Journal: Westminster Theological Journal

Volume: WTJ 38:3 (Spring 1976)

Article: Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology
Author: Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.

Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology

Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.
Not so widely known among the writings of John Murray are two articles on systematic theology which
appeared in this Journal in 1963.1 These articles are important because, written just a few years prior to his
retirement, they provide us with his matured reflection on the field in which he labored with such distinction
as a teacher and writer. Significant also is the fact that of the two articles the second in its entirety is given
over to the relationship of systematic theology to biblical theology. This in itself suggests the importance that
over the years he had come to attach both to the latter and to this relational question for a proper
understanding of the nature and task of systematic theology. In what follows here I would like to continue
the discussion of this question reflecting on what Professor Murray and several others in the Reformed
tradition have written that bears on it. While focused in this somewhat restricted, some may even feel
introverted, fashion, the discussion, because of the basic nature of the question, should also touch on
concerns felt increasingly by those with other backgrounds.

I
It is worth keeping in mind from the outset that the question of the relationship between systematic theory
and biblical theology is a relatively recent, even modern, one in the history of theology. This is especially
true in the line of Reformation orthodoxy. Understood generally as the effort to provide a
WTJ 38:3 (Spr 76) p. 282

compendium or comprehensive summary of what the Bible teaches, systematic theology, or dogmatics, is
almost as old as the church itself. Origens De Principiis, Augustines Enchiridion, the Summa of Thomas
Aquinas, Calvins Institutes, the imposing productions that flourished in the context of 17th century
Reformed and Lutheran orthodoxy, such as those of Turretin and Gerhard, as well as the work of more
recent figures like Charles Hodge and Herman Bavinck are all monuments to the longevity and established
place of dogmatic endeavor in the life of the church.
In contrast, biblical theology, conceived of in some sense as a distinct discipline, is comparatively new and
has had a rather problematic history.2 Apparently the expression biblical theology occurs for the first time
at the beginning of the 18th century within German pietism. There it functions as part of a kind of back to
the Bible movement, in reaction to allegedly speculative and other unbiblical elements in orthodox
(Lutheran) dogmatics. Passing over here the important question of how warranted this reaction was,3 we
should note that in pietism biblical theology does not yet refer to a new or special, discipline. Further, it is
bound up with the same high view of the inspiration of the Bible present in Protestant orthodoxy.
By the latter part of the century, however, the situation is radically altered. The term now occurs with great
frequency and with reference to a distinct discipline of study. More importantly, this development takes
place, largely on German soil, in the context of the late Enlightenment with its rationalistic
WTJ 38:3 (Spr 76) p. 283

rejection of the inspiration and canonical unity of Scripture and its self-confessed, unambiguous point of
departure in human autonomy. Again, as in pietism, an element of reaction is dominant and again the front
of reaction is orthodox Christianity, in particular its tendency to ignore the historical origin and nature of the
biblical documents. The Altdorf inaugural address of J. P. Gabler (1787) is customarily seen as defining the
program of this new discipline and marking out the broad lines that subsequent developments have taken.4

It is noteworthy that, as the title itself explicitly indicates, this initial program statement is structured in terms
of a contrast between biblical theology and dogmatics. The gist of Gablers position is that biblical theology
is an historical, and for him that means a purely descriptive, discipline, concerned to discover what in fact
the biblical writers thought and taught; dogmatics, on the other hand, is a didactic or normative discipline,
concerned to provide contemporary statement of faith based ultimately not on the Bible but on philosophy
and the use of reason.
In retrospect, Gabler inaugurated trends within the historical-critical tradition that have significantly shaped
its development down to the present. The virtual divorce of biblical theology from dogmatics has proven
especially fatal, precipitating a crisis of historicism in biblical studies that is periodicoly glossed over but
remains unresolved. The end result of this biblical theologyalmost a critical commonplace todayis that
there is none, that doctrinally and conceptually the Bible is a disunity, embracing a plurality of diverging and
even competing theologies.5
The summary observation to be made at this point, then, is that as a distinct discipline biblical theology first
emerges as part of the Enlightenment and in reaction to the alleged failure,
WTJ 38:3 (Spr 76) p. 284

especially in its dogmatics, of traditional (orthodox) Christianity to do justice to the historical character of the
Bible.

II
In view of the developments just noted it is of interest to inquire how biblical theology as a particular
theological discipline came to have a positive place within the Reformed tradition. A useful point of departure
here would appear to be the appointment of Geerhardus Vos to the faculty of Princeton Seminary as its first
Professor of Biblical Theology beginning in the fall of 1893. What are the antecedents of this development?
This proves to be a difficult question to answer satisfactorily. In his inaugural address given in May 1894
Vos, conscious of occupying a new chair in the Seminary, undertakes a full treatment of biblical theology as
a special discipline but does not give any real indication of how he is dependent upon others for the position
he spells out.6 In the charge to Vos given on this occasion7 the point is made, with particular reference to
the teaching of J. A. Alexander and C. W. Hodge, that biblical theology in the technical sense is not really
new to the Princeton curriculum.8 In view, however, is the attention given by these men to the contents of
Scripture in their historical surroundings and developments, which so far as one can tell did not measure
up to the definiteness of Vos conception and belongs more properly to what is usually called special
introduction.9
WTJ 38:3 (Spr 76) p. 285

The major writings of the Princeton faculty during this period do not shed a great deal of light on our
question. On the opening page of his Systematic Theology Charles Hodge distinguishes between biblical
and systematic theology. The office of the former is to ascertain and state the facts of Scripture. The office
of the latter is to take those facts, determine their relation to each other and to other cognate truths, as well
as to vindicate them and show their harmony and consistency.10 The conception of biblical theology in view
here is not amplified or further defined. While restricted in the sense that it is contrasted with systematic
theology, it is apparently conceived of rather broadly as equivalent to exegesis or exegetical theology.
In discussing theological encyclopedia A. A. Hodge sees biblical theology as that sub-branch of exegetical
theology which traces the gradual evolution of the several elements of revealed truth through every
successive stage to their fullest manifestation in the sacred text and which exhibits the peculiar forms and
connections in which these several truth are presented by each inspired writer.11 He does not even touch
on the relation between biblical and systematic theology. This is somewhat surprising because he indicates
that the former is to a certain extent subject to the topical arrangement distinctive of the latter (p. 21). At any

rate biblical theology plainly does not figure prominently in his theological method.
B. B. Warfield gives a noticeably different accent. Writing in 1896 (thus two years after Vos inaugural) on
the idea of systematic theology he gives much greater prominence to biblical theology and treats in some
detail its relation to systematic theology.12 Biblical theology is the synthesizing crown of exegetical theology,
the last word (p. 67), the ripest fruit of Exegetics (p. 65). As such it is not a rival or even parallel
WTJ 38:3 (Spr 76) p. 286

to systematic theology. Rather, it is the basis and source of Systematics (p. 66). Scientific theology rests
most directly on the results of exegesis as provided in Biblical theology (pp. 73f). His remarks as a whole,
however, are essentially formal and therefore have a certain vagueness. What is lacking is any definition of
biblical theology or description of what it entails, other than an oblique reference to the historical element
that attaches to Biblical theology (p. 68). Accordingly there is no clear indication of the way in which the
synthesis provided by biblical theology is foundational to systematics or exercises a controlling influence
upon it.13
Vos was well-acquainted with the work of Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck, the most important figures
in Reformed theology in Holland during this period. If anything, however, they provide less that is explicitly
positive on biblical theology than what we have found to be the case on this side of the Atlantic.
Writing in 1894 Kuyper rejects biblical theology not only in name but in concept.14 Theology, as he defines
it, presupposes
WTJ 38:3 (Spr 76) p. 287

dogma as a product of the life of the institutional church, both of which, in turn, presuppose and are based
upon the completed Scriptures. Consequently, there is no theology in Scripture. Theology can only come
into existence where Scripture is complete. It should not be overlooked, however, that Kuyper develops this
rejection in a section where he gives a positive place to the notion of the history of revelation and welcomes
further attention to it. This point materially toward Vos concern in biblical theology.
Bavinck is virtually silent on biblical theology. Relevant, however, is what he has to say in a section of his
Dogmatiek dealing with special revelation.15 So far as its content is concerned, he identifies three basic
characteristics of special revelation. It is (1) historical and progressive, (2) made up of deeds as well as
words and teaching, and (3) soteriological. He also observes that the first two characteristics, that is, the
historically progressive and the deed character of special revelation, have been better recognized in more
recent theology than in the older theologians.16 In other words, according to Bavinck the basic material
qualification of biblical revelation is that it is redemptive-historical and it is just this factor that needs further,
more concerted attention. Again, perhaps even more so than in Kuyper, the work of Vos is on the horizon.
This brief survey of representative writers permits the generalization that within the Reformed tradition Vos
has no predecessors for his conception of biblical theology. In this respect his work can be called creative
and injects a fresh impulse into Reformed theology. In balance, however, the fact of his appointment, the
more formal discussion of Warfield, and the material concern of Bavinck and Kuyper indicate at least
incipient appreciation for the direction in which he was going as well as a recognition of its importance. This
sympathy, we can surmise, reflects what no doubt is also a contributing influence in Vos own work, that is,
an awareness that there is substance to the
WTJ 38:3 (Spr 76) p. 288

critical charge that heretofore orthodox theology has not given adequate attention to the historical
character of the Bible.
We are brought, then, to the further observation that in the tradition of Reformed orthodoxy there have been
only a handful of attempts working with an elaborated conception of biblical theology to discuss its
relationship to systematic theology. Professor Murray appears to be alone in having devoted a separate

study to it. Inasmuch as the germinal remarks of Vos are in the background of his own discussion we can
treat them together here.17 Before turning to do that, however, it will perhaps be well to repeat what was
stressed at the outset and by now should be all the more apparent, namely, that the question of the
relationship between systematic and biblical theology is a relatively new one, particularly in the Reformed
tradition. This suggests, in view of the basic, encyclopedic nature of the question that there may be aspects
of it which have not yet surfaced and that it requires extended, maturing, and concerted reflection beyond
that which can be given here.

III
Murray follows his former teacher in defining biblical theology as that branch of Exegetical Theology which
deals with the process of the self-revelation of God deposited in the Bible.18
WTJ 38:3 (Spr 76) p. 289

In view of objections to the term biblical theology both prefer the name History of Special Revelation.19
From this several factors basic to their outlook can be highlighted. (1) For both that special revelation had a
history is undeniable. The historical character of special revelation is essential, integral to it as revelation
and precluding any tension or discontinuity between revelation and history. (2) For both the discipline in
view is concerned with the actual revelatory process in back of20 the Bible and of which the production of
the biblical writings is a part. The focus is on the historically progressive and differentiated character of
special revelation, its historical diversity and multiformity. (3) While not explicit in the definition just cited the
organic character of the revelation process is insisted on by both. This process is not heterogeneous,
involving ongoing self-correction. Nor does it have anything to do with an evolutionary movement from what
is erroneous and defective to what is relatively more true and perfect. To illustrate Vos repeatedly uses the
organic model of maturing plant life, of growth from a perfect seed into a perfect tree or flower. The
movement of the revelation process is from what is germinal and provisional to what is complete and final.21
(4) In view of the flexibility and preference of both respecting terminology the national question we are
concerned with can also be expressed in terms of the relationship between the history of revelation (or the
historically differentiated character of revelation) and systematic theology (dogmatics). This, it seems to me,
is a particularly useful observation for it suggests that the relationship in view has a different character and
perhaps more basic dimensions than come to mind with the use of the common noun theology and the
distinguishing adjectives biblical and systematic. The latter terminology is at a disadvantage, among
other reasons, because it can be taken in a compartmentalizing sense, as
WTJ 38:3 (Spr 76) p. 290

indicating parallel disciplines, each going its own way more or less independently of the other and, when
necessary, holding out for its own rights.22
Taken as a whole a certain degree of ambiguity attaches to the statements of both Vos and Murray on the
relationship between systematic and biblical theology. On the one hand are those statements that view them
side by side as separate disciplines, compatible to be sure, but apparently independent of each other.23
Along this line, against the background of what both have in common as exegetically based and
synthesizing or coordinating disciplines, the concern is to show the differences between them. This is seen
to be a difference in method or principle of structuration. The approach of biblical theology is historical, while
that of systematic theology is logical.24 The former deals with revelation as an activity or process, the latter
deals with it as a finished product. Vos uses the difference between drawing a line (biblical theology) and a
circle (systematics) to illustrate how they differ.
On the other hand both men are intent on bringing out the definite connection between the two disciplines,
in particular the importance of biblical theology for systematics, and this is certainly the burden of their
discussion as a whole. In making the distinction just noted Vos immediately qualifies it by adding: Still it
should be remembered, that on the line of historical progress there is at several points already a beginning

of correlation among elements of truth in which the beginnings of the systematizing process can be
discerned.25 Elsewhere he finds among the practical uses of biblical theology that it imparts new life and
freshness to the truth by making us aware that the
WTJ 38:3 (Spr 76) p. 291

Bible is not a dogmatic handbook but a historical book full of dramatic interest. Further, it corrects the
impression that the basic tenets of Christianity rest on isolated proof texts by showing that its system of
doctrine grows organically from biblical revelation.26
Murray is even more emphatic that biblical theology is indispensable to systematic theology (p. 41) and
devotes six pages (4046) to clarifying this proposition. The core of his remarks, expressed with
characteristic precision, is worth quoting here in its entirety (pp. 44f):
Systematic theology is tied to exegesis. It coordinates and synthesizes the whole witness of
Scripture on the various topics with which it deals. But systematic theology will fail of its task to
the extent to which it discards its rootage in biblical theology as properly conceived and
developed. It might seem that an undue limitation is placed upon systematic theology by
requiring that the exegesis with which it is so intimately concerned should be regulated by the
principle of biblical theology. And it might seem contrary to the canon so important to both
exegesis and systematics, namely, the analogy of Scripture. These appearances do not
correspond to reality. The fact is that only when systematic theology is rooted in biblical
theology does it exemplify its true function and achieve its purpose.
He then goes on to illustrate this conviction with two observations (pp. 45f) similar to those made by Vos.
First, attention to the history of revelation, the distinguishing concern of biblical theology, counteracts the
tendency to abstraction which ever lurks for systematic theology. Second, Systematic theology is premised
on the unity of Scripture. In bringing to light the true, organic character of that unity biblical theology
discourages systematics from wresting passages from their scriptural and historical context or citing them as
disjointed proof texts.

IV
The preceding sketch will have made plain how much Vos and Murray are in agreement in their conception
of biblical theology and its relationship to systematic theology. It is fair then to say that this aspect of their
thinking constitutes a
WTJ 38:3 (Spr 76) p. 292

direction. What more pointedly is the impetus of this direction? Where does it take us? What horizons does it
bring into view? At least tentative answers can be given along several lines.
(1) Biblical theology focuses on revelation as an historical activity and so challenges systematic theology to
do justice to the historical character of revealed truth. This is an elemental consideration but one which is
often overlooked or not appreciated. The tendency to abstraction of which Murray speaks as an ever
present danger for systematics can be described more pointedly as a tendency to de-historicize, the
tendency to arrive at timeless formulations in the sense of topically oriented statements which do not
adequately reflect the fact that Gods self-revelation (verbal communication) is an integral part of the totality
of his concrete activity in history as sovereign Creator and Redeemer, and thus a tendency which obscures
the historical, covenantal dynamic apart from which his relations to men and the world lack integrity and so
lose their vitality and meaning. Vos observes that the circle of revelation is not a school, but a covenant
and that the Bible is not a dogmatic handbook but a historical book full of dramatic interest.27 The pattern
of these statements is striking. The structure notbut is hardly formulated in a void. It has in view the
undeniably intellectualistic tendency within traditional orthodox dogmatics as well as the rationalism of the
critical tradition. We can recall here too what was quoted above from Bavinck to the effect that the

redemptive-historical character of revelation has begun to receive adequate attention only recently and was
largely ignored by earlier theology.
Still in making this kind of observation it would be quite misleading, as is often done by its more enthusiastic
advocates, to create the impression that biblical theology brings something totally new into the life of the
church. Rather it is largely a matter of correcting and balancing certain trends of the more recent postReformation past. Already in the second century in its life and death opposition to gnosticism, and by
holding fast to the Old Testament as its own, the church testified to its
WTJ 38:3 (Spr 76) p. 293

deeply rooted appreciation of the uniqueness of Christian revelation and the salvation revealed in Christ as
covenantal or historical in character. Antecedents of this struggle and the answer to be given are present in
the New Testament itself, among other places in what Paul writes to the Colossians and Johns first two
letters. In this sense one can say that from the very beginning the church has had an essentially biblicaltheological outlook, even if it is also true that almost from the beginning factors have been present which
have tended to weaken it. The question that needs to be asked is to what extent in the period following the
Reformation orthodox Protestant dogmatics, by allying itself first with Aristotelian and then with Cartesian
patterns of thought, fell into the vitiating tension between revelation and history it was trying to oppose. In
recent decades in American Reformed and evangelical circles the discussion has largely focused in the area
of apologetics around the insights of Dr. Van Til. The scope of that important discussion needs to be
expanded. At any rate anyone who thinks he detects the specter of a relativizing historicism in biblical
theology rightly conceived of simply reveals the flaws in his own theological foundations.
(2) Biblical theology is indispensable to systematic theology because biblical theology is regulative of
exegesis. This insight of Professor Murray, which at a first glance may not seem to address directly the
relation between biblical and systematic theology, provides the key to understanding not only that
relationship but the true significance of biblical theology itself. How does biblical theology regulate exegesis?
To ask this is to raise a methodological question of the most basic proportions.
The answer to this question can be given perhaps most easily in terms of a consideration central to both
exegesis and systematics, namely, the unity of the Bible. As itself revelation Scripture is a record of
revelation. It witnesses to the special revelation of God which consists in his ongoing covenant faithfulness
in word and deed and which has its consummation in the person and work of Christ. In an important respect
inscripturation as a mode of revelation is not an end in itself but the (necessary and sufficient) means to an
end.28 And the
WTJ 38:3 (Spr 76) p. 294

proper focus of interpretation is the subject matter of the text, that is, the history with Christ at its center that
lies in back of the text. With a view to its content, then, a primary and essential qualification of the unity of
the Bible is that that unity is redemptive-historical. The context that ultimately controls the understanding of
a given text is not a literary framework or pattern of relationships but the historical structure of the revelation
process itself. In the final analysis the analogy of Scripture is the analogy of parts in an historically unfolding
and differentiating organism.
This provides an indication of the real issue raised by biblical theology. Frequently the impression is gotten,
particularly by beginning students of theology, that biblical theology is a novelty that enables the initiate to
leave behind a plebeian understanding of Scripture and gain access to an inner sanctum of higher insights
reserved for the privileged few. Such an attitude of theological elitism is not only unedifying but also betrays
a serious undervaluing of biblical theology. It fails to grasp the fundamental hermeneutical significance of
biblical theology. At stake is not simply the existence of a particular theological discipline but nothing less
than the correct interpretation of Scripture. At issue is not one exegetical option among others but a right
handling of the word of truth. Exegesis itself is misunderstood if biblical theology is seen as no more than a

step (even the most important) in the exegetical process. It does not appear to be going too far to say that
in biblical theology, that is, effective recognition of the redemptive-historical character of biblical revelation,
the principle of context, of the analogy of Scripture, the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture, so
central in the Reformation tradition of biblical interpretation, finds its most pointedly biblical realization and
application. All exegesis ought to be biblical-theological. To the extent that there is hesitation on this point
the relationship between biblical and systematic theology will remain unresolved.
WTJ 38:3 (Spr 76) p. 295

Earlier we spoke of an element of ambiguityin the statements of Vos and Murray on the relationship
between systematic and biblical theology. That ambiguity can be removed by recognizing that the
expression biblical theology may be used in two senses. It can refer to those studies that confine
themselves to following explicitly a genetic or historically differentiating plan of investigation and
presentation. Examples would be the conception of the covenant in the prophets of the Restoration or
Jesus teaching concerning the Holy Spirit or, more broadly, the theology of Isaiah or Paul. In this sense the
relationship between biblical and systematic theology is surely reciprocal. In any given instance specialized
studies such as those just mentioned necessarily interact with the broader, topical outlook of systematic
theology. It is wrong and naive to suppose that the former can be carried out independently of the latter,
and it is questionable that ultimately they have any justification apart from the contribution they make to the
over-all, unified understanding of Scripture with which systematics is concerned. But the term biblical
theology can also be used in a second sense, with the accent on its adjective biblical-theological and
referring not to a particular discipline but more broadly to a basic assessment of Scripture that involves
methodological foundations and procedures essential to any correct exegesis of the text. As I have tried to
point out in the immediately preceding paragraphs, this is the more elemental sense, where the deepest ties
with systematic theology come to light. The indispensability of biblical theology to systematic theology is the
indispensability of exegesis to systematic theology, no more and no less.
(3) It is customary to raise objections to the name biblical theology, especially the adjective.29 As we noted,
both Vos and Murray prefer the designation History of Special Revelation. Still it seems important to hold
out for the propriety of applying the noun at least to parts of the actual revelation process recorded in
Scripture. If it is correct that central to a proper conception of theology is reflection on salvation as revealed
in Christ in the fulness of time, on the fulfillment of the covenant promises and the primary, binding
implications of
WTJ 38:3 (Spr 76) p. 296

that fulfillment for the life of the church and the world, then much, if not all, of Scripture itself (either
prospectively or retrospectively) is theology, indeed in portions of Pauls writings and the book of Hebrews
theology of a decidedly systematic and carefully argued kind. Recognition of this is important because it
brings to light a factor of continuity, especially with the New Testament, that serves to keep the subsequent
theological activity of the church firmly and organically rooted in the Scriptures, determined by them not only
in its conclusions but also in the questions with which it begins. Reformed theology ought to challenge itself
with the consistent awareness that its prolegomena are given by the Bible itself. In this connection it is
interesting to note the shift that takes place in Vos thinking. In his inaugural address, presumably under the
influence of Kuyper, he rejects all but the most attenuated application of the term theology to biblical
revelation,30 although his position as a whole undermines this rejection. Subsequently, after following this
program over many years of teaching and writing, he comes to speak quite uninhibitedly about Pauls
theology and eschatology31 and the theology and philosophy of redemptive history of the writer of
Hebrews,32 and to point out that the beginnings of a systematizing process are already discernible in
Scripture.33
Attention to the actual process of revelation inevitably brings one to conclusions about revelation as a
finished product. This is particularly true for the New Testament and can be seen by identifying the program

of New Testament biblical theology. The difference from Old Testament biblical theology is reflected in the
rather prosaic observation that the Old Testament is composed over a millennium and deals with a span of
time considerably longer, while the New Testament is written within one generation and is oriented to what
took place in less than
WTJ 38:3 (Spr 76) p. 297

a century. So far as the history of revelation as a whole is concerned, the New Testament is not so much
concerned with process and ongoing development, which are essential structural characteristics of the Old
Testament, as with the end point of the process. This is not to deny that an element of progress is present
in the New Testament. It is there in the movement from the ministry of John the Baptist, through the earthly
ministry of Jesus to the founding of the church and its spread through the ministry of the apostles from
Judea to the surrounding gentile world. And this progress is at the heart of the gospel message. Even more
basic to the structure of New Testament revelation, however, is that it is diverse and synchronous witness to
Christ, the final and consummate self-revelation of God, from the perspective of his exaltation. The New
Testament itself is an embodiment of what Paul calls the manifold or many-sided wisdom of God (Eph 3:10),
that multiform wisdom that pertains to the unsearchable riches of Christ, to the administration of the mystery
hidden in ages past, revealed in Christ, made known among all the nations, and consummated at his return
(vss. 8, 9; cf. vss. 26; Rom 16:25, 26; Col 1:2527; Eph 1: 10).
Attention to the New Testament as a record of the consummation of the history of revelation brings us to
consider it in terms of the multiplicity of its post-Pentecost witness to Christ.34 But in view of the organic
nature of the revelation process concern with its variety and diversity necessarily involves concern with the
unity and coherence in which that divity consists and apart from which it is ultimately unintelligible. And when
these considerations are joined with the further recognition, again in view of the organic nature of the history
of revelation, that the
WTJ 38:3 (Spr 76) p. 298

decidedly theological unity-indiversity of the New Testament end point is not properly or comprehensively
intelligible apart from attention to its rich and varied Old Testament roots, then the line between what is
usually called New Testament (biblical) theology and systematic theology becomes difficult to detect.35
All this prompts the not entirely modest proposal, in view of objections that can be raised against the term
systematic theology, to discontinue its use and instead to use biblical theology to designate the
comprehensive statement of what Scripture teaches (dogmatics), always insuring that its topical divisions
remain sufficiently broad and flexible to accommodate the results of the redemptive-historically regulated
exegesis on which it is based. This, it would seem to be, is the ultimate resolution of the relational question
raised in this essay.
In the meantime, while we continue to speak of the relationship between systematic and biblical theology, it
will be the task of the latter to minister to the former the rich perspectives of revelation seen in the context of
its history and it will be the work of systematics to incorporate these perspectives into its constructions and
formulations.36 In fact, there is much work needing to be done at present. This can be illustrated here only
briefly and in one respect, but one that has important and far-reaching consequences. If there is one
conclusion that a redemptive-historically sensitive interpretation of Scripture has reached, it is that
eschatology is to be defined not only with reference to the intermediate state of individuals following death
and to the second coming of Christ but inclusive of his first coming
WTJ 38:3 (Spr 76) p. 299

and the present existence of the church in the world.37 This is an insight of a magnitude that requires
recasting not only eschatology but also the other loci as traditionally conceived, especially christology,
soteriology, both accomplished and applied, and ecclesiology. Nor is this a matter of purely scholarly
concern. At the present time large sectors of the church are in unrest, searching for a deeper understanding

and a more satisfying experience of who they are in Christ. On many fronts the Reformed community
vacillates between intellectualism and pietism in various unstable combinations with others rejecting these
uneasy amalgams in search of an alternative that would be genuinely reformational. In this situation nothing
is to be so much desired as attitudes and life styles that are more authentically those of the New Testament.
How many believers today understand themselves with the apostle as those upon whom the ends of the
ages have come (1 Cor 10:11)? How many experience that they are members of Gods eschatological
kingdom not only at hand but already present? How many grasp with some perception of its vast
implications that in the interim between the resurrection and return of Christ the existence of the church in
the world is determined by the overlapping tension between this age and the age to come? At stake here
are concerns essential not only to theology but to the whole church in every aspect of its life.
Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelhia
1

Systematic Theology, vol. 25, 2 (May, 1963), pp. 133-142 and Systematic Theology: Second Article, vol.
26, 1 (Nov, 1963), pp. 33-46.
2

This history has been traced in a number of places and from a variety of perspectives. Cf., e.g., the surveys
of O. Betz in The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, II (New York: Abingdon, 1962), pp. 432-437, Martin
Khler in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, II (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1952), pp.
183-185, and, at greater length, W. J. Harrington, The Path of Biblical Theology (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan,
1973), pp. 19-259. A definitive survey has been attempted by H.-J. Kraus, Die Biblische Theologie: Ihre
Geschichte und Problematik (Neukirchener Verlag, 1970).
3

In view of the lack that continues high priority needs to be given at present to analysis of developments
within 17th century Protestant orthodoxy that not only attempts to be careful and searching but is also
sympathetic to it, particularly by its commitment to the inspiration and final authority of Scripture.
4

De justo discrimine theologiae biblicae et dogmaticae regundisque recte utriusque finibus (On the proper
distinction between biblical and dogmatic theology and the correct delimitation of their boundaries);
accessible in German translation in O. Merk, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments in ihrer
Anfangszeit (Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1972), pp. 273-284.
5

E.g., S. Mowinckel, The Old Testament as the Word of God (New York: Abingdon, 1959), pp. 16-20, and the
quite emphatic discussion of E. Ksemann, The Canon of the New Testament and the Unity of the Church,
Essays on New Testament Themes (Studies in Biblical Theology, 41, Naperville, Ill.: Alec R. Allenson, 1964),
pp. 95-107.
6

The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline (New York: Anson D. F.
Randolph, 1894). There are only two footnotes, which make passing reference to the work of T. D. Bernard
(p. 19) and K. F. Nsgen (p. 35).
7

By the Rev. Abraham Gosman.

8

Op. cit., p. vii. The minutes of the faculty meeting of May 1, 1891, contain the following recommendation:
The Faculty would represent to the Board of Directors that, in their judgment, it is of great importance that a
professorship of Biblical Theology should be established in this Seminary.Its growing importance

demands that it should be erected (vid.) into a separate department and be made the exclusive work of a
separate professor. Generous friends of the Seminary have pledged such an addition to its funds as to
make them sufficient for the support of such a professor (Letter of Charles Willard, librarian, Princeton
Theological Seminary, to Mr. Nack Jae Choe, May 24, 1972).
9

Cf. the published class lectures of Hodge, Gospel History (Princeton: Charles S. Robinson, 1876) and
Apostolic History and Literature (Princeton: C. S. Robinson, 1887).
10

Systematic Theology, I (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1893 [1871], 1f). So far as I have discovered
this is the reference to biblical theology in Hodge.
11

Outlines of Theology (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1879), p. 22.

12

The Idea of Systematic Theology, Studies in Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1932), pp. 6568, 7374; note also the diagram in n. 9, p. 74.
13

A survey of the broader Presbyterian and Reformed scene in America at this time and subsequently yields
essentially negative results. So far as I can discover from examining places where theological encyclopedia
or prolegomena to theology is being discussed, the southern theologians, Thornwell, Dabney, and
Girardeau are all silent on biblical theology, as are L. Berkhof and J. O. Buswell, Jr. W. G. T. Shedd displays
an almost condescending attitude to biblical theology as he conceives of it, particularly in relation to
dogmatics (Dogmatic Theology, I [New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1888], pp. 11-14). An important
exception to this picture is Shedds colleague, Charles Augustus Briggs, who in 1890 was appointed to the
newly established chair of biblical theology in Union Seminary, New York, and who wrote repeatedly on the
subject. Briggs is not brought into the discussion here, however, because he adopts an essentially critical
conception, as can be seen, among other things, from the way in which he employs a threefold distinction
between biblical theology, biblical dogmatics, and systematic theology (General Introduction to the Study of
Holy Scripture [New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1900], pp. 594-597) and from his assertion that biblical
theology precludes any longer believing in verbal inspiration (The American Presbyterian Review, new
series, II [1870], 304).
14

Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerheid, III (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1909), pp. 166-180. I have discussed this
rejection more fully in Geerhardus Vos and the Interpretation of Paul, Jerusalem and Athens, ed. E. R.
Geehan (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971), pp. 229-231.
15

Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, I (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1967 [1906]), pp. 315-318.

16

Cf., ibid., pp. 315f: De historia revelationis is eene wetenschap, die nog van jonge dagteekening is en op
ernstige beoefening aanspraak mag maken. (The history of revelation is a discipline of recent date and
may lay claim to serious study.)
17

Vos position is expressed for the most part in two places, in his inaugural address (op. cit., note 6 above),
pp. 9f, 3840, and in Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948),
preface, pp. 13, 24f, cf. pp. 25-27. E. P. Clowney touches on this relational question in Preaching and
Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), p. 16; cf. also E. J. Young, What is Old Testament

Biblical Theology?, The Evangelical Quarterly, 31 (1959), 139f, cf. p. 53, and The Study of Old Testament
Theology Today (London: James Clarke, 1958), p. 110; F. H. Klooster, The Adjective in Systematic
Theology (Grand Rapids: Calvin Theological Seminary, 1963), pp. 18-21; J. O. Boyd, Biblical Theology in
the Study and the Pulpit, The Evangelical Quarterly, 2 (1930), 71 (now, slightly abridged, in The Banner of
Truth, 146 (Nov 1975), 1f. Too late for consideration here, I have come across the stimulating article of W.
D. Jonker, Eksegese en Dogmatiek, in W. D. Jonker et al., eds., Hermeneutica. Erebundel aangebied aan
prof. dr, E. P. Groenewald(Pretoria: N. G. Kerk-Boekhandel, 1970), pp. 157-179.
18

Vos, Biblical Theology, p. 13; Murray, Systematic Theology: Second Article, p. 33. For amplification and
fuller documentation of the discussion in this paragraph see in their entirety Vos inaugural, Biblical
Theology, preface, chapter I, and Murrays article. Cf. also Clowney, op. cit., chapter I, and O. P. Robertson,
The Outlook for Biblical Theology, Towards a Theology for the Future (ed. C. H. Pinnock and D. F. Wells;
Carol Stream, Ill.: Creation House, 1971), pp. 65-91.
19

Vos, Theology, p. 23; Murray, p. 33.

20

This is Vos own language (Theology, p. 13; Inaugural. p. 8).

21

Vos, Theology, pp. 15-17; Inaugural, pp. 16-24; Murray, p. 36. Cf. Vos, Inaugural, p. 24: Biblical Theology,
rightly defined, is nothing else than the exhibition of the organic progress of supernatural revelation in its
historic continuity and multiformity (original italics).
22

There can be little question that this is what has largely happened since the time of Gabler. It strikes me too
that we come here upon a characteristic mentality still encountered on Reformed soil.
23

Vos, Theology, preface, pp. 13, 24f; Inaugural, p. 39; Murray, p. 33.
24

The use of the term logical in this connection is conventional (as is Vos use of systematic, Inaugural, p.
39). While the appropriateness of these adjectives for distinguishing the discipline in view is subject to
question, surely the intention is to identify its topical or loci structure (cf. Murray, pp. 40f, 44). In describing
what the two disciplines have in common Vos says that both transform the biblical material (Theology, pp.
23, 25)hardly a happy choice of language.
25

Theology, p. 25.
26

Theology, pp. 26f; cf. Inaugural, pp. 37f, 40.

27

Theology, pp. 17, 26; It is certainly not without significance that God has embodied the contents of
revelation, not in a dogmatic system, but in a book of history,(Inaugural, pp. 37f); cf. Clowney, op. cit., p.
15: not in the form of a theological dictionary.
28

We further observe that the formation of the Scriptures serves no other purpose than to perpetuate and
transmit the record of Gods self-disclosure to the human race as a whole. Compared with revelation proper,
the formation of the Scriptures appears as a means to an end. (Vos, Inaugural, p. 8; cf. Theology, p. 13).

Cf. also Murray, p. 42: The Bible does not provide us with a complete history of special revelation.But we
must believe that the pattern found in the Scripture reflects the pattern followed in the history of revelation
as a whole.
29

Cf., e.g., those raised by Vos, Theology, p. 23. Objections can also be raised against the adjective in
systematic theology Systematic or logical hardly serves to identify the topical approach that
distinguishes it.
30

Inaugural, p. 34.
31

The Pauline Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961 [1930]), pp. 11, 29, passim.
32

Hebrews, The Epistle of the Diatheke, Princeton Theological Review, 14 (1916), 3.

33

Theology, p. 25. It should also be noted that his original reservations about using the term theology in this
sense are missing from the objections to the name biblical theology in Theology, p. 23.
34

This is pointed to by Vos (Inaugural, p. 21): There is one more feature of the organic character of
revelation which must briefly allude to. Historic progress is not the only means used by God to disclose the
full contents of the eternal Word. Side by side with it, we witness a striking multiformity of teaching employed
for the same purpose. All along the historic stem of revelation, branches are seen in to shoot forth,
frequently more than one at a time, each of which helps to realize the complete idea of the truth for its own
part and after its own peculiar manner. Cf. the rest of his discussion to the bottom of p. 23. What Vos writes
is particularly applicable to the rich proliferation that characterizes the New Testament end point of the
revelation process.
35

Cf. in this connection the remarks of Warfield, The Person of Christ, Biblical Doctrines (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1929), pp. 175f, particularly the following observation (p. 176): In its fundamental teaching
the New Testament lends itself, therefore, more readily to what is called dogmatic than to what is called
genetic treatment.
36

The responsibility on both sides needs to be emphasized here. There are mounting indications that at
present much of the most able evangelical biblical scholarship in the English-speaking world is being carried
on in indifference or uncertainty toward dogmatics (as well as with an attitiude toward historical-critical
methodology and presuppositions that can only be called naive and incautious). This is bound eventually to
result in pastors and churches that are theologically confused and doctrinally illiterate.
37

It is to the credit of Vos and also a vindication of his approach that he anticipates along with very few others
in his time what by mid-century had become an at least formal consensus over almost the entire spectrum
of New Testament interpretation. Cf. esp. The Teaching of Jesus concerning the Kingdom and the Church
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958 [1903] and The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the
Spirit, in Biblical and Theological Studies (by the Members of the Faculty of Princeton Theological
Seminary, New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1912), pp. 209-259.
current : : uid:1147 (drupal)