see established there,sometimes repeated already in the OldTestament corpus, and then recapitu-lated by various means and to varyingdegrees in the New Testament. When Jesus compares his raising up on thecross to the bronze serpent lifted up byMoses in the wilderness (John 3:14; cf.Num 21:9), we can be con dent we aredealing with typology. Analogies can be multiplied across the sweep of NewTestament writings. This is especiallytrue when we encounter words actually

denoting type, whether the word typos itself (see, e.g., Rom 5:14, referring toAdam) or other words that may expressthe same idea: skia (cf. Heb 10:1, referringto the law), hypodeigma (cf. 2 Pet 3:6, refer-ring to Sodom and Gomorrah), or parabol

(cf. Heb 11:19, referring to the tie betweenIsaac and Christ). 4 And as seen above inthe case of John 3:14, the thing denoted bytype may be present when no technicalterm for it is employed.

Are there potential problems in Hamil-tons proposal? While I dont see material

aws, his constructive section on Samueland Mark is merely one analysis of a verynarrow slice of biblical tradition. Theessay does not furnish a wide-rangingdefense or de nition of the practice oftypology in general. 5 Nearly 100 yearsago it was recognized that how muchof the OT is to be regarded as [typologi-cal] is a question not easily answered. 6 About the only thing definite is thattwo extremes . . . should be avoided. 7 Accordingly, while Hamilton has givena rationale for and example of a reason-able typological reading, in the natureof the case (one short article) we cannotexpect full justi cation of a method that isperennially disputed and whose precisede nition is much debated. 8

What Hamilton has reminded us of,surely, is that typology of some descrip-tion, which even from a minimalistperspective counts as an interpretiveapproach central to biblical theology, 9 hasits place in our hermeneutical tool chest.But what is biblical theology, and why isit important? Those are questions at thecore of this journals articles by GraemeGoldsworthy, to which we now turn.


3/9


4/981

solid basis in the substance of biblicalrevelation and with evidence of a gospel-fired sense of Gods presence in theirlives. This greatly increases the odds thatstudents will grow in biblical theologicalawareness and interpretive skill through-

out their course of study.Another strong point is Goldswor-thys insight into the dangerously thinknowledge of the Bible that has cometo characterize many churches, in part because for so long the coherence of thecanon, its inner unity, has been leftlargely to chance. Related to this, hesees that doctrine does not seem to bevery highly regarded by a lot of evan-gelicals, which is not only a pity; it isperilous. Revivalist individualism hascrowded out the overarching vision ofScripture that places personal regenera-tion within the wider cosmic scope thatleads from creation to new creation.Stated positively, Goldsworthy insiststhat we dont move on from the gospelin Christian living, but with the gospel(his emphasis). The gospel is not only thedriving force in justi cation; it is alsothe matrix for sanctification. Biblicaltheology that unfolds the gospel, fundsSpirit-led life in Gods people, and refu-els zeal for doctrinal truth is desperatelyneeded to revitalize the church. Biblicaltheology could be a means of re-centeringGod in the church. The gospel is aboutthe transcendent God of creation doingsomething to rectify the corrupted his-tory of mankind, not about a self-centeredtechnique of personal self-improvement,as it has come to be marketed in recentdecades. Citing articles and books byScott Hafemann and David Wells thatpoint to the encroachment of pragmatism,consumerism, and narcissism on theo-logical education and evangelical religion

in North America, Goldsworthy observes,I do not really think we can avoid thedisasters that Wells and Hafemann warnof without a return to serious exegesis ofthe biblical text. This means, of course, biblical-theological exegesis.

A nal strength of Goldsworthys callfor biblical theology is its pastoral use-fulness. This can be broken down intoseveral components. (1) Biblical theologyenhances preaching. When we apply biblical theology to preaching, and do sowith prayerful humility before God, wemay expect that the power of the gospelto convert and to change peoples liveswill be most evident. (2) Biblical theologyenhances discipleship in the church as it becomes a means for the light to go on,so to speak, in peoples understanding ofwhat the Bible is about. My experience,Goldsworthy writes, is that adults, manywho have been Christians for a long time,express some amazement that they havenever seen or been shown this macro-structure of revelation before. This isnot only the case with adults. Youth andchildren too bene t from a conception ofthe Bible in which there is meaning to thewhole. As Goldsworthy says with respectto youth, To teach biblical theology isto teach [young] people to read the Bibleintelligently. It is no longer an impen-etrable thicket of complexities nor merelyan in nitude of burdensome imperatives.(3) Biblical theology enhances pastoralintegrity. It serves this noble end in atleast ve ways.

First, it promotes a high view of theBible. Pastoral and congregational focuson Scripture is not in itself suf cient forGods fullest blessing, but it is undoubt-edly necessary. Biblical theology gives aframework for teaching and understand-ing Scripture that can make it likely and


5/982

indeed inevitable that Gods word andthereby the Lord himself, not humanagendas or contrivances, will be exalted by Gods people. We are witnessing afresh wave of defection (there are somewho drift in every generation) from the

notion of Gods inerrant word currently,led by scholars who used to af rm iner -rancy but are now castigating the churchfor its narrowness and calling for relax-ation of former convictions. 11 Goldsworthywrites, One of the greatest antidotes todestructive critical views is the biblical-theological perspective on the coherenceof the whole canon. In my own manyyears of academic study and teaching, itwould often have been easy (and perhapsprofessionally advantageous) to abandonthe Bibles own high view of its completeand utter veracity. But, in my youngadult years before beginning technicalstudy of Scripture, repeated readings ofScripture and the intuitive developmentof a covenantal, biblical theological viewof the whole have always made the vastand deep indubitable truth of Gods wordwritten loom decisively larger than thequestions raised by the Bibles detractors.

Second, biblical theology enhancespastoral integrity by promoting a highChristology. God is the central characterof the Bible [who] makes biblical theologyviable, and God has shown himself to usultimately in his Son. But the only accessto the Word incarnate, Jesus Christ, isthrough the word inscripturate. Any-thing that renders Scripture more intel-ligible, memorable, and comprehensibleas a whole (not just in bits) promotesthe teaching of Christ, the knowledge ofChrist, and nally the presence of Christ.In that sense, we could say that biblicaltheology, through its promotion of theLords living presence with his people,

promotes healthy ecclesiology, too.Third, biblical theology promotes a

high view of the gospel and of the min-isterial task in administering that goodnews. Goldsworthy states, I want to be bold here and claim that biblical theol-

ogy can have real and observable effectsin our lives and ministries. Not leastamong these effects is a sense of com-mon labor and purpose, as minister andpeople deepen in the perspective that col-lectively as well as individually they areheirs to the whole wonderful process ofsalvation-history that culminates in JesusChrist. That is what makes the ministerialtask worth doing. It is notoriously easyfor pastor and sizable (or powerful) blocsin the congregation to become estranged.There is no sure- re prevention of this.But one very good defense is the offensivestrategy of joint pursuit, church instruc-tional staff and congregational learnersunited, of ever deeper insight into themajestic sweep of Gods saving work inChrist as Scripture witnesses to it, andgrowing forth from that worship andservice as one body in his name. This is asigni cant potential positive effect of aneffective biblical theological focus.

Fourth and last, biblical theologyenhances pastoral integrity by promot-ing a high view of the people of God.Steadfast seeking after God in his word,on the scale and in the form that biblicaltheology calls for, digni es what can eas -ily seem the marginalized and tri ingactivities of most congregations, whichare not large and wildly successful butmodest in size and typically workinghard to maintain current attendance,offerings, and ministries. Goldsworthyexplains that biblical theology, both itspractice and its fruit, serves to remindthat the ordinary, small, unremarkable


6/983

congregations, as much as any other, arein the front line of Gods action in thisworld to redeem and judge the wholeuniverse. This is, in a sense, a manifes-tation of Jesus promise to be with eventwo or three gathered in his name (Matt

18:20)so, even a very small congrega-tion. But what would that congregation be doing in Jesus name? One prioritywould surely be worship, and at the heartof worship is Scripture proclamation, andin Goldsworthys proposal the teaching ofGods word in a biblical theological modewould be the primary modus operandiof the teaching pastor and those laboringunder his oversight. Where even smallnumbers are gathered, dutifully hearingand learning the whole counsel of Godas a means to know, worship, and servehim, Christ by his Spirit is there, and theeternal work of Gods kingdom throughthe church is underway. Biblical theologyreverently pursued may demonstratea truth preached years ago by FrancisSchaeffer: in the kingdom economy, thereare no little people. 12 This is not becausewe set out to exalt ourselves, but becausein our disciplined attentiveness to Godsword in its fullness, God orders the think-ing, willing, and behavior of Christs fol-lowers, uniting us with him and makingus no longer subject to the law of sin anddeath (cf. Rom 8:2). God himself lifts upthose who seek him where and as he may be found (cf. Isa 55:6; 66:2).

Tensions and LiabilitiesNo set of lectures or essays on so large

a subject as biblical theology can sayeverything. As indicated above, on thewhole I have no fundamental criticismsof Goldsworthys call to the particularway of reading, living, and ministeringScripture that he describes, admittedly

in sparse outline. Yet there are alwaysconcerns that emerge, because no singleapproach to Scripture engineered byhumans can possibly constitute the onlyperfect way, and any articulation of anapproach will admit of improvement and

pro t from quali cation. I would like toconclude by setting forth some tensionsand liabilities of Goldsworthys proposalsthat occurred to me as I pondered withgreat appreciation what he had to say.

(1) There may be a tension betweenstrong insistence on the necessity of a biblical theological emphasis, on the onehand, and the indubitable truth that many believers, across the generations andaround the world, come to a grounded,holistic, balanced, and theologically acutegrasp of Scripture more or less on theirown, by intuition and the work of theSpirit, as they read Scripture daily andserve Christ faithfully over the years.Yes, in many cases we may be able tospeed up the process of synthetic graspof Scripture by furnishing a big picturefor people, helping them to see wherethe pieces t. But if people are not read -ing Scripture avidly and internalizingit consistently from below, we mayactually be harming them by creatingthe impression that the most importantthing is the synthesis we aim to teachfrom above. Biblical theology oughtnever take the place of the hard work ofmastering, and being mastered by, thedetails of the texts themselves. This is notto suggest that Goldsworthy thinks thatit should. It is to remind ourselves thatit would not be healthy for overarchingsynthesis to replace detailed analysis.Calls for biblical theology must avoidencouraging that effect. Scripture callsfor full attention from both analytic andsynthetic directions.


7/984

(2) A possible liabil ity of biblical theol-ogy is that its systematic advocacy couldencourage the rise of doctrinaire biblicistswho are confident in their beliefs, not because they are grounded in a personalappropriation of Scripture, but because

they have learned from biblical theol-ogy what everything in the Bible means,in the end. Call it biblical theologicalreductionism. It is not hard to imagine anew kind of anti-dogmatic dogmatism, adogmatism dismissive of systematic the-ology or the theological heritages of, forinstance, Lutheran or Baptist or Reformedor Anglican churches. What the churchteaches or what is traditional (whichare in fact often true and good things) are jettisoned for a new manifestation of theback to the Bible impulse which at itsworst has worked much woe in the churchrepeatedly in its North American history.Clearly Goldsworthy intends nothing ofthe sort; he seems to envision a sort oftrans-denominational approach to theBible that will unpack biblical revelationin its own terms and render it into our cur-rent settings in ways that will not under-mine healthy denominational distinctives but rather strengthen and renew them.But care might need to be taken to avoidnasty unintended consequences from thissalutary biblical theological summons.

(3) There may be a tension betweenebullience in knowing the explanatorypower of our biblical theological synthe-sis, on the one hand, and sober conscious-ness that our systems and knowledgeare nevertheless provisional. I am notsuccumbing here to the postmodern errorof declaring everything unknowable because we can know nothing compre-hensively. 13 Much of what Scripture saysand what bibl ica l theology sets forthis eminently knowable and is no more

subject to doubt or change than is theGod who did and spoke the things thatScripture records. I am rather noting thetruth voiced by E. Earle Ellis with respectto Gods revelation in Christ and the gos-pel being a secret and hidden wisdom

(1 Cor 2:7). Everything is not immediatelyclear and transparent, even with theconsiderable illuminating advantage of biblical theological synthesis:

From the perspective of the biblicalwriters, and of Jesus as he is repre-sented by them, the essential mean-ing of the Scriptures is revelation,also in their historical and literarydimension. As such, the meaningis understood to be either hidden orrevealed to the reader at Gods dis-

cretion and is never viewed as truthavailable, like pebbles on a beach. 14

Practitioners zealous for biblical theol-ogys potential for making Holy Scriptureclear and rendering Gods ways in thisworld explicable must at the same timeemploy measures to head off hermeneuti-cal triumphalism in matters that remainthe sacred province, for us in this life atany rate, of divine comprehension alone.Doxology pertains at least as much towhat we predicate of God but cannotfathom as it does to what we are con-vinced he has made transparent to us.

(4) If I had one serious misgivingabout the way biblical theology wasdescribed and summarized in Goldswor-thys lectures, it was the way in whichthe cross seemed to receive short shrift.I have no doubt of Goldsworthys inten-

tion for it to be central. But repeatedly invarious formulations throughout theselectures, other aspects of Gods redemp-tive work, or our study of it, occupy centerstage: creation-new creation, incarnation,promise-ful llment, Christology, unityof the Bible, coherence of the canon,relationship of Old Testament and New.


8/985

One could get the impression that to getall these things (and more) right is reallywhat biblical theology is about. Theseven-point taxonomy by Donald Robin-son (presented at the beginning of lecturetwo) says nothing explicit about the cross.

Robinsons structure may indeed be,as Goldsworthy declares, the one that best lays bare the matrix of progressiverevelation, but dont we want the centralsaving act of God to be explicit in thematrix? In the third lecture Goldsworthystates he wants to emphasize that there ismuch, much more to Jesus than his beingthe Son of God who died on the cross forour sins. Well, yes and no. It will not doto make our functional biblical theology John 3:16 and an altar call. Yet there isthat narrow gate through which all musthave entered, and I thought repenting ofour sins and coming to God through theone who died for us, to bring us to God(1 Pet 3:18), was the start of all new cov -enantal knowledge of God. Goldsworthyessentially af rms this in the rst lecture,stressing the need for regeneration andthe inner testimony of the Holy Spirit ifone is to grasp both the authority and themeaning of Scripture.

Once we know cross-mediated en-trance to the kingdom, the panoramicsweep of Gods redemptive work as bibl ical theology so wonderfully ren-ders it becomes light and life. But anytheological enterprise or interpretivemethod that claims to grasp the center, but centers something other than thecross,15 seems out of sync with Scriptureitself seen as a whole. Given the sagac-ity, spiritual discernment, and scripturalheft of what Goldsworthy proposesoverall, it would not require major adjust-ments to assure that Christs savingdeath and its very explicit implications for

Christian life, mission, and yes theologiz-ing today receive a more central role.

ENDNOTES 1Editors note: The article by James Ham-

ilton to which Dr. Yarbrough refers is

not the article published in this issue ofSBJT . We have published another article by Dr. Hamilton, Was Joseph a Type ofthe Messiah? Tracing the TypologicalIdenti cation between Joseph, David,and Jesus. In the currently publishedarticle, Dr. Hamilton is doing somethingsimilar to the original article to whichDr. Yarbrough refers, except in this caseDr. Hamilton is applying a typologi-cal interpretation to Joseph. Thus, Dr.Yarbroughs comments are appropriate,even though the article is not the same.Dr. Hamiltons original article, TheTypology of Davids Rise to Power: Mes-sianic Patterns in the Book of Samuel,is available at http://www.sbts.edu/pdf/ JBGay/the_typology_of_davids_rise_to_power2008-03-101.pdf.

2Apart from a couple of passing refer-ences to Patrick Fairbairn (1805-74),author of the classic The Typology ofScripture : Viewed in Connection with theWhole Series of the Divine Dispensations (5th ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870).

3Subtitled die typologische Deutung desAlten Testaments im Neuen and laterreprinted (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftli-che Buchgesellschaft, 1973).

4For a helpful compact survey of the datasee John E. Alsup, Typology, AnchorBible Dictionary (ed. David Noel Freed-man; 6 vols.; New York: Doubleday,1992), 6:683f.

5The section in the essay called Typol-ogy: Signi cance and De nition citescharacteristics of typology proposed byEllis, Fishbane, Evans, and others but is


9/986

mainly concerned to establish thattypology is a legitimate methodand is not pesher. I did not nd aclear and de nite de nition given.

Editors note: The section to whichDr. Yarbrough refers is found in Dr.

Hamiltons article, The Typologyof Davids Rise to Power: MessianicPatterns in the Book of Samuel,under the subheading, Typology:Signi cance and De nition. Seehttp://www.sbts.edu/pdf/JBGay/the_typology_of_davids_rise_to_power2008-03-101.pdf.

6William G. Moorehead, Typology,in The International Standard BibleEncyclopaedia (ed. James Orr; vol. 5(Chicago: The Howard-SeveranceCompany, 1915), 5:3029.

7One extreme is when almost every-thing found in the Old Testament istaken to point to Christ, a view thatMoorehead attributes to certainchurch fathers and Andrew Jukes(in The Law of the Offerings [GrandRapids: Kregel, 2004]). The otheris that the only types in the OldTestament are the ones explicitlyasserted somewhere in the NewTestament, a view he attributes toMoses Stuart.

8E.g., in a very different vein fromHamilton, Seifrid says typologyis not a method by which [Paul]discovers . . . historical analogiesto the narratives that appear in the biblical text (The Gospel as theRevelation of Mystery: The Wit-ness of the Scriptures to Christ inRomans, The Southern Baptist Jour-nal of Theology 11, no. 3 [Fall 2007]:99). Typology is rather a theologyof history (ibid.). In the sameissue of that journal, Douglas Moo

(Pauls Universalizing Herme-neutic in Romans) points out thattypology is easier to talk aboutthan to describe and notes thatthose who have attempted de ni -tions do not always agree (81). On

the whole, Moos de nition (cf. ibid.,81-82) seems closer to Seifrids thanto Hamiltons.

9C. A. Evans (New Testament Useof the Old Testament, in New Dic-tionary of Biblical Theology [ed. T. D.Alexander and B. Rosner; Down-ers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000], 73)concedes the presence of typologyin the New Testament, though hesubsumes it under analogicalinterpretation. It is striking thatin this magisterial volume overall,typology receives no separatetreatment and in fact little attention.

10Throughout the rest of this article,quotations without footnotes referto Goldsworthys lectures.

11Examples: Kenton L. Sparks, GodsWord in Human Words: An Evangeli-cal Appropriation of Critical BiblicalScholarship (Grand Rapids: Baker,2008); Peter Enns, Inspiration andIncarnation: Evangelicals and the Prob-lem of the Old Testament (Grand Rap-ids: Baker Academic, 2008); A. T. B.McGowan, The Divine Authenticityof the Scripture: Retrieving an Evan-

gelical Heritage (Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 2007). Commenting onthis shift, especially with respectto Peter Enns, is G. K. Beale, TheErosion of Inerrancy in Evangelical-ism: Responding to New Challenges toBiblical Authority (Wheaton: Cross-way, 2008).

12Cf. Francis Schaeffer, No Little People (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1974).

13Cf. D. A. Carson, Systematic andBiblical Theology, in New Diction-ary of Biblical Theology , 100; idem,The Gagging of God (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1995), passim.

14E. Earle Ellis, History and Interpre-

tation in New Testament Perspective (Atlanta: SBL, 2001), 15. Ellis speaksspeci cally of typology. For a simi -lar observation see Alsup, Typol-ogy, 6:685.

15With all due regard for other veritieswithout which the cross remains atorso, like Christs incarnation, hisperfect life, the hypostatic union,his resurrection, his ascension, hisreturn, and so forth.

the practice and promise of biblical theology ~ a response to hamilton and goldworthy - robert...

Documents