biblical theology and systematic theology
Michael Bird has an interesting post here (dating from January 2008) regarding the relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology. His concern is that in certain circles (especially Reformed), systematic theology is an uncorrectable governor over biblical theology, and thus certain exegetical conclusions are ruled out of bounds even though they may be correct.
Part of the problem with working through this issue clearly is that biblical theology can mean more than one thing. Is it the historical-critical method as developed quite recently, or is it something more organic that in fact the Church has always practiced? Does practicing biblical theology entail that I look at the Scriptures as made up of a bunch of “theologies” of the biblical writers – and if so, is there implicit in that a subtle compromise of the belief in Scripture as God’s own self-revelation?
Then too there is the matter of saying that biblical theology ought to influence and shape systematic theology, rather than the reverse. Are those our real choices?
It is my belief that a faithful “biblical theology” (BT) and a faithful “systematics” (ST) are mutually informing – and not simply de facto (this is what actually happens) but ideally (this is what should happen).
What I mean by faithful BT is passage-by-passage exegetical work that pays attention to the Bible’s own themes (I’ll qualify this in a moment), and particular attention to contextual layering, such as how a given biblical writer uses a terms, what themes recur in his writing and so on, outward to how all of this fits into that writer’s place in overall redemptive history. Good biblical theology pays careful attention to what is said when (before Torah is introduced, after David, prior to the cross etc etc). And this work cannot be described as “faithful” if it pits one passage against another as not merely in mysterious tension, but in contradiction.
I think that careful reflection will show that BT is not quite the same as exegesis, but they are utterly bound up with one another and cannot be carried out properly apart from mutually informing one another. If the exegesis of a given pericope leads to a conclusion that is at odds with the biblical theology derivable from the redemptive historical period in question, for example, that means that (1) the exegesis is faulty; (2) the BT in question is faulty; or (3) both. Something has gone wrong somewhere.
Now, as soon as I attempt to determine where the error is, you can see that BT itself is a functioning as a form of ST. Drawing from the materials of the broader biblical theology we have built up in connection with a given era of redemptive history: that just is a systematic-theological exercise for that period.
BT is not something uncorrectable any more than either ST is, nor the exegesis of a particular passage. All of these exercises are human exercises, and must be carried out in a fashion that is mutually corrective.
As you might guess, this is true also at the broader BT-ST level as well, keeping in mind how the differing eras in redemptive history will affect a unitary reading of Scripture. (E.g. Torah is a temporary covenant, not a timeless set of norms.)
There is, however, another set of concerns which we can raise regarding ST, which is this: What questions does a given ST pose, and how are they formed? If questions are posed in a manner unknown to Scripture; if the governing assumptions behind these questions are drawn from outside categories, then the answers can be problematic, because the project as a whole is predetermined by something unbiblical. A badly chosen question will not generate a good answer. (You’ll see this sometimes in Jesus’ own ministry, where instead of answering a question directly, He appears to talk about something else.)
Just some basic reflections. Much more, of course, could be said.