CHAPTER THREE

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
Biblical typology must be understood and placed in the broader spectrum of biblical
theology and salvation history. The term biblical theology has become rather popular in
theological circles and much time and energy has been devoted to its exploration. This renewed
interest in biblical theology has given rise to the possibility of writing a full-scale biblical
theology. However, an examination of the term biblical theology reveals a widespread
disagreement over its meaning.1 As a matter of fact, J. L. McKenzie explains that biblical
theology is the only discipline or sub-discipline in the field of theology that lacks general
accepted principles, methods and structure. There is not even a generally accepted definition of
its purpose and scope.2 Or as Gerhard Hasel puts it, Biblical theology presents probably the
most profound challenge for the Bible scholar in the latter part of the 20th century.3
Goldsworthy continues in this vein as he points that biblical theology is often misunderstood
because it is not always appreciated that it is a technical term that refers to a particular way of
doing theology. Thus some evangelicals will speak of biblical theology as that which contrasts
with unbiblical or liberal theology.4 Therefore, if any progress is going to be made in the field

Charles H. H. Scobie, The Ways of our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2003), 3.
2

John L. McKenzie, A Theology of the Old Testament (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974), 15. To see an
extended discussion of the problems of definition, see James Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology (Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress, 1999).
3

Gerhard Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, 4rd ed. Revised and Updated
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 80.
4

Graeme Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

2000), 26.

23

24
of biblical theology, a clear and generally agreed upon definition of biblical theology is essential
for any progress to be made.
The first known use of the term biblical theology was by W. J. Christmann in 1607 in
the title of his book Teutsche biblische Theologie.5 This book was a compilation of proof-texts
drawn from the Bible to support Protestant systematic theology. A century and a half later, G.
T. Zachariae published a four-volume work titled, Biblische Theologie oder Untersuchung des
biblischen Grundes der vornehmsten theologischen Lehren.6 D. A. Carson explains that this
work was exegetically rigorous and detailed . . . prepared within the framework of traditional
views of inspiration well established from the time of the magisterial Reformation yet reflecting
very little consciousness of historical development within the canon.7 It was Johann Philipp
Gabler in March of 1787, who gave an inaugural lecture as professor of theology at the
university of Altdorf in Germany entitled, A discourse on the proper distinction between
biblical and dogmatic theology and the correct defining of the boundaries, that attempted to
define a way of doing theology that was significantly different from the post-Reformation period
and led to the exploration of biblical theology as its own discipline.8 Kevin J. Vanhoozer
concurs as he points out, Because the task of biblical theology is to describe the theology of the

D.A. Carson, New Testament Theology, Dictionary of Later New Testament and its Development, ed.
Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 796.
6

Ibid., 796.

Ibid., 796.

Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, 24.

25
Bible, it is vital for the biblical theologian to distinguish the theology of the text from the
theology of this or that ecclesial reading, the message of the text from the tradition of its
interpretation.9
Biblical theology has come a long way since it was officially introduced in the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries. Scobie attempts to define biblical theology by simply examining the two
component parts of the term, biblical and theology.

He concludes that Biblical theology

thus ought to mean something like the ordered study what the Bible has to say about God and his
relation to the world and to humankind.10 He goes on to point out that there has been two
different ways to understand the term biblical theology. First, the term can be taken to mean a
Christian theology that is simply based on the Bible. However, this understanding is not specific
enough because all forms of Christian theology claim to be based upon the Bible in one way or
another.11 The second understanding of biblical theology is that is refers to the theology
contained in the Bible, the theology of the Bible itself. This understanding is preferred by most
scholars.12 This is a good start, but it is still too imprecise for a proper understanding of biblical
theology.
Geerhardus Vos defines biblical theology as that branch of Exegetical Theology which
deals with the process of the self-revelation of God deposited in the Bible.13 This definition
9

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Exegesis and Hermeneutics, in The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T.
Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson and Graeme Goldsworthy (Downers Grove: InterVarsity,
2000), 52.
10

Scobie, The Ways of Our God, 5.

11

Ibid., 5.

12

Ibid., 5.

13

Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (1948; repr., Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2004), 5.

26
stresses the fact that Gods revelation is embedded in history and involves a historic
progressiveness.14 Goldsworthy explores what biblical theology conveys,
From the evangelical preachers point of view, biblical theology involves the quest for
the big picture, or the overview, of biblical revelation. It is of the nature of biblical
revelation that it tells a story rather than sets out timeless principles in the abstract. It
does contain many timeless principles, but not in the abstract. They are given in a
historical context of progressive revelation. If we allow the Bible to tell its own story, we
find a coherent and meaningful whole. To understand this meaningful whole we have to
allow the Bible to stand as it is: a remarkable complexity yet a brilliant unity, which tells
the story of the creation and the saving plan of God.15
This explanation is helpful in that it highlights the fact that biblical theology seek to describe the
underlining unity of the Bible. He goes on to explain that, Biblical Theology examines the
development of the biblical story from the Old Testament to the New, and seeks to uncover the
interrelationship between the two parts . . . Biblical theology enables us to map out the unity of
the Bible by looking at its message as a whole.16 Edmund Clowney concurs by pointing out
that the most fruitful understanding of biblical theology is that which recognizes both the
historical and progressive character of revelation and the unity of the divine counsel which it
declares.17 To achieve this unity and for biblical theology to be viable, it must be understood
that it depends on the ability to interpret the biblical texts on their own terms, . . . because

14

Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, 22.

15

Ibid., 22.

16

Graeme Goldsworthy, According to Plan (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1991), 23-24. He goes on to
mention five presuppositions of biblical theology: (1) God made every fact in the universe, and he alone can
interpret all things and events; (2) because we are created in the image of God we know that we are dependent on
God for the truth; (3) as sinners we suppress this knowledge and reinterpret the universe on the assumption that we,
not God, give things their meaning; (4) special revelation through Gods redemptive word, reaching its high point in
Jesus Christ, is needed to deal with our suppression of the truth and hostility to God; (5) a special work of the Holy
Spirit brings repentance and faith so that sinners acknowledge the truth which is in Scripture (45).
17

Edmund P. Clowney, Preaching and Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 17.

27
biblical theology aims to give a theological interpretation of the Bible on its own terms.18 As
Vanhoozer further explains,
Biblical theology is nothing less than a theological hermeneutic, a regula legei (a rule of
reading). As such, biblical theology is not merely a matter of repackaging the conceptual
content of the Scriptures, but a way of having ones heart, mind and imagination alike
schooled in the ways of seeing and experiencing the world according to the many literary
forms and the one canon, which together constitute the word of God written.19
Therefore, the task of biblical theology is to understanding what the word of God says about God
and how he relates to the world in a way that lets the biblical text set the agenda.20

Salvation History
Salvation history, on the other hand, is narrower in its focus as it tracts the storyline that
exists in the Bible. Goldsworthy explains, Salvation History is a term that has come to be
used in relation to a certain perspective in doing biblical theology, one that recognizes a specific
history as the framework within which God has worked, is now working, and will work in the
future.21 Scobie points out that the Bible itself has summaries of salvation history that trace the
continuity of Gods dealings with human beings. For example, Deuteronomy 26:5-8 reads,
5

Then you shall declare before the LORD your God: "My father was a wandering
Aramean, and he went down into Egypt with a few people and lived there and became
great nation, powerful and numerous. 6 But the Egyptians mistreated us and made us
suffer, subjecting us to harsh labor. 7 Then we cried out to the LORD, the God of our
ancestors, and the LORD heard our voice and saw our misery, toil and oppression.

18

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Exegesis and Hermeneutics, 52, 58.

19

Ibid., 63-64.

20

Brian. S. Rosner, Biblical Theology, in The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond
Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson and Graeme Goldsworthy (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 5.
21

Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, 27.

28
8

So the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with
great terror and with signs and wonders. 9 He brought us to this place and gave us this
land, a land flowing with milk and honey.22
These verses clearly describe the progression, although not complete, of how God acted in
history for the salvation of his people. John Stek writes,
The fact of progression in salvation history demands an ever new hearing of the word
of the Lord spoken at an earlier moment in salvation history. The hearing must be new
because it is a hearing in the context of the later events and circumstances in salvation
history and in the light of the word of the Lord spoken later in salvation history.23
Or as Goldsworthy writes,
The essence of salvation-history is the recognition that the books of the Bible, while not
being uniformly historical in form, all relate to an overarching history in which God acts
to bring salvation to his people. Beginning at the creation event the storyline moves
through the entry of sin to the history of Israel as the chosen people. This history leads
eventually to Jesus Christ and finally to the consummation and the new creation. The
OT, then, is the first part of the story. The tension in this polarity lies in the fact that
biblical salvation-history comes to an end. History is goal or end-oriented. It finds its
true meaning in the nature of the end defined by the coming of Christ.24
Goldsworthy sees a clear link between biblical theology and the concept of salvation history.
Biblical theology is broader in its scope but it approaches the Scriptures with a redemptivehistorical perspective.25

22

C. H. H. Scobie, History of Biblical Theology, in The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T.
Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson and Graeme Goldsworthy (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,
2000), 11. Other summaries found in the Bible are: Neh 9:7-37; Pss 77, 78, 105, 106; Dan 9; Acts 7; Heb 11.
23

John Stek, The Message of the Book of Jonah, CTJ 4 (1969): 47-48.

24

Graeme Goldsworthy, Relationship of Old and New Testament, in The New Dictionary of Biblical
Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson and Graeme Goldsworthy (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 2000), 86.
25

26.

Graeme Goldsworthy, Lecture 1: The Necessity and Viability of Biblical Theology, SBJT 12 (2008):

29
Biblical Theology, Salvation History and Biblical Typology
Both biblical theology and salvation history relate directly to biblical typology. Biblical
theology seeks to uncover and articulate the unity of all the biblical texts taken together
resorting primarily to the categories of those texts themselves.26 A category that articulates that
very unity is the progression of salvation history that exists in the Bible. Biblical typology is one
of the methods by which the unity and progression of the Bible is discerned and articulated.
Goldsworthy highlights the fact that the approach of salvation history is closely related to the
revived interest in typology as a way of understanding the inner theological structures of the
Bible.27 This link was recognized by von Hofmann when he points out the fact that the history
we find in the Old Testament is the history of salvation as proceeding towards its full realization.
And since the events described in the Old Testament are shaped by the end goal, this goal will
manifest itself in all important stages of its progress in a way which, though preliminary,
prefigures it.28 Goldsworthy clarifies the relationship by perceiving in broad terms that
typology rests on the recognition that the way God spoke and acted in the Old Testament was
preparatory and anticipatory of the definitive word and act of God in Christ . . . type and antitype
express this organic relationship between the events of the Old that pattern and foreshadow their
fulfillment in the New.29 James Hamilton outlines the relationship between biblical theology,
salvation history and typology by writing,

26

D. A. Carson, Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology, in The New Dictionary of Biblical
Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson and Graeme Goldsworthy (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 2000), 100.
27

Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006), 242.

28

J. C. K. von Hofmann, Interpreting the Bible, trans. Christian Preus (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972),

29

Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics, 243.

135.

30
The progress of revelation through salvation history as recorded in the Bible functions
as banks of the stream for typological interpretation . . . typological interpretations of the
Bible look for ways the human authors of the Bible have read Gods work in history,
and it seeks to discern cues the human authors gave as to how they have interpreted that
work . . . we seek to build our interpretive framework employed by biblical authors.30
Therefore the Bible itself uses typology to highlight the flow of salvation history which is an
integral part of biblical theology.
In conclusion, the relationship between biblical theology, salvation history and typology
is a close one. These three concepts are interrelated as they seek to examine and determine who
God is and how he has and is relating to his people. Biblical theology uses the redemptivehistorical story-line of the Bible to show how God has revealed himself and has acted on behalf
of his people. Biblical typology is a method that biblical theology uses to show how God has
acted in redemptive history.

30

James M. Hamilton, Was Joseph a Type of Messiah? Tracing the Typological Identification Between
Jospeh, David and Jesus, SBTJ 12, no. 4 (2008): 53.