The Study of Biblical Theology

THE TASK OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

The task of the biblical theologian is to obtain and construct a complete picture of Yahweh’s revelation. To write theology satisfies the mind’s demands for grouping the particular theological ideas obtained through exegesis into universal categories. The process involves the discovery of the longitudinal themes unifying the entire Old Testament and laying the foundation for the New Testament. It is a process that begins with the exegesis of the individual passages for the purpose of finding the theological categories of the writers themselves and continues through the correlation of all such findings from the exegesis of the rest of Scripture. Thus, what is done in a passage or in a book is only a beginning.

Once the individual sections of the Old Testament have all been analyzed for their biblical theology, the task is to write an Old Testament theology. This, obviously, would be a lifetime project. But in working toward that we must remember:

1. The subject matter is the entire Old Testament (therefore, the theologian must avoid arbitrary selectivity and unwarranted proof‑texting);

2. The categories, themes, and unifying thoughts should be as consistent as possible with the categories present in the minds of the writers of the Old Testament; and

3. Since the revelation is bound up in the historical process‑‑a progressive, developmental revelation‑the themes should be developed progressively (the substance of the theology is the historical development of Yahwism).

After the theology of the Old Testament has been carefully articulated, then it must be correlated with the New Testament. To make this correlation prior to a painstaking exegesis of the Old Testament text makes eisegesis and naive proof‑texting more likely. To safeguard against reading something into the text, or interpreting a passage in a way that it was not intended to be taken, requires the determination of the biblical theology of the passage within the old Testament theology first.

As you begin to exegete and expound the Old Testament, you will begin to develop theological ideas. Seminary gives you the theological and biblical framework so that you can operate reasonably well from the beginning, even though you cannot exegete the Old Testament and finalize your theology before beginning to minister. But as you study and teach, you must keep these guidelines for biblical theology before you so that you are conscious of the broader theological categories and are able to avoid eisegesis. Then, over a lifetime of ministry you will refine and adjust your general theological categories.

THE PRESUPPOSITIONAL BASIS

Introduction

Concerning the role of presuppositions, R. A. F. MacKenzie writes:

Coldly scientific‑‑in the sense of rationalistic‑‑objectivity is quite incapable of even perceiving, let alone exploiting, the religious values of Scripture. There must first be the commitment, the recognition by faith of the divine origin and authority of the book, then the believer can properly and profitably apply all the most conscientious techniques of the subordinate sciences, without in the least infringing on their due autonomy or being disloyal to the scientific ideal (“The Concept of Biblical Theology,” TT 4 [1956]:134).

Such a statement is firmly founded in the teachings of the Scriptures themselves; see I Corinthians 2:10‑16; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; and especially I Thessalonians 2:13: “. . . for when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”

Cornelius Van Til also affirms that “a truly protestant apologetic must therefore

make its beginning from the presupposition that the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, speaks to him with absolute authority in Scripture” (The Defense of the Faith, p. 179).

Presuppositions

God Exists. The presupposition that God exists is the foundation of all theology. A. B. Davidson writes,

Its position here and again is far in front of such an argument. How should men

think of arguing that God could be known, when they were persuaded they knew Him, when they were in fellowship with Him, when their consciousness and whole mind were filled and aglo with the thought of Him, and when through His Spirit He moved them, and guided their whole history? (The Theology of the Old Testament, p. 13).

Christopher R. North explains,

Certainly it was not abstract in origin, a product of the abstract intellect. The Old Testament doctrine of God was the Hebrews’ response to God’s confronting them in the crises, the deliverances, and disasters of their national life during a thousand years of history (The Thought of the Old Testament: Three Lectures, p. 24).

So the writers of the Old Testament never felt compelled to prove the existence of God. His existence is never questioned by them; only fools can say, “There is no God” (Ps. 14:1; 53:2; Job 2:10). God’s existence was the one thing that gave stability to everything else.

God Revealed Himself. The second presupposition is that God has spoken, that he has made known his will. Thus, the literature of the Bible is unique. It is not just another collection of religious texts from the ancient Near East. It is not a selective borrowing from compatible predecessors in the development of religious ideas. Gleason Archer correctly says, “The Scripture record witnesses rather to the natural Hebrew genius for irreligion and apostasy” (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, p. 135). The Scriptures record the unique revelation of the living God.

Walther Eichrodt states it this way:

First of all it must be noted that the establishment of a covenant through the work of Moses especially emphasizes one basic element in the whole Israelite experience of God, namely the factual nature of the divine revelation. God’s disclosure of himself is not grasped speculatively, not expounded in the form of a lesson; it is as he breaks in on the life of his people in his dealings with them and grants them knowledge of his being (Old Testament Theology, I: 37).

To this may be added the words of James 1. Packer:

The nature of revelation as an act of God is now clear. Revelation is our personal Creator and Upholder addressing us in order to make friends with us. We do not find Him; rather, He finds us. He sees us as rebels against Him, with our minds blinded and our characters twisted by sin, actively dishonouring Him by stifling His truth and serving false gods (God Speaks to Man: Revelation and the Bible, p. 41).

In clarification of the second presupposition it must be stated that God revealed himself in both historical acts and objective propositional statements capable of cognitive analysis. This dual aspect of the means of God’s revelation runs counter to the theology of Gerhard von Rad and his school which looks upon history as the starting point of faith (see Vriezen’s refutation of von Rad in his theology, pp. 188ff.). It also runs counter to Neo‑orthodoxy that regards revelation as only subjective, denying that God can be studied objectively (see Gordon Clark’s refutation of this in Revelation and the Bible, edited by C. F. H. Henry, pp. 29ff.). All theology, and therefore all exposition, depends on the presupposition that the Scriptures are the revelation of God, that the events and the words recorded have abiding spiritual importance for the people of God at all times.

We would also recognize that effective revelation is limited to the inerrant Scriptures. Man’s cognitive ability to apprehend this revelation depends on his spiritual condition as well as diligence in research. He must employ the grammatical, contextual, historical method of interpretation. The emphasis of both Testaments of Scripture is on the diligent study of the Word of God, and not that someone spiritually related to god will naturally understand all of revelation.

THE METHOD OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

Inductive Study

The study leading to biblical theology must be inductive (although an incomplete induction). The emphasis on inductive study means that the categories, themes, motifs, and conceits must be exegetically derived from the biblical texts. The exegete must come to the text as much as possible without preconceived mental, logical, or philosophical schemes as the molds into which biblical knowledge is poured so that it comes out bearing his mold. This will contrast with dogmatic theology.

To avoid arbitrariness, proof‑texting, and selectivity, the basic view of each biblical writer must be ascertained. From this investigation of separate books, longitudinal themes that unify the Old Testament can be discovered.

Deductive Presentation

The presentation of biblical theology must be deductive. It is not just a retelling of the parts (as von Rad does), but is the organized theology of the Old Testament.

The presentation should set forth the historical development of each category. Certainly consideration should be given to the separate times of divine revelation-‑prior to the founding of the nation, at the founding of the nation under Moses, then the time. of judges, monarchy, captivity and return. The next step in the development would be the relationship to the New Testament.

THE CENTER OF THEOLOGY

The Debate

There has been a continuing debate over the theology of the Old Testament, especially concerning the center of it. There are those who find a unity or a central theological idea in the Old Testament, and there are those who see only a plurality of ideas.

To simplify the issue at this point, we may distinguish between Eichrodt’s view and von Rad’s view. Eichrodt sees the theology unified in the concept of “covenant” (but do not get this confused with covenant theology). He sees the covenant as God’s relationship with mankind, the irruption (breaking in) of the kingdom of God on earth (see the discussion below in the Use of the Psalter). Von Rad, however, sees the Old Testament as a collection of testimonies, or confessions, by Israel as to their faith. Thus, to him the center of the theology is the entire collection of confessions.

Eichrodt’s approach is more satisfying because it unites the theological ideas throughout the Old Testament. But the basic difficulty that everyone must face is the diversity in the Scriptures, that is, the relationship of the parts to the totality. The multiplicity of ideas in the Bible shows the difficulty of trying to make one central idea.

The Material of Theology

The entire Old Testament is the mass of material that must be used. It is so vast that it cannot all be represented in a theology. But what is to be selected?

It is obvious that some criteria are needed, and that in this there will be some subjectivity. The biblical material is the subject to be studied; if it has no unity, we cannot create one, if it does have unity, we must find it.

The necessary minimum for the theology to be a theology is that the subject matter be about God. Both the unity of God’s self revelation and the diversity of the history of mankind’s understanding of God and response to God are involved in this work. In other words, in the Bible there are constant tensions between popular religion and prophetic religion and these have to be separated in the understanding as well. So the theologian must search the scriptures to see what each writer says about God, about mankind, and about the relationship between God and mankind.

The Unity of Biblical Theology

The predominant unifying element of biblical theology is the self‑presentation of Yahweh, endorsed by the identification of Yahweh by mankind. Exodus 6:2,3 gives the pattern; it brings in the self‑revelation of God along with a note about the apprehension of that revelation by the people.

“God spoke further to Moses and said to him, ‘I am Yahweh; and I appeared to

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as El Shadday, but by My name Yahweh, I was not known to them’.”

Thus, a unity was presented in the revelation, but there was a diversity in the way that that revelation was received. The ancestors knew the name as early as Genesis 4:26, but they did not know it in the sense that Moses’ generation would, that is, by experiencing the fulness of the promises made to the ancestors. Exodus 6:7 confirms this meaning of the verb “know,” for it says to Israel‑‑who had just received the revelation of the name: “and you shall know that I am Yahweh your God.”

Exodus 3:14‑15 has the same effect:

And God said to Moses, “I AM that I AM.” And he said, “Thus you shall say

to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you’.” And God furthermore said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations.”

Such phenomena of the identification of God‑‑revelation and apprehension‑‑followed Israel throughout the history of the ages.

The second thing that gave unity to the religion of Israel was the uniqueness of Yahweh He was holy. His holiness was demonstrated by his power and his righteousness; and he protected it by his zealousness. The command to have no other god (Exod. 20:3) is without analogy in the ancient world. So is the second command, not to make any idols (Exod. 20:4). In the midst of polytheism, Israel was instructed to worship one invisible God, exclusively. This brought on a life‑and‑death struggle against syncretism with other religions. New ideas, epithets, and appraisals came along, but one constant identification of the true God remained. The legal literature demanded obedience to the one God, the prophets proclaimed it the true faith, and the hymnic literature testified to it. And a faithful remnant adhered to it.

This struggle with syncretism also became a constant in Israel’s religion. The defense of the faith, the proclamation of the sovereignty of God, was a basic unifying element in the theology. The intolerant attitude of the Hebrews stemmed from their claim that Yahweh alone was God. Faith survived only through the rejection of what was alien to Yahwism. It was a process of destruction and demolition, of judgmental decrees and polemics. The Old Testament is thus a cemetery for lifeless myths and silent gods. The triumph of Yahwism is made clear through the struggle, for the polemic not only shows pagan beliefs to be worthless, but maintains the true faith.

Diversity in Biblical Theology

In the midst of the unified theology in the Old Testament there were diverse elements. There were differing theological forms that examined God’s acts in different ways, largely because there was a struggle with “automaticity.”

The first form of theology was salvation theology. The great sections of the Bible that portray Yahweh as the saving God, the shepherd, the leader, or the ruler, comprise this material. The form of this theology is found in hymnic, prophetic, and historical literature alike. The emphasis of this form of theology is that faith in God’s deliverance is founded in the knowledge of his past saving acts. But he manifested his saving power in different ways at different times.

Unbelief in the saving God, evidenced in disobedience to His precepts, brought the preaching of judgment from the prophets. The messages of doom were to prompt faith before it was too late. So God’s reputation as a saving God was constantly being brought into crisis. God’s reputation as a saving God would have ended were it not for the fact that the prophetic oracles renewed the old promises. They proclaimed that in spite of the judgment on the nation of Israel, a great day of deliverance‑‑spiritual and physical‑‑would yet come. Sometimes the crisis was caused by mechanization. Israel began to depend on God without faith (see the battle of Aphek in 1 Samuel 4-‑having God “in the box” in battle--but that was magic--so they lost the box and the war). Judgment had to fall in order to make the people realize that God was indeed a saving God, but only if the people believed. Thus, one form of theology presented God as the powerful deliverer of those who believed.

The second form of theology was cultic theology, the portion of revelation that dealt with sacrificial worship and all that pertains to that. The same cycle developed here. The original cultic theology presented God as the Holy One, who dwelt in a Holy Place, and who could be reached only by atonement through prescribed ritual. But “automaticity” from unbelief set in. Empty ritual overtook faith. So the great reaction came. The prophets were not against sacrifice, as some of the theologians who see no unity argue. Rather, they were denouncing worship without faith; they meant to renew the intent and spirit of cultic theology, not do away with sacrifices. Obedience was better than sacrifice; a broken heart was the true sacrifice. There would come a time, too, when the temple would be overthrown and the people scattered, because of unbelief. God’s holiness was featured very prominently in this theology, and without faith people could not come near such a God.

The third form of the theology of the Old Testament is order theology. Here the texts describe God as the creator and sustainer of heaven and earth, the guarantor of life, of order, society, justice, and nature. It was not presented so much in records of saving deeds, or in the Levitical code, as it was in wisdom literature. But it too had to deal with the crisis of unbelief, an unbelief that made the theology automatic, predictable. The dogmatic systematizing of the old wisdom would not let God freely order the universe by his sovereign will. Rules established a pattern so that legalism made life predictable (God blessed the righteous, so that the absence of blessing was a sign of sin). Books like Job and Ecclesiastes show that God cannot be bound by such an order. Faith in the sovereign God is the constant demand of such writings.

This is but a brief sketch of the three main themes of biblical theological literature from the Old Testament, how their pristine messages were challenged by the popular religion of unbelief and paganism, and how their theologians rekindled the spirit of the faith through each crisis.

The Essentials of the Theology

Eichrodt’s idea of the center of theology as “the rule of God over all creation” is broad enough to work in each of the theological forms the literature took. It gives the young theological exegete a starting point in formulating theological ideas from any book that he or she may be studying. The statement has three essential parts.

God. “What we meet with in the Old Testament are two concrete subjects and their relation. The two are: Jehovah God of Israel, on the one hand, and Israel, the people of Jehovah, on the other; and the third point, which is given in the other two, is their relation to one another. And it is obvious that the dominating or creative factor in the relation is Jehovah” (The Theology of the Old Testament, p. 13).

In studying God in a piece of biblical literature, one would normally look for the names, and epithets used for God, the attributes that describe him, and the works that he does. This is the way that Eichrodt constructs his theology of the entire Old Testament, so a check of his outline will provide a corrective to possible omissions.

It is helpful when studying a passage to chart these things. On a sheet of paper make the top third the entry of “God” (usually when doing a Psalm the work will fit onto one page). Then across the page make columns of “Names” and “Descriptions” and “Works.” Then go through the passage and note the items under these headings. A picture of the revelation of God emphasized in this particular passage will begin to unfold.

Creation. The entire creation is subject to God’s rule in the Old Testament. However, in most of the literature, mankind is of prominent interest, and within mankind the seed and its relationship to the rest of the world forms the focus of attention.

In the middle third part of the page put the heading “Creation”; then across the page you can have categories to fit the passage: “Nature” (if necessary), “Believers” and “Pagans.” It may be that the passage only talks about believers, or maybe believers and unbelievers. Here you would note in sub-categories how they are described in the passage and how they act--what do they do. A picture of humans will begin to emerge--a picture to be seen in relationship to the presentation of God above.

The passages being studied will have much to say about believers in the world. They display the way of faith against the pagan’s way; they (whether Israelite or not) will be functioning in certain ways due to their faith. Conversely, the unbelievers will be following false or antithetical ways. Much of the literature is given over to the expansion of the faith or producing spiritual seed, inside Israel (reforms) and outside (commission to bring the message to the nations). All of creation at some time or another will be confronted with God.

Be very careful here. Phrases like “my people” and “Israel” and the like do not presuppose belief. In a passage like a prophetic oracle, or a psalm like Psalm 50 that describes “the wicked”--these may be Israelites, and they may have thought themselves “righteous,” but they are unbelievers and no better than pagans. This will be absolutely critical in interpreting and applying the passage. Too often the wrong applications have been made because the interpretation did not distinguish whether God was speaking to and about believers or unbelievers.

God’s Rule. This is the connecting link between the two. It is manifested by the acts of God and the responsibility of mankind. There are two aspects to this rule: the past rule of God which has up til now been partial and incomplete and yet developing, and the future rule of God which will be complete and eternal. Both are within the theology of the Old Testament.

Davidson again writes,

In its fullest sense the kingdom of God was only introduced in the coming of the Son of God into the world; and in this sense all that went before might seem only capable of being regarded as preparation for this kingdom, or at most shadows of it. And this is the view which has often been taken of what is called the Old Testament dispensation, namely that it is a designed shadow or adumbration of the new. But this is not the view which it takes of itself; the consciousness of Israel as reflected in the minds of its prophets and highest men was that it was the kingdom of God already. The apparent discrepancy disappears on a little consideration of what the kingdom of God is. It is the fellowship of men with God and with one another in love. In a perfect sense this could not be till the coming of the Son in whom this fellowship is fully realized.

The rule of God over creation, the kingdom in its beginning stages, is a predominant theme throughout the Old Testament. It developed by covenant and by promise, but yet fell short of the prophetic ideal with which the Old Testament fell silent. The ultimate expectation was that God would visit them, and the breaking in among men of his rule would someday be complete.

In the meantime the establishment of the rule of God in human hearts progressed. Most passages of the Bible address this in some way. So on the bottom third of your study sheet you will have the section on “God’s Rule”--either how it is being established, presented, received, rejected--whatever. On the Godward side of the matter, there will be items such as attributes of grace and salvation, deeds of compassion and deliverance, and the establishment of covenant relationships. On the human side of the relationship is belief, confession, expiation, obedience, and worship and proclamation, or unbelief and rejection followed by judgment. The requirements on mankind seem to fall into two areas: the establishment of the covenantal relationship, and the maintenance of it.

This latter aspect brings in the entire purpose of the establishment of the theocracy of God, the communion of the seed with the living God. That is the goal of the life of faith which God’s grace prompts in the human heart.

Any study of the text may use this broad outline to ascertain the fundamental theological ideas of the writer. Of course, many refinements and qualifications may be added, but at this point it will serve as a good study that the themes will correlate rather nicely with the New Testament literature, for although much of the New Testament is a fulfillment of the Old, even the New continues the promise of a future fulfillment, and that hope is the universal reign of God over all creation.

Finally, what you must do is organize the material into a useful presentation. After charting the theological themes and ideas, study them carefully to see what patterns emerge, what things are repeated, what contrasts are formed, and the like. You should be able to determine rather quickly in a psalm what the main theological thrust of the passage is. This idea you develop will be easily harmonized with the kind of psalm you are studying (a praise psalm, for example, ill focus on the nature of God that has been demonstrated through some intervention--this puts you at the center). Once you have in mind the theological center of the psalm, you should be able to state it in one clear theological propositional statement. What you are saying is that after you have studied the psalm (meanings of words, figures of speech, type of psalm, forms and functions) you can say that God is saying through this passage “such and so.” This theological statement will be similar to your summary message from outlining, but it will not be written in descriptive style (“David prays for victory . . .”) but in theological principle form (“God is able to deliver . . .”). (See below for the review of the method of doing exegetical and expositional outlines--tedious but absolutely critical). Writing the theological idea forms the transition from exegesis to exposition. For this reason, it is one of the most critical stages of the whole process. It will require careful thought and analysis, and a good deal of re-writing of the statement until it is correct, or as correct as seems possible at the present. The theological principle could very well be the “big idea”--the central thesis--of your sermon; but for the sermon it might be shaped a little more to be rhetorically effective. Even so, it is the substance of your theological findings that will be the heart and point of the exposition.

THE THEOLOGICAL SUBJECT MATTER

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS

The following list of Waltke’s central theological ideas of each Old Testament give you something to go on in your study, and they show you what we mean by biblical theological ideas rather than systematic theological ideas (which would be the result of incorporating this material from the whole Bible into broader categories). Some of these are written as topics; to be more helpful, they should be stated in full sentences that express the theological point of the book.

I. THE PENTATEUCH (Moses): The Founding of the Theocracy: “The Rule of God over all Creation."

A. GENESIS: The origins behind the founding of the theocracy: the promised blessing of the seed in the land.

B. EXODUS: The redemption of the seed of Abraham out of bondage and the granting of a constitution to them.

C. LEVITICUS: The manual or ordinances enabling the holy Yahweh to live in residence among his people, making them holy (cf. Lev. 26:11‑12).

D. NUMBERS: The cultic laws of the camp in motion: the military arrangement and census of the tribes and the transport of the sacred palladium: the promised blessing cannot be frustrated from within or from without.

E. DEUTERONOMY: The covenant renewed in legal‑prophetic form.

II. THE PROPHETS

A. THE FORMER PROPHETS:

1. JOSHUA: The historical fulfillment of Yahweh’s promise made to the patriarchs and Moses to give Israel the land by holy war (cf. 1:2‑6, 11:23; 21:43).

2. JUDGES: The failure of theocracy under the Judges and the necessity of kingship.

3. SAMUEL: The establishment of a human monarchy over the theocracy.

4. KINGS: The failure of theocracy under monarchy: the kings of Israel and Judah could govern others but could not rule themselves.

B. THE MAJOR PROPHETS:

1. ISAIAH: The holy God will not permit unholiness in his people, and will therefore deal with them in such a way as to chasten and purge them and make them fit to participate in his program of extending his rule over the Gentiles (includes first the remedial discipline under Gentiles, and second, the promise of the covenant that cannot be frustrated).

2. JEREMIAH: Jerusalem will fall if the people will not repent; nevertheless, God's rule is assured through a new covenant.

3. EZEKIEL: The fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity are necessary measures for the God of glory to employ to correct his disobedient people; but “the day is coming when Jehovah will restore a repentant remnant of his chastened people and establish them in a glorious latter‑day theocracy with a new temple” (Archer).

C. THE MINOR PROPHETS:

1. HOSEA: In spite of Israel’s unfaithfulness, Yahweh’s faithful love will prevail.

2. JOEL: Divine judgment is to be visited upon Israel in the day of Yahweh.

3. AMOS: Yahweh is faithful to his covenant and to his law.

4. JONAH: While Israel is an ineffective servant under discipline, the sovereign Yahweh preaches salvation to the Gentiles through his prophetic messenger.

5. OBADIAH: Yahweh will revenge Israel against Edom.

6. MICAH: The necessary product of saving faith is social reform and practical holiness based on the righteousness and sovereignty of God.

7. NAHUM: Nineveh will fall for her cruelty and immorality because Yahweh is mighty.

8. HABAKKUK: The just live by faith in the face of apparent difficulties hindering the fulfillment of God's promises.

9. ZEPHANIAH: Yahweh is firmly in control of all his world despite any contrary appearances, and he will prove this in the near future by the Day of Yahweh including immediate and distant chastisement upon all the disobedient is clear.

10. HAGGAI: Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things shall be added to YOU

11. ZECHARIAH: Visions and oracles about Israel’s purification and restoration as God’s priestly nation in the glorious future.

12. MALACHI: Yahweh will come quickly with fire and with rewards to purify his theocracy.

III. THE HAGIOGRAPHA:

A. PSALMS: The. psalmists set forth Yahweh as king of the universe who is establishing his just rule upon the earth in and through his people; they pray for its realization and exhort praise and trust in Yahweh (McDaniel).

B. JOB: The suffering must learn to live by faith in the sovereign creator and ruler of the cosmos.

C. PROVERBS: A collection of maxims to give the student instruction in the skill of living a practical, righteous, and productive life.

D. RUTH: Yahweh sovereignly, but in a hidden way, effects the birth of his king.

E. SONG OF SOLOMON: A celebration in song of the joyful reunion of sexes in marriage.

F. ECCLESIASTES: In spite of the apparent futility involved in man’s existence, he will live life skillfully by trusting God’s sovereignty, goodness, and justice.

G. LAMENTATIONS: A song lamenting the destruction of Jerusalem with hope for the future based on God’s faithfulness.

H. ESTHER: An illustration of the vicissitudes of Abraham's physical but not spiritual seed.

I. DANIEL: A panorama view of Israel's history while subjugated by the Gentile world powers until the time of the Kingdoms.

J. EZRA‑NEHEMIAH: An account of the establishment of the theocracy during Gentile oppression.

K. CHRONICLES: A history of Israel designed to arouse support for the theocracy during Gentile oppression.

SAMPLE:

THE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF

THE BOOK OF JONAH

Theological Ideas in Jonah

God. Even though the book carries the name of the prophet and reports his activities, God is the main character in the book, the one who is carrying the events to their intended end. YHWH and ’elohim are the main designations of God in the book; but with the use of the second there is a marked contrast to the “gods” of the pagans,

the description of which employs the same word. Yahweh shows Himself

to be the God.

The attributes of God reflected in the book are many. Jonah's words in 4:2 declare that He is gracious, compassionate, longsuffering, abundant in loyal love, and hesitant to destroy. These provide the reason for Jonah’s flight‑‑he knew that because of these God would have compassion. That compassion, hus (pronounced khoos), becomes the primary attribute of God in the book in as much as it forms the point of the object lesson in chapter 4, the message of Yahweh’s dealings through Jonah. This point brings together the previous ideas of Yahweh’s compassion toward Jonah and the mariners. In fact, the statement that salvation is of Yahweh (2:10) is explained by this.

The works of Yahweh that grow out of these attributes are many. The first thing that one notices is the revelation of God. This is done twice through direct communication to the prophet in the commission (1:1 and 3:1), through the lots (1:8), and through the circumstances in the storm and in the lessons of chapter 4. In fact, God’s word to Jonah is a call for service and a promise of future speaking through him (3:1). When the prophet reluctantly obeys, God’s word to him is one of rebuke (4:4 and 4:9). God's speaking to the fish (2:11) meets with less opposition.

The second area of God’s actions revealed in the book show His sovereignty over all creation. He throws the storm (1:4) and frightens all. He controls the lots (1:8) so that Jonah is found out. He is recognized as the God of the heavens (1:9) who created the sea and the dry land. The very waves and billows are His to control (2:4). He prepares the fish to do His will (2:1), the tree for shade (4:6), the killing worm (4:7), and the sultry east wind (4:8). All are at His control. Dealing with the pagans is less a problem than dealing with Jonah, for with them He answers their prayers and delivers them from certain death. But with Jonah it becomes clear that God punishes disobedience (1:10ff), for He cast out Jonah into the deep (2:4). His punishment would also fall on Nineveh (3:4) if they did not turn from their wickedness. That judgment on them would be a manifestation of the wrath of God (3:9). The punishment of Jonah is a discipline and a prod toward the compassion that He has (4:9).

The compassion of God is demonstrated by the saving of the mariners, Jonah, the Assyrians, and then Jonah from his plight again. The sending of the message of judgment was an act of compassion, for God and Jonah knew that when they heard and repented, God would turn from His wrath (3:9, 10). Thus, the picture of God, emerging from the book, is one of the sovereign Lord of all creation extending grace to those who will repent and turn from their ways. The sub‑plot that runs throughout this theological theme is that Jonah needs to learn the same compassion.

Mankind. Much can be learned about mankind from the book, but here we need to make a distinction between mankind in general and Jonah in specific as God’s prophet. The book reflects the recognition that man is great and capable of great enterprises (3:3). But it also attests to his evil ways of violence and destruction (1:2; 3:8). In the hands of God mankind is weak and fragile (2:3; 3:8ff). His fragility shows up in fear (1:5; 1:10) and repentance at the warning (3:8). Mankind is also very religious, for he prays to gods (1:5), casts lots (1:7), cares about taking an innocent life (1:14), and worships idols (2:9). All of his religious activities are in vain because he is spiritually ignorant (4:11) until confronted by the true and living God.

The desires of mankind in this book reveal his priorities. He values life and does not want to perish (1:6, 3:9). He prays not to perish (1:14; 4:4‑9). He tries to preserve the life of others (1:13, 14).

Ironically, Jonah appears in just the opposite light in the drama of the book. He is disobedient to the word of Yahweh (1:2) and hardened in it (1:5). He is willing to die (1:13) and in fact prays to die (4:2ff). He is angry over the fact that God turns from His wrath when the Assyrians repent (4:a). He claims to fear Yahweh (1:9), but only the fact that he wrote the book for the nation to read shows that he did turn from his plight.

Relationship of God and People. The compassion of God explains the drama that has preceded the lesson in which the word is first used; thus, the establishment of covenantal relationships between God and man in the book is a work of God. For His part, the steps to establishing this rule are: the revelation of a message of judgment to be delivered (1:2, 3:1), the showing of favor to the mariners (1:6), the extending of khesed to those who are His (2:9), the turning away from judgment (3:9) so that the people did not perish. With this pattern emerging, the climactic lesson not only rebukes Jonah’s attitude but explains God's intent all along. He has compassion for the wicked.

People, on their part, must respond to the words and works of Yahweh. In the calamity of the storm where death is certain, or in the anticipation of the judgment where death is sure, people pray (1:14; 3:8‑9). Even Jonah from certain death in the fish prays (2:2). This is a recognition that deliverance from death comes from Yahweh alone.

For the mariners, further response to God’s dealings comes after the storm has been calmed. That powerful display of God’s will was anticipated by them (1:16), and when it happened they feared Yahweh. Their sacrifices and vows (1:16) could be interpreted as worship or as superstition out of a pagan culture, but in the book may reflect a genuine turning to God. The next vow given in the book is that of Jonah (2:10). So the response to deliverance is worship.

For the Assyrians, the process is a little different. Their prayer for deliverance is a prayer for God to avert judgment. Thus, repentance from sinful lives of self indulgence is a must (3:10). The fast, the putting on of sack cloth, and the turning from evil, all reflect a genuine fear of God’s word. Thus, fear becomes a predominant motif in the book‑‑both the mariners and the Assyrians fear Yahweh, whereas Jonah only claimed to fear Him.

The turning point for the mariners comes from the fact that they believed (the hiphil of ’aman in 3:5 has the idea of considering the word preached as reliable and sure). Belief is genuine when it turns to the repentance and fear seen in their actions. Thus, God turned from His wrath against them.

One could say, then, that when mankind responds to God’s actions or words by faith, and turns from pagan idolatry to obedient worship and fear of Him, He will deliver them from impending death. All this is possible because of His compassion. Jonah tried to hinder the outworking of God’s compassion, so God had to bring him to the point of realizing what he was doing by removing from him, Jonah, the object of his compassion.

The Literary Structure of the Book

In studying the book one must work in literary units by compositional analysis and then compare similar units for their structural organization. When connecting the parts to the whole, one must try to distinguish the literary forms used by the writer to convey the message. In the process, do not misuse the concept of literary genre. Literary genre is a classification of works based on outward form (specific meter and structure) and also upon inner form (attitude, tone, purpose‑‑more simply, subject and audience). The analysis of genre may not always be helpful.

For example, Leslie Allen in his commentary classifies Jonah as a parable. Not only is this not helpful, it is not correct. A parable is an extended simile (e.g., “The kingdom of heaven is like . . . “ and then the story will continue). The best that can be said for Jonah is that it is a piece of didactic narrative about the life of the prophet.

More can be gained by studying the structure of the book from the perspective of the Hebrew style, i.e., repetition. The following observations may be made in seeing how the structure enhances the theology.

1. We would observe the balanced structure of the book to see parallelism:

“The word of Yahweh came to Jonah”‑‑Jonah 1:1, 3:1. Chapter one shows the disobedience; chapter three the obedience. The first half appears to be illustrative of the second half of the book: the message that “salvation out of certain death is of Yahweh” is first experienced by the prophet and then presented to the Assyrians.

Landes, in his article “The Kerygma of the Book of Jonah,” shows how the psalm fits into this twofold symmetrical structure:

1:17 focus shifts to Jonah 4:1‑11 focus shifts to Jonah

2:10 Jonah is spared 4:1 Jonah is angry because Nineveh is spared

2:1 Jonah prays 4:2a Jonah prays

2:2‑6a He refers back to his 4:2a He refers back to his distressing situation in Palestine

distressing situation

in the deep

2:6b‑7 He asserts God’s 4:2a He draws an inference from the thought God

merciful deliverance may save Nineveh: he must flee to Tarshish

2:8 He draws an insight 4:2b He asserts the mercy of God that leads to deliverance

from his deliverance:

idolaters forsake the

One who loves them

2:9 Jonah’s response to 4:3 Jonah’s response to Yahweh: a plea for death

Yahweh: worship with

sacrifices and vows

2:10 Yahweh’s response to 4:11 Yahweh’s response to Jonah: he acts so that

Jonah: he acts so that the prophet may respond favorably to

the prophet may the divine mission (already accomplished).

respond favorably to

the mission (still to be

accomplished)

2. We would also note the strong emphasis in the book on the activity of God in making his servant into a compassionate messenger of a compassionate God. God literally (and sovereignly) moves heaven and earth in his dealings with the miraculous: he prepares (hurls) the storm, appoints the fish, commands the fish, prepares the tree, brings up the worm, and calls in the east wind‑‑all with the stubborn prophet in mind.

3. We would also observe talionic (“eye for eye, tooth for tooth”) justice for Nineveh. Calamity ( ra‘ ) was declared for them in the terms of the evil they were doing ( ra‘) which had ascended up to God. When Jonah preached the message, God’s planned evil was removed, but it was evil ( ra‘a‘ ) to him.

They believed ( ’aman ) God’s message and turned ( shub) from their evil. God saw their turning, and He relented/repented ( nakham ) over the evil ( ra‘ ) He had said to do, turned ( shub) from his wrath (kharon) and saved them from certain death. The irony of the book is seen in the fact that Jonah then becomes angry ( kharah) over what was to him an evil thing. In short, the messenger of God did not share the same compassion that God had.

4. In the unfolding of the story emotions run high: fear, joy, and anger are lavishly displayed by the principle characters (note the adverbial accusatives). “Alas,” or better “Oh!” is repeated: once it is used by the mariners who are about to die and do not want to, and once by Jonah who wants to die.

The expression “lest we perish” is used twice: once by the mariners who feared greatly, and once by the Assyrians who believe and hope for deliverance from certain death. But Jonah is insensitive to their pleas: in the first utterance he is fast asleep, and in the second he is angry. In fact, the life‑and‑death struggle carries throughout the book: twice Jonah wants to die‑‑once for the mariners, and once because of the Assyrians. No one wants to perish except Jonah, and he wants to perish because the Assyrians do not.

5. We would note the prayers of the book. The verbs palal, sha’al, qara’, and shiwwa‘ are all used. The mariners, Jonah, the Assyrians, and Jonah again, all pray. The first three prayers are for deliverance from certain death, and they are all answered; the last one is for death, and it is not answered.

6. Already one may observe that God is desirous to save people from certain death. The climactic lesson ties the message together: khus, “to have compassion,” is the key word (it certainly must be studied in any exposition of the book). It means to “have compassion” in the sense of saving alive or sparing. It results in deliverance from destruction. Judgment is averted because of khus when God relents over His planned judgment. Grace and compassion are at work in bringing about the deliverance, but they are compelled by this “sparing through compassion.”

With these, and many other observations in the book, we may begin to see how the structure enhances the message.

The Purpose of the Book

The next step in determining the essential theology of the book is to determine the attitude of the author, the audience of the book, and the argument. Concerning the attitude of the author, whom we may assume to be Jonah, it must be said that he was moved to compassion by Yahweh in Assyria. The book falls silent with the rebuke of Yahweh, and so does not actually say that Jonah was moved to compassion. However, the fact that Jonah recorded all the events in the book, events which are humiliating to himself, suggests strongly that he was finally moved to compassion. God, if we may say it, is the hero of the book‑‑he has the last, convincing word. Jonah’s silence speaks his quiet acceptance.

The audience of the book would be Israel, the people to whom he prophesied. Prophets in Israel and Judah wrote for the purpose of instructing the nation on a course of action. The many bizarre events in the lives of the prophets were paradigms for the people (see Hosea, Isaiah, especially). We know that Israel in the time of Jonah was not walking in obedience to Him. In fact, we would say that Israel was then under divine discipline (according to the Book of Kings Jonah prophesied in the 750s; the kingdom of Israel was affluent and self indulgent). Their hated enemies, and the source of their discipline, came from the mighty Assyrian empire. The attitude of Jonah is more than likely the attitude of the nation.

Yet this attitude ran contrary to God’s instructions for the nation. According to Exodus 19 and Deuteronomy 20, they were to be a kingdom of priests who represented Yahweh to the nations. When they closed in on themselves they became disobedient in many areas. If they were to take the message of Yahweh’s deliverance to the nation, they would need to share His compassion. If they shared that compassion, they would realize anew that they existed because of His grace and compassion, for He had delivered them and made them His worshipers.

The argument of the book, then, concerns salvation out of certain and imminent death for the Gentiles, because Yahweh is a compassionate God.

The Theology of the Book

The theological statement that the book appears not only to be making but to be stressing, is that while Israel is an ineffective servant under divine discipline, the sovereign Yahweh extends compassion to believing Gentiles through His reluctant prophetic messenger. What makes the tension so strong in the drama is that these Gentiles are hated enemies, and that Jonah does not wish God’s compassion to be shown to them.

Correlation to the New Testament

Whenever a theological idea like this has been expressed, the next step is to determine the corresponding New Testament idea. One must be aware of the major changes between the testaments, but in an idea such as this, i.e., that God’s compassion leads Him to preach salvation to the Gentiles, is not hard to relate to the present world. The fact of the salvation or deliverance itself is incidental to the purpose of the book, for the purpose is concerned with turning the people of God into people who have compassion for the wicked who are spiritually ignorant.

The lesson for Jonah is, therefore, a valid lesson for us today: we must have compassion for those who are about to perish, no matter how wicked they may be. The danger is that God’s people too often channel “compassion” to things that have intrinsic value for them (as did Jonah with such a simple object as the shade tree). We too have compassion for such things (a dying lawn, a shade tree, a broken instrument that we value) that are trivial, and are insensitive to those people all around us who are perishing. This often comes into evangelistic efforts as well, in that we try to reach those individuals we think would benefit the Church the most. For the rest, we often think that Hell will not be hot enough for them, unless we are simply indifferent.

These thoughts may seem harsh, but for Jonah the rebuke of God over misguided compassion was just as harsh. He did not even care for the dumb animals that would be destroyed. The rebuke was for him, and for Israel who shared his attitude, and ultimately for us. God is a God of compassion, and we may not determine who the recipients of that compassion may be. We must take the message to all who will listen, and then rejoice in the miracle of their faith when they hear the word.

These are but a few ideas to illustrate how one might begin to bridge the gap between exegetical analysis and homiletical presentation.

THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Introduction

You cannot do Biblical Theology and remain in the Old Testament for your material--at least not as a Christian doing theology, for Christianity finds the final revelation and the fulfillment of the Old Testament in Christ Jesus. So any exegetical work you do will of necessity demonstrate how the New Testament writers may have drawn upon your passage to make their point. In fact, you have to show where in the New Testament your message was used or alluded to, and how that application may or may not affect your view of the original text.

It is clear that the Hebrew Scriptures were held to be the inspired revelation of God by Jesus, the apostles, the scribes, and the Pharisees. A study of the terms used in the formulae for citing the Holy Books also shows that there was agreement on which books were canonical (the Samaritans and Sadducees restricting canonicity to the Torah).

But our survey of the copying and translating of the Bible also indicates that in Gospel times (roughly 50 B.C. through 150 A.D.) there was quite an array of Bibles‑‑different Hebrew scrolls, different Greek translations, some beginning works in other languages, plus the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Aramaic Targum. So which copy of the Bible were they to use? They knew that the Old Testament was God’s eternal word, and so it spoke to them as well as to the original audience; they knew that a principle of promise‑and‑fulfillment underscored the meaning of the Bible, for God was forever fulfilling His word and each fulfillment looked forward in promise to greater things. So much use was made of the Bible in varying degrees of literalness, and that use has to be understood by us in order to know how to interpret the Old Testament for today.

A major problem arises in our thinking when we begin to talk about “quotations” from the Old Testament in the New, for the concept of a direct quotation is not workable. They were the Scriptures to show fulfilment or to underscore new but related teaching; but they were seldom retaining it on the same literal and denotative meaning as it was originally written. In fact, once the text is changed to Greek or Aramaic, a slight alteration in the meaning is introduced (in addition to the change in contexts). Peter draws “Be holy, because I the LORD your God am holy” out of Leviticus, it may seem “word perfect,” but the meanings of the Greek words will only approximate the meanings of the Hebrew words, albeit in a close way. Yet what it meant to the Hebrews to be holy will be rather different than what it means for the Christian to be holy. They had diet laws and ritual purifications and restrictions on garments and agriculture‑‑all very different, yet within the range of theology of holiness as it was developing in God’s revelation.

We need, therefore, to think in terms of the progressive revelation in Scripture, observing how God brought forward the ideas and motifs of the Old economy. We need to think of how they used the Old Testament with varying shades of correspondence. As you know from reading the exegetical notes I have been satisfied with three general categories to describe these shades of correspondence; I have introduced them in the discussion of the royal psalms, but I shall illustrate them more widely here. You will need to think through this entire subject to your own satisfaction, because it will have great bearing on exegesis, textual criticism, and application procedures. To try to force the New Testament meaning into the Old Testament passage, to the letter, not only ignores the grammatical, historical, contextual exegesis we follow, but also oversimplifies the problem of how the later writers used the Hebrew Bible.

Category I: Direct Prophecy

The use of the Old in the New that has the closest correspondence of meaning between both passages is direct prophecy. The writer or the speaker in the Old Testament was conscious of the fact that what he declared was to be fulfilled in the future, and that usually in the so‑called Messianic age. This category, though, can be a little confusing, since many if not most of the prophecies had an immediate fulfilment that did not fully exhaust the meaning, that is, the first fulfilment became a type of the ultimate and full meaning (such as Isaiah 7:14).

Sample 1: Micah 5:2 and Matthew 2:6

But as for you, Bethlehem Ephratah, least among the clans of Judah, from you one will go forth for me to be ruler in Israel, his goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity (OT).

And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah, for out of you shall come forth a ruler who shall shepherd my people Israel (NT).

It should be obvious that this is a direct prophecy of the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem. But it should also be quite clear that Matthew is not using the Hebrew that we have, but the Greek Old Testament (but even there there are some differences). And interestingly enough, he does not read the last part that speaks of the antiquity of the coming one. It appears that Matthew is simply using the common Greek translation of his day to make the point of the fulfilment of the prophecy, and is not concerned with getting the precise reading of the Hebrew text, with which the people would not be familiar anyway. His point is to show that that prophecy was now fulfilled.

Sample 2: Malachi 3:1 and Matthew 11:10

Behold, I am about to send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me (OT).

Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you (NT).

Jesus is clearly referring to Malachi’s prophecy of the forerunner in this lengthy evaluation of John the Baptist. But note that he freely changed the pronouns to show that he is the Lord who is coming to his temple (as Malachi 3:1 continues to say). God spoke in Malachi (“me” = Yahweh), and Jesus wants his audience to know he is Yahweh.

Sample 3: Isaiah 61:1 and Luke 4:17

The Spirit of the LORD God is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me‑‑to bring good news to the afflicted; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and freedom to the prisoners . . . (OT).