What do you think?
Rate this book
Understanding Biblical Theology: A Comparison of Theory and Practice
Understanding Biblical Theology clarifies the catch-all term 'biblical theology,' a movement that tries to remove the often-held dichotomy between biblical studies for the Church and as an academic pursuit.
This book examines the five major schools of thought regarding biblical theology and handles each in turn, defining and giving a brief developmental history for each one, and exploring each method through the lens of one contemporary scholar who champions it. Using a spectrum between history and theology, each of five 'types' of biblical theology are identified as either 'more theological' or 'more historical' in concern and practice:
Biblical Theology as Historical Description (James Barr)
Biblical Theology as History of Redemption (D. A. Carson)
Biblical Theology as Worldview-Story (N. T. Wright)
Biblical Theology as Canonical Approach (Brevard Childs)
Biblical Theology as Theological Construction (Francis Watson).
A conclusion suggests how any student of the Bible can learn from these approaches.
This book examines the five major schools of thought regarding biblical theology and handles each in turn, defining and giving a brief developmental history for each one, and exploring each method through the lens of one contemporary scholar who champions it. Using a spectrum between history and theology, each of five 'types' of biblical theology are identified as either 'more theological' or 'more historical' in concern and practice:
Biblical Theology as Historical Description (James Barr)
Biblical Theology as History of Redemption (D. A. Carson)
Biblical Theology as Worldview-Story (N. T. Wright)
Biblical Theology as Canonical Approach (Brevard Childs)
Biblical Theology as Theological Construction (Francis Watson).
A conclusion suggests how any student of the Bible can learn from these approaches.
180 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 6, 2012
101 people are currently reading
269 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 57 reviews
January 17, 2021
This book was an OK overview of 5 different contemporary views of biblical theology... The problem is that the authors wrote at a level that is theologically beyond an audience that would need this book while—at the same time—not providing enough content concerning the various views of BT to be satisfactory or useful to an audience reading at this level... The result is a work that tells the seminarian/pastor what they already know without providing a better understanding of any of it.
May 7, 2018
This short book is a very helpful survey of the oft-confusing field of "biblical theology." The authors' goal is not to provide ANOTHER definition of the term but to survey the current definitions. Though they admit their model is not the only way to analyze the constitutive differences, their model does is decidedly helpful. The decision to situation the five "models" on a continuum from "History" to "Theology" importantly provides a way to share both distinctions between closely-related methods as well as point out the interconnections of radically-different methods.
That each section and chapter utilized the same layout was especially pleasing. Each section opened with a chapter that defined the "type" of biblical theology, describing its scope, sources, and task. That introductory chapter was then followed by a chapter interacting with one biblical theologian that the authors felt best instantiated the type. Thankfully, Klink & Lockett did NOT take this as an opportunity to introduce some of the more obscure players in the field, but deal instead with the "big guns": James Barr, N.T. Wright, Brevard Childs, Francis Watson, and the like. (To be clear, the "type-definition" chapters do source and quote a number of different scholars; following the footnotes there will give you a good idea of the key scholars working within each model's parameters.)
Their choice to present only one scholar within each identified type for in-depth analysis, though limiting, was a wise choice, I think. It silences, for the reader, the cacophony of scholarly voices that has created the present crisis of definition for the task of biblical theology. It also nicely demonstrates that, though there is a wide range of definitions of the task available, "biblical theology" has enough of a defined shape to be considered a specific sub-discipline of biblical and theological studies.
Without delving into each of their analyses, I would like to offer what I think are the especially helpful analyses of individual scholars.
> Their work on James Barr is very helpful, especially since Barr's posture is always that of the "critic" rather than the "constructor." I've read portions of his "The Concept of Biblical Theology" and felt frustrated that he never seemed to articulate his own understanding of biblical theology, but just criticized others' understanding. This book helped to fill that in.
> Their chapter on Wright was especially helpful in how they outlined his disagreements with Hays (a scholar whom I deeply admire).
> Finally, their section on Francis Watson was also admirable, especially in the way it mapped the radically interdisciplinary nature of his work.
This is the kind of book that I think would repay careful study by specialist and non-specialist alike. It is a great "introduction" to the field of biblical studies but would probably doubly repay the careful student who returned to it AFTER deeply two or more of the scholars mentioned here. Very helpful read!
That each section and chapter utilized the same layout was especially pleasing. Each section opened with a chapter that defined the "type" of biblical theology, describing its scope, sources, and task. That introductory chapter was then followed by a chapter interacting with one biblical theologian that the authors felt best instantiated the type. Thankfully, Klink & Lockett did NOT take this as an opportunity to introduce some of the more obscure players in the field, but deal instead with the "big guns": James Barr, N.T. Wright, Brevard Childs, Francis Watson, and the like. (To be clear, the "type-definition" chapters do source and quote a number of different scholars; following the footnotes there will give you a good idea of the key scholars working within each model's parameters.)
Their choice to present only one scholar within each identified type for in-depth analysis, though limiting, was a wise choice, I think. It silences, for the reader, the cacophony of scholarly voices that has created the present crisis of definition for the task of biblical theology. It also nicely demonstrates that, though there is a wide range of definitions of the task available, "biblical theology" has enough of a defined shape to be considered a specific sub-discipline of biblical and theological studies.
Without delving into each of their analyses, I would like to offer what I think are the especially helpful analyses of individual scholars.
> Their work on James Barr is very helpful, especially since Barr's posture is always that of the "critic" rather than the "constructor." I've read portions of his "The Concept of Biblical Theology" and felt frustrated that he never seemed to articulate his own understanding of biblical theology, but just criticized others' understanding. This book helped to fill that in.
> Their chapter on Wright was especially helpful in how they outlined his disagreements with Hays (a scholar whom I deeply admire).
> Finally, their section on Francis Watson was also admirable, especially in the way it mapped the radically interdisciplinary nature of his work.
This is the kind of book that I think would repay careful study by specialist and non-specialist alike. It is a great "introduction" to the field of biblical studies but would probably doubly repay the careful student who returned to it AFTER deeply two or more of the scholars mentioned here. Very helpful read!
April 10, 2019
Much to think about. The authors succeeded in presenting a spectrum (between history and theology) of five current models of biblical theology.
I do think that the spectrum itself is not as accurate as they make out. Barring the fifth model (Francis Watson), all exemplified different aspects of history: description, progression, construction, and reception. It seems that history—and rightly so—is inescapable. I also found the fifth model to be closer to a hermeneutical model than ‘biblical theolog’. However, in saying that, I am presupposing a specific view of just what ‘biblical theology’ is.
In summary, I found myself to be somewhere between the second (Carson, Goldsworthy, Vos, Rosner, Beale, &co.) and third (Wright, Hays, Bauckham) models. Helpful clarity and nuance can be seen in the fourth and fifth models.
I do think that the spectrum itself is not as accurate as they make out. Barring the fifth model (Francis Watson), all exemplified different aspects of history: description, progression, construction, and reception. It seems that history—and rightly so—is inescapable. I also found the fifth model to be closer to a hermeneutical model than ‘biblical theolog’. However, in saying that, I am presupposing a specific view of just what ‘biblical theology’ is.
In summary, I found myself to be somewhere between the second (Carson, Goldsworthy, Vos, Rosner, Beale, &co.) and third (Wright, Hays, Bauckham) models. Helpful clarity and nuance can be seen in the fourth and fifth models.
February 8, 2025
A clear and concise summary of 5 approaches to biblical theology, seeking, specifically, to understand each approach's relationship to history in theology. The authors also provide a modern theologian as an example of each approach's methodology.
September 26, 2013
This is a helpful but rather technical book that maps out the various approaches to the Bible that call themselves Biblical Theology. The layout could not be more helpful. The book surveys four approaches that call themselves Biblical Theology (and one that doesn't but is - you'll have to read the book to find out which one) and places them each on a continuum from historical to theological. Each approach is described in one chapter and then further explored in a second chapter that focuses on one of its advocates (such as D.A. Carson, N.T. Wright, and Brevard Childs). Perhaps the most helpful element of the book is the conclusion which contains a chart of sorts comparing the five approaches and summarizing their view under five key headings (such as relationship of the OT to the NT, whether it's for the church or the academy, etc.).
If you don't understand Biblical Theology because it is new to you, please don't start here. This is not the book for you. You will likely end up bored and confused. Instead start with something like Alexander's Eden to the New Jerusalem or Goldworthy's According to Plan.
If on the other hand you don't understand Biblical Theology because you have encountered various approaches to the Bible that all call themselves Biblical Theology, then this book will provide the clarity you are looking for.
If you don't understand Biblical Theology because it is new to you, please don't start here. This is not the book for you. You will likely end up bored and confused. Instead start with something like Alexander's Eden to the New Jerusalem or Goldworthy's According to Plan.
If on the other hand you don't understand Biblical Theology because you have encountered various approaches to the Bible that all call themselves Biblical Theology, then this book will provide the clarity you are looking for.
December 27, 2012
Klink and Lockett attempt to bring some clarity to the confusion that exists regarding the very definition and subsequent methodology of biblical theology. Explaining by way of overview and then investigation into a chief proponent, the authors describe five different models (historical description, redemptive history, worldview-story, canonical, and theological construction - labeled BT1 through BT5 respectively) that enjoy popularity amongst theologians, biblical scholars, and pastors. In each case, the authors attempt delve into each model by means of the same criteria (e.g., OT/NT relationship, scope and source, church/academy, etc.). Though it would be nice if each proponent surveyed authored their own contribution to the volume, the approach of the book does have the advantage of consistency and continuity. This is a valuable if uneven volume (each of the models was not described with the same clarity - see BT5 - though this is probably a function of the model, not the authors' ability to explain a model). My ThM Biblical Theology students will be required to read it.
March 10, 2019
3.5 stars
I really wanted to like this book a lot more than I did. The field of Biblical Theology is complicated and a book like this could really help. The book looks at 5 different approaches to BT and a particular theologian as an example of that method: Historical Description (James Barr); Redemptive History ( DA Carson); Narrative-Worldview (NT Wright); Canonical Approach (Brevard Childs); Theological Construction (Francis Watson). However, because the authors strive to make each chapter relatively brief, they rush through complex theories that need more explanation. I would have loved to have examples of how each perspective interpreted a specific passage from the OT. Aside from the historical description approach (which is basically a secular model) I found things I agreed with in each method, but most so in Carson’s and Wright’s. Watson intrigued me and Childs confused me.
I really wanted to like this book a lot more than I did. The field of Biblical Theology is complicated and a book like this could really help. The book looks at 5 different approaches to BT and a particular theologian as an example of that method: Historical Description (James Barr); Redemptive History ( DA Carson); Narrative-Worldview (NT Wright); Canonical Approach (Brevard Childs); Theological Construction (Francis Watson). However, because the authors strive to make each chapter relatively brief, they rush through complex theories that need more explanation. I would have loved to have examples of how each perspective interpreted a specific passage from the OT. Aside from the historical description approach (which is basically a secular model) I found things I agreed with in each method, but most so in Carson’s and Wright’s. Watson intrigued me and Childs confused me.
December 26, 2025
What is Biblical theology? By biblical theology I’m not talking about a theology that is biblical; I’m talking about the discipline of study that touches among other things, how does the Bible has unity between the Old Testament and New Testament even as there are diversity in terms of the writings and literary style in the many books of the Bible. I have been looking for a book comparing and contrasting different methods of Biblical theology; and I thought this book that Zondervan Academic published was really helpful in that regards! The authors Edward W. Klink III and Darian R. Lockett are professors who teach on Biblical Theology and subjects related to Biblical theology at Talbot School of Theology and Biola University. So they are individuals who would be in the position to write on a survey of biblical theology methods. The two authors did a good job giving the survey of the various approaches towards Biblical theology and it was informative and balanced.
The book has an introduction on the spectrum of Biblical Theology. Besides the conclusion the book has a total of ten chapters that are grouped in five parts and the five parts cover the five types of Biblical theology. Each part, going over one type of Biblical theology, has two chapters since one chapter is about the definition and description of a specific method of biblical theology and then this is followed by a chapter on an individual scholar known for the type of biblical theology. For example for type two biblical theology it goes over Biblical theology as history of redemption where a chapter explains what it is and then the next chapter goes over D.A. Carson as an exemplar of someone who put this method into practice. The five types of biblical theology covered are “Biblical theology as historical description” (with the example of James Barr), “Biblical theology as history of redemption,” “Biblical theology as worldview-story” (N.T. Wright is the scholar being focused on for this school), “Biblical theology as canonical approach” (with the example of Brevard Child) and “Biblical theology as theological construction” (with the example of Francis Watson).
I found this work very helpful. I even learn of types of Biblical theology I never knew about before this book, especially with type five. I have also been able to understand better types of biblical theology that I have heard about before but needed to more about such as the canonical approach and James Barr’s approach to biblical theology. Even with my favorite type of biblical theology (Biblical theology as history of redemption) I learned from this book and have a further greater appreciation for this approach. I am grateful the authors wrote this book as this is a valuable contribution.
The book has an introduction on the spectrum of Biblical Theology. Besides the conclusion the book has a total of ten chapters that are grouped in five parts and the five parts cover the five types of Biblical theology. Each part, going over one type of Biblical theology, has two chapters since one chapter is about the definition and description of a specific method of biblical theology and then this is followed by a chapter on an individual scholar known for the type of biblical theology. For example for type two biblical theology it goes over Biblical theology as history of redemption where a chapter explains what it is and then the next chapter goes over D.A. Carson as an exemplar of someone who put this method into practice. The five types of biblical theology covered are “Biblical theology as historical description” (with the example of James Barr), “Biblical theology as history of redemption,” “Biblical theology as worldview-story” (N.T. Wright is the scholar being focused on for this school), “Biblical theology as canonical approach” (with the example of Brevard Child) and “Biblical theology as theological construction” (with the example of Francis Watson).
I found this work very helpful. I even learn of types of Biblical theology I never knew about before this book, especially with type five. I have also been able to understand better types of biblical theology that I have heard about before but needed to more about such as the canonical approach and James Barr’s approach to biblical theology. Even with my favorite type of biblical theology (Biblical theology as history of redemption) I learned from this book and have a further greater appreciation for this approach. I am grateful the authors wrote this book as this is a valuable contribution.
Read
October 28, 2022A very useful guide to various approaches to biblical theology. Klink and Lockett present a taxonomy of 5 schools of thought with a helpful summary chart that compares each one's perspective on give key issues: (1) the relationship between the testaments, (2) the question of historical diversity vs. theological unity, (3) the scope and sources of biblical theology, (4) the subject matter of biblical theology, and (5) the question of whether biblical theology belongs in the academy or the church.
They present an example of each of the 5 types of biblical theology they survey.
This is a useful book for an upper-division class for Bible majors or for a seminary course on biblical theology.
They present an example of each of the 5 types of biblical theology they survey.
This is a useful book for an upper-division class for Bible majors or for a seminary course on biblical theology.
August 13, 2023
I couldn’t sleep and I needed to finish this book by the end of this week so here we are! To be honest I didn’t understand a lot of this book. As it described the 5 schools of though in Biblical Theology, I kept running into the question, “how is this one different from the last one?” But the authors addressed this in their conclusion, stating that it further illustrates the maddening confusion and lack of clarity even among some of the brightest minds in the church and academia. This was a major “sip from a fire hydrant” read where I learned more about how much I still NEED to learn than anything else. But for those wanting to start a journey of learning about Biblical Theology, this is likely a great place to start!
May 22, 2024
This is a helpful introduction various issues of method in biblical theology. However, I am not convinced that each of these are mutually exclusive. D.A. Carson has a great article that responds to this book: "New Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology" in God's Glory Revealed in Christ: Essays on Biblical Theology in Honor of Thomas R. Schreiner. I'd recommend anyone reading this book to read that article after. Carson's observations are very helpful. BT1 is founded on naturalistic assumptions and is not properly biblical theology. BT2–4 are not exactly distinct. BT5 is essentially "attaching the biblical theology label to all that they do," making it indistinguishable from other steps in theological method, such as systematic theology (Carson, 26). Nevertheless, this work remains a helpful introduction to the task of biblical theology.
August 10, 2023
I'm so glad to have finally finished this book, and it seems like divine providence that I came back to it at the time I did.
Loved hearing the different perspectives on how to do biblical theology, and thought it was well done. My only criticism is that, with such a brief book, it is hard to really (and fairly) describe each perspective. But it is certainly written with objectivity, and will hopefully move an important conversation forward.
I pretty quickly realized I am aligned with their BT5 model. :)
Loved hearing the different perspectives on how to do biblical theology, and thought it was well done. My only criticism is that, with such a brief book, it is hard to really (and fairly) describe each perspective. But it is certainly written with objectivity, and will hopefully move an important conversation forward.
I pretty quickly realized I am aligned with their BT5 model. :)
July 3, 2020
Interviews:
https://secundumscripturas.com/2019/0...
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/bl...
Reviews:
https://www.booksataglance.com/book-r...
https://www.9marks.org/review/underst...
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/th...
https://podcast.cbs.mbts.edu/e/curren... (also see D. A. Carson, “New Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology,” in God’s Glory Revealed in Christ: Essays in Honor of Tom Schreiner, eds. James Hamilton, Denny Burk, and Brian J. Vickers [B&H Academic, 2019], 17–31).
https://secundumscripturas.com/2019/0...
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/bl...
Reviews:
https://www.booksataglance.com/book-r...
https://www.9marks.org/review/underst...
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/th...
https://podcast.cbs.mbts.edu/e/curren... (also see D. A. Carson, “New Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology,” in God’s Glory Revealed in Christ: Essays in Honor of Tom Schreiner, eds. James Hamilton, Denny Burk, and Brian J. Vickers [B&H Academic, 2019], 17–31).
December 11, 2023
Peep Carsten’s rating scale for more info.
Good book to lay the land of different types of biblical theology. Didn’t know there was so many differences, really good and in depth description, strengths, weaknesses, and popular guys who develop and support each view. But also, not a long book, super small, read on an airplane type book.
👍👍
Good book to lay the land of different types of biblical theology. Didn’t know there was so many differences, really good and in depth description, strengths, weaknesses, and popular guys who develop and support each view. But also, not a long book, super small, read on an airplane type book.
👍👍
April 12, 2018
A very accessible introduction to biblical theology.
November 10, 2024
Hard for my uneducated brain to grasp, but useful as a reference when trying to learn how a scholar/author views the Bible. I’ve never slogged this slowly through such a short book.
July 31, 2018
Insightful survey of the issues and positions in modern discussions of biblical theology. I plan on utilizing it for my STM thesis. I find myself somewhere around BT4 and BT5.
June 27, 2021
4.5 stars. Attempted to delineate and explain the different forms of biblical theology of various major hermeneutic methods among scholarly debates. Though the authors did claim that the task was not as straightforward as it is presented in the 5 schools, because there are overlaps between the methods/models, and some of these models cannot be strictly delineated as forms of "biblical theology" as much as they are methods of interpretation and hermeneutic philosophies that treat the OT and NT as an entire Scripture. Rather, they have helpfully arranged these models (1 - 5) on a scale from historical to theological. Because of its attempt at brevity, it was not an easy read, hence 4.5 stars.
The first school is the historical criticism/higher criticism method, represented by the works of James Barr. Its most obvious strength is its focus on the historical objectivity of each book, therefore allowing the main concern and theology of each book to stand on its own, as the authors also agreed that BT1 "seeks a theology of the Bible in its own terms and based on its own context...remains committed to an authority of the Bible that seeks first and foremost its own message". Secondly, part of Barr's contribution to the model of BT1 also the attitude of "keeping the discipline honest and insisting that rigorous methodology be applied to one's work". This emphasis helpfully leads to the encouragement of the use of many different methodologies and means of research to help us come to a better grasp of biblical theology. However, the weaknesses of this BT1 far outweigh the strengths, to the point that it is least deserving of the title "biblical theology." Most saliently, even in its attempt to "let the Bible speak for its own self to and its own theology," it inevitably enforces ONLY a historical mode of theology that flatly contradicts what many parts of the Scripture claims for itself: that there is a historical, theological, and canonical unity throughout the Scripture, and that Scriptures claims for itself that the theology that lies behind the historical circumstances transcend history. As it flatly contradicts the theological claim of the Scripture itself, it is no wonder that the implication of this model ceases to hold on to the doctrine of canonicity and unity, and therefore, it is too immanent and absolutely non-transcendental at all, and the result is that the discipline of "biblical theology" loses the exact boundaries of what is "biblical." In this sense of absolute immanence, it almost becomes pantheistic, as history and culture are elevated to the same degree of importance as the biblical data. Ultimately, as it also loses a reference to the transcendental, it also becomes absolutely relativistic, and the result is that it is placed beyond the grasp of the church because it loses a grounding on divine authority and relevance to life altogether as the immanence cannot exist without taking reference from the transcendental. On this matter of a "pantheistic-immanent" mode of BT1, the authors add that "Barr's insistence on scholarly objectivity seems to led to a methodological naturalism in his pursuit of the theology of the bible," which, at the same time separating the church from the academic because BT1 separates scholarly academic work with the Bible from devotional concern with the Bible, at the same time ironically, flatly contradicts what the Bible speaks for itself.
BT2 is the model I personally subscribe to, especially of the Philadelphia school. The authors identified three "school" under this model: the "Chicago" school represented by Don Carson (obvious because TEDS is in Chicago, the "Dallas" school represented dispensationalism scholars (as DTS popularized the dispy system), and the "Philadelphia" school (taking cues from Vos and his heirs in WTS Phila). Therefore, I am able to heartily point out many of its strength and deemed it most suitable for the title of the discipline "biblical theology." Firstly, the BT2 model treats seriously the biblical data as it recognizes it as self-revelation of God. Contrary to the BT1 model that attempts to construct a reality that is above or behind the biblical data and bind "biblical theology" to temporal history, BT2 recognizes what the Bible claims for itself as being inspired by God. Therefore, part of the implication of this strength is that BT2 is also an "interpretation of Scripture in and for the church," as divine inspiration would also imply divinely authority and infallibility, hence it is intensely practical, sufficient and essential for the life of the church and all individual members. Secondly, the strength of the BT2 model is that it commits to the fact that "God's self-revelation is necessarily progressive." The fact that the BT2 model is historical and progressive is an extension of the fact that it treats seriously the biblical data, as both genealogy and history are important driving factors of the entire canon. The specific strength allows the model of BT2 to be able to treat both "the part and the whole" faithfully. Finally, also an extension to the previous strengths of the BT2 model mentioned, another strength of this model is that it treats the entire biblical canon as a unity, and therefore the self-revelation of God "constitutes a unified message." This is the most important strength as it is also the culmination of all the previous implication, as the self-revelation of God, attested in the biblical canon itself, presents a unified redemptive history that is climaxed in the person and work of Jesus Christ, for the life and goal of the church. Therefore, model BT2 finds the person and work of Jesus Christ at its foundation, centre, and end. One weakness that is mentioned by the authors concerned specifically the Chicago school of BT2, with the main problem being that D. A. Carson's description and methodology of BT2 seems to distinguish too sharply from the discipline of systematic theology, and suggest that it is able to remain theologically neutral and "presupposition-less." The author contends that constructing biblical theology on the axis of "redemptive-history" is itself a theological presupposition and abstraction, as preferable over any other forms of contending presupposition, concepts or abstractions. However, this weakness might be more apparent than real, since Richard Gaffin is cited for this exact critique against the Chicago school, and Gaffin himself represents the Philadelphia school. Whereas in the Philadelphia school, Geerhardus Vos does not distinguish between biblical theology or systematic theology too sharply, and Edmund Clowney from the Philadephia school would also contend that both BT and ST continues to influence and inform one another in a "hermeneutical spiral." Hence, perhaps a weakness would be that some practical aspects of it may become too circular and self-validating, such as reading a theological position into the text.
BT3 model, represented by slightly mainline scholars such as N.T. Wright and Richard Hays, essentially holds that the Scripture is best read as a unified narrative, that "the theological shape of Scripture surfaces by focusing on the narrative aspect of Paul's (or the NT's) use of Israel's 'story'... assumes a narrative unity as the starting point for reading the Bible as a whole." Scholars of this model attempt to balance the tension between history and theology by using the category of narrative, and therefore to read and understand each part of the Scripture to a larger whole. One obvious strength of this model is that it gives heavyweight emphasis to the unity and canonicity of the entire Scripture. Another major strength is that it seeks to understand the entire Bible as a narrative that the church can continue to participate in, which is an implication of 1 Corinthians 10:1-22, where Paul sees the church as continuing to live out the story of Israel in exile (perhaps there is overlap with BT2 here). Thirdly, BT3 also seeks to be faithful and to uncover the author's worldview behind each canonical book. There are however various weaknesses and inconsistencies in the model of BT3. Firstly, the tension between Wright's and Hay's model demonstrates where this major weakness exist: where do we begin to construct the historical worldview of the biblical authors? For Hays, it is in Paul's use of the OT, whereas for Wright, it includes noncanonical and materials from 2nd temple Judaism. When it concerns noncanonical materials, more weaknesses surface, such as the compromising of canonicity, or placing this discipline of BT3 above the reach of the average churchgoer or reader of the Bible. This insistence of extracanonical material seems to be a contradiction to canonicity since putting noncanonical and canonical material on equal authoritative terms compromises the notion of a "canon". Furthermore, Hays also disagrees with Wright's insistence on "critical realism" that seems to give the axis of historical narrative the ultimate priority of doing theology, which is a similar critique against the Chicago school of BT2, with Murray Rae adding that "the important question to be considered is whether the faith or dogma informing the New Testament witness obscures or helps to reveal the reality which we are concerned." Wright, or even Hays, like the Chicago school of BT2, seems to think that giving a priority to historical narrative would be a successful attempt to be "presupposition-less," but whether it is constructing worldview from 2nd temple Judaism of Wright, or Paul's theology of Hays, both methods are undergirded by theological presuppositions. Additionally, it is not entirely evident why there is a position of privilege for "Paul's theology" over "John's theology" or "Synoptic theology". Besides that, Wright's style of BT3 also seems to conflate the discipline of biblical theology and systematic theology. By ignoring theological presuppositions altogether and ignoring historical, catholic readings of Scripture, Wright risk becoming a "biblicist" and have various times challenged important doctrines that are core to the evangelical faith, yet at the same time try to sound like being within the bounds of orthodoxy as well (John Frame calls this the "conservative/orthodoxy bent"). For example, Wright has often taken issue with the doctrine of penal substitution but says a lot of things concerning the atonement that sounds ironically close to the doctrine of penal substitution. The authors mentioned the doctrine of repentance as an example of Wright's methodology of doing systematic theology. Finally, what sets the BT3 model apart from BT2, in my mind, is that BT3 gives higher priority to the OT as the historical axis to do biblical theology, since the OT comes precedent in history, whereas BT2 attempts to unify the two testaments through "progressive revelation." Hence, BT3 is in a more advantageous position to be faithful to the individual OT books, yet it might potentially also exist as a weakness because it does not allow the progressive revelation of the NT to bring additional exegetical depth to the OT, and in turn, potentially makes the OT a potentially limiting interpreting framework on the NT.
BT4 model, singlehandedly constructed by Brevard Childs, is known as the canonical approach to biblical theology and aims to conduct the task of exegesis and biblical theology in the context of the Christian canon. The "Christian canon" as understood by advocates of this model, does not mean canon as in the "list of standardization text," but rather, "canon as a norm to how Christian Scripture functions in light of its collective form." Therefore, two main aspects are central to this approach: the historical development of the canon and how it is received and understood by the community of faith. The first obvious strength of BT4 is that it seeks holds to the unity of the entire Christian canon. Secondly, it seeks to balance both historical and theological aspects of the Christian Scripture and, therefore, strive to attain a balance between the Scripture in the academy and Scripture in the church. Thirdly, it is intentionally practical for the life of the church as it holds highly the value of ecclesiastical tradition and the community of faith, by asserting an interdependent relationship of the canon and the church as "between canon and the confessing church runs a life-supporting unbiblical cord through which the necessary nutrients flow both ways." Fourthly, connected to its intentionally practical aspect for the life of the church is also its Christocentric goal concerning the task of exegesis and biblical theology. However, there exist a few salient weaknesses for the model of BT4 as well. Most notably and critically (pun intended), BT4 functions in the context of higher criticism and historical criticism. While still trying to preserve theological and transcendental values for the life of the church, the wholesale acceptance of historical criticism inevitably presents this model as "a strange mixture of some of the tendencies of 'conservatism' alongside the stand, more 'liberal' appropriation of historical criticism." It goes without saying that the adoption of higher criticism already betrays certain forms of theological presuppositions that do not align with certain historic Christian article of doctrines, such as the divine inspiration and perfection of the Scriptures. This also leads to the second weakness, when trying to situate the theological aspect of the canon in the life of the ecclesiastical community, at the same time holding on to naturalistic presuppositions of historical criticism, "biblical theology" then becomes entirely non-transcendental and as purely the results of the historical development of ecclesiastical or cultic tradition. There must be a vital relationship between the church and the Scripture, as "the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). Yet, if historical criticism is held in tandem with ecclesiastical tradition, then the canon becomes a product of the church, rather than the other way round, with the word of God bearing the truth of the Gospel as the foundation of the church. Therefore, it leads to another weakness, since the canon is entirely a historical-naturalistic process and non-supernatural, the begging questions are then "which community" and "which canon"? The authors also note this weakness, especially concerning contradictory interpretation between different ecclesiastical traditions, and worse still, between Judaism and Christianity understanding of the OT canon. In a nutshell, even though BT4 attempts to "constrain historical criticism with theological presuppositions and controls," it has already started on the wrong foot merely by the adoption of higher criticism philosophies, as historical criticism and the confessional tradition of the church that is based on the Scripture is irreconcilable because historical criticism begins with presuppositions that flatly contradicts the divine nature of the Scripture that has been confessed by the catholic and historical church, as well as imposed and self-attested by the canon itself, and it goes without saying that higher criticism has often been over-confident and presumptuous of its ability to "trace a canonical, history of religious development," even with the jarring lack of external archaeological evidence (for example, no "pre-canonical" versions of the Torah has been discovered).
BT5, represented by a wide range of scholars from various traditions (Francis Watson, Christopher Seitz, Kevin Vanhoozer), contains several overlaps with the previous models as it seeks to place biblical theology as ultimately a theological discipline for the church. Like BT2, it admits to outright theological presupposition and rejects modernity's goal of "ultimate objectivity." Like BT3, it attempts to place the task of biblical theology ultimately in the church as it concerns theological question for the life of the church (worldview questions). Like BT4, it attempts to place the reading of the Scripture into the larger connection of historical church and therefore allows the Scripture to be "a living text...interpreted within the live worship of the contemporary church." At the same time, it also shares with BT2 and BT4 the ultimate Christocentric focus of the Scripture as a means, goal and unity of the canon of Scripture. However, there are several weaknesses as this model tries to strive for a balanced tension in the "meeting-in-the-middle relationship between the Bible's divine status and the community in which it is deemed authoritative and embodied." The reason why the author placed BT5 as the last model is precisely that on the spectrum between "history to theology," this model seems to be the most theological and least historical, even when it tries to place itself along with the historical reading of the church. But by doing so, it does not seek the history of redemption but the historical-theological concern of the church, and most preeminently the theological concern of the church in the current contemporary community, which can be subjected to change, evidently in denominations that have gone liberal. Even though its theological premises is, so far, orthodox, as suggested by the authors, which is to read the Bible as the authoritative revelation of God in Christ for the church, but it does not guard against future changes of theological presupposition because of its lack of emphasis on redemptive history in the Bible itself by focusing too much of the theological concern of the current church. This is seen evidently in John Milbank's critique that "university-based systematic theology has been dominated by models dependent on the social sciences and modernist philosophy." An example of this, even though it may be able to safeguard its basic theological premises mentioned above, Francis Watson has demonstrated that it has no problem in adopting Barthian theology. Although Barthian doctrine of Scripture and revelation differs from Reformed theology, it has a similar practical implication, as Scripture remains authoritatively as the revelation of the Triune God in Christ. However, the downstream implication is seen in the doctrine of salvation and so on, as Barthian theology allows for a universal atonement and salvation. In conclusion, I do think that this discipline of "theological-reading of Scripture" can be extremely helpful for the church in answering theological questions and ethical concerns for the church today, but it is not “biblical-theology" because it concerns not so much with the biblical data in and of itself but theological implications for the church.
The first school is the historical criticism/higher criticism method, represented by the works of James Barr. Its most obvious strength is its focus on the historical objectivity of each book, therefore allowing the main concern and theology of each book to stand on its own, as the authors also agreed that BT1 "seeks a theology of the Bible in its own terms and based on its own context...remains committed to an authority of the Bible that seeks first and foremost its own message". Secondly, part of Barr's contribution to the model of BT1 also the attitude of "keeping the discipline honest and insisting that rigorous methodology be applied to one's work". This emphasis helpfully leads to the encouragement of the use of many different methodologies and means of research to help us come to a better grasp of biblical theology. However, the weaknesses of this BT1 far outweigh the strengths, to the point that it is least deserving of the title "biblical theology." Most saliently, even in its attempt to "let the Bible speak for its own self to and its own theology," it inevitably enforces ONLY a historical mode of theology that flatly contradicts what many parts of the Scripture claims for itself: that there is a historical, theological, and canonical unity throughout the Scripture, and that Scriptures claims for itself that the theology that lies behind the historical circumstances transcend history. As it flatly contradicts the theological claim of the Scripture itself, it is no wonder that the implication of this model ceases to hold on to the doctrine of canonicity and unity, and therefore, it is too immanent and absolutely non-transcendental at all, and the result is that the discipline of "biblical theology" loses the exact boundaries of what is "biblical." In this sense of absolute immanence, it almost becomes pantheistic, as history and culture are elevated to the same degree of importance as the biblical data. Ultimately, as it also loses a reference to the transcendental, it also becomes absolutely relativistic, and the result is that it is placed beyond the grasp of the church because it loses a grounding on divine authority and relevance to life altogether as the immanence cannot exist without taking reference from the transcendental. On this matter of a "pantheistic-immanent" mode of BT1, the authors add that "Barr's insistence on scholarly objectivity seems to led to a methodological naturalism in his pursuit of the theology of the bible," which, at the same time separating the church from the academic because BT1 separates scholarly academic work with the Bible from devotional concern with the Bible, at the same time ironically, flatly contradicts what the Bible speaks for itself.
BT2 is the model I personally subscribe to, especially of the Philadelphia school. The authors identified three "school" under this model: the "Chicago" school represented by Don Carson (obvious because TEDS is in Chicago, the "Dallas" school represented dispensationalism scholars (as DTS popularized the dispy system), and the "Philadelphia" school (taking cues from Vos and his heirs in WTS Phila). Therefore, I am able to heartily point out many of its strength and deemed it most suitable for the title of the discipline "biblical theology." Firstly, the BT2 model treats seriously the biblical data as it recognizes it as self-revelation of God. Contrary to the BT1 model that attempts to construct a reality that is above or behind the biblical data and bind "biblical theology" to temporal history, BT2 recognizes what the Bible claims for itself as being inspired by God. Therefore, part of the implication of this strength is that BT2 is also an "interpretation of Scripture in and for the church," as divine inspiration would also imply divinely authority and infallibility, hence it is intensely practical, sufficient and essential for the life of the church and all individual members. Secondly, the strength of the BT2 model is that it commits to the fact that "God's self-revelation is necessarily progressive." The fact that the BT2 model is historical and progressive is an extension of the fact that it treats seriously the biblical data, as both genealogy and history are important driving factors of the entire canon. The specific strength allows the model of BT2 to be able to treat both "the part and the whole" faithfully. Finally, also an extension to the previous strengths of the BT2 model mentioned, another strength of this model is that it treats the entire biblical canon as a unity, and therefore the self-revelation of God "constitutes a unified message." This is the most important strength as it is also the culmination of all the previous implication, as the self-revelation of God, attested in the biblical canon itself, presents a unified redemptive history that is climaxed in the person and work of Jesus Christ, for the life and goal of the church. Therefore, model BT2 finds the person and work of Jesus Christ at its foundation, centre, and end. One weakness that is mentioned by the authors concerned specifically the Chicago school of BT2, with the main problem being that D. A. Carson's description and methodology of BT2 seems to distinguish too sharply from the discipline of systematic theology, and suggest that it is able to remain theologically neutral and "presupposition-less." The author contends that constructing biblical theology on the axis of "redemptive-history" is itself a theological presupposition and abstraction, as preferable over any other forms of contending presupposition, concepts or abstractions. However, this weakness might be more apparent than real, since Richard Gaffin is cited for this exact critique against the Chicago school, and Gaffin himself represents the Philadelphia school. Whereas in the Philadelphia school, Geerhardus Vos does not distinguish between biblical theology or systematic theology too sharply, and Edmund Clowney from the Philadephia school would also contend that both BT and ST continues to influence and inform one another in a "hermeneutical spiral." Hence, perhaps a weakness would be that some practical aspects of it may become too circular and self-validating, such as reading a theological position into the text.
BT3 model, represented by slightly mainline scholars such as N.T. Wright and Richard Hays, essentially holds that the Scripture is best read as a unified narrative, that "the theological shape of Scripture surfaces by focusing on the narrative aspect of Paul's (or the NT's) use of Israel's 'story'... assumes a narrative unity as the starting point for reading the Bible as a whole." Scholars of this model attempt to balance the tension between history and theology by using the category of narrative, and therefore to read and understand each part of the Scripture to a larger whole. One obvious strength of this model is that it gives heavyweight emphasis to the unity and canonicity of the entire Scripture. Another major strength is that it seeks to understand the entire Bible as a narrative that the church can continue to participate in, which is an implication of 1 Corinthians 10:1-22, where Paul sees the church as continuing to live out the story of Israel in exile (perhaps there is overlap with BT2 here). Thirdly, BT3 also seeks to be faithful and to uncover the author's worldview behind each canonical book. There are however various weaknesses and inconsistencies in the model of BT3. Firstly, the tension between Wright's and Hay's model demonstrates where this major weakness exist: where do we begin to construct the historical worldview of the biblical authors? For Hays, it is in Paul's use of the OT, whereas for Wright, it includes noncanonical and materials from 2nd temple Judaism. When it concerns noncanonical materials, more weaknesses surface, such as the compromising of canonicity, or placing this discipline of BT3 above the reach of the average churchgoer or reader of the Bible. This insistence of extracanonical material seems to be a contradiction to canonicity since putting noncanonical and canonical material on equal authoritative terms compromises the notion of a "canon". Furthermore, Hays also disagrees with Wright's insistence on "critical realism" that seems to give the axis of historical narrative the ultimate priority of doing theology, which is a similar critique against the Chicago school of BT2, with Murray Rae adding that "the important question to be considered is whether the faith or dogma informing the New Testament witness obscures or helps to reveal the reality which we are concerned." Wright, or even Hays, like the Chicago school of BT2, seems to think that giving a priority to historical narrative would be a successful attempt to be "presupposition-less," but whether it is constructing worldview from 2nd temple Judaism of Wright, or Paul's theology of Hays, both methods are undergirded by theological presuppositions. Additionally, it is not entirely evident why there is a position of privilege for "Paul's theology" over "John's theology" or "Synoptic theology". Besides that, Wright's style of BT3 also seems to conflate the discipline of biblical theology and systematic theology. By ignoring theological presuppositions altogether and ignoring historical, catholic readings of Scripture, Wright risk becoming a "biblicist" and have various times challenged important doctrines that are core to the evangelical faith, yet at the same time try to sound like being within the bounds of orthodoxy as well (John Frame calls this the "conservative/orthodoxy bent"). For example, Wright has often taken issue with the doctrine of penal substitution but says a lot of things concerning the atonement that sounds ironically close to the doctrine of penal substitution. The authors mentioned the doctrine of repentance as an example of Wright's methodology of doing systematic theology. Finally, what sets the BT3 model apart from BT2, in my mind, is that BT3 gives higher priority to the OT as the historical axis to do biblical theology, since the OT comes precedent in history, whereas BT2 attempts to unify the two testaments through "progressive revelation." Hence, BT3 is in a more advantageous position to be faithful to the individual OT books, yet it might potentially also exist as a weakness because it does not allow the progressive revelation of the NT to bring additional exegetical depth to the OT, and in turn, potentially makes the OT a potentially limiting interpreting framework on the NT.
BT4 model, singlehandedly constructed by Brevard Childs, is known as the canonical approach to biblical theology and aims to conduct the task of exegesis and biblical theology in the context of the Christian canon. The "Christian canon" as understood by advocates of this model, does not mean canon as in the "list of standardization text," but rather, "canon as a norm to how Christian Scripture functions in light of its collective form." Therefore, two main aspects are central to this approach: the historical development of the canon and how it is received and understood by the community of faith. The first obvious strength of BT4 is that it seeks holds to the unity of the entire Christian canon. Secondly, it seeks to balance both historical and theological aspects of the Christian Scripture and, therefore, strive to attain a balance between the Scripture in the academy and Scripture in the church. Thirdly, it is intentionally practical for the life of the church as it holds highly the value of ecclesiastical tradition and the community of faith, by asserting an interdependent relationship of the canon and the church as "between canon and the confessing church runs a life-supporting unbiblical cord through which the necessary nutrients flow both ways." Fourthly, connected to its intentionally practical aspect for the life of the church is also its Christocentric goal concerning the task of exegesis and biblical theology. However, there exist a few salient weaknesses for the model of BT4 as well. Most notably and critically (pun intended), BT4 functions in the context of higher criticism and historical criticism. While still trying to preserve theological and transcendental values for the life of the church, the wholesale acceptance of historical criticism inevitably presents this model as "a strange mixture of some of the tendencies of 'conservatism' alongside the stand, more 'liberal' appropriation of historical criticism." It goes without saying that the adoption of higher criticism already betrays certain forms of theological presuppositions that do not align with certain historic Christian article of doctrines, such as the divine inspiration and perfection of the Scriptures. This also leads to the second weakness, when trying to situate the theological aspect of the canon in the life of the ecclesiastical community, at the same time holding on to naturalistic presuppositions of historical criticism, "biblical theology" then becomes entirely non-transcendental and as purely the results of the historical development of ecclesiastical or cultic tradition. There must be a vital relationship between the church and the Scripture, as "the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). Yet, if historical criticism is held in tandem with ecclesiastical tradition, then the canon becomes a product of the church, rather than the other way round, with the word of God bearing the truth of the Gospel as the foundation of the church. Therefore, it leads to another weakness, since the canon is entirely a historical-naturalistic process and non-supernatural, the begging questions are then "which community" and "which canon"? The authors also note this weakness, especially concerning contradictory interpretation between different ecclesiastical traditions, and worse still, between Judaism and Christianity understanding of the OT canon. In a nutshell, even though BT4 attempts to "constrain historical criticism with theological presuppositions and controls," it has already started on the wrong foot merely by the adoption of higher criticism philosophies, as historical criticism and the confessional tradition of the church that is based on the Scripture is irreconcilable because historical criticism begins with presuppositions that flatly contradicts the divine nature of the Scripture that has been confessed by the catholic and historical church, as well as imposed and self-attested by the canon itself, and it goes without saying that higher criticism has often been over-confident and presumptuous of its ability to "trace a canonical, history of religious development," even with the jarring lack of external archaeological evidence (for example, no "pre-canonical" versions of the Torah has been discovered).
BT5, represented by a wide range of scholars from various traditions (Francis Watson, Christopher Seitz, Kevin Vanhoozer), contains several overlaps with the previous models as it seeks to place biblical theology as ultimately a theological discipline for the church. Like BT2, it admits to outright theological presupposition and rejects modernity's goal of "ultimate objectivity." Like BT3, it attempts to place the task of biblical theology ultimately in the church as it concerns theological question for the life of the church (worldview questions). Like BT4, it attempts to place the reading of the Scripture into the larger connection of historical church and therefore allows the Scripture to be "a living text...interpreted within the live worship of the contemporary church." At the same time, it also shares with BT2 and BT4 the ultimate Christocentric focus of the Scripture as a means, goal and unity of the canon of Scripture. However, there are several weaknesses as this model tries to strive for a balanced tension in the "meeting-in-the-middle relationship between the Bible's divine status and the community in which it is deemed authoritative and embodied." The reason why the author placed BT5 as the last model is precisely that on the spectrum between "history to theology," this model seems to be the most theological and least historical, even when it tries to place itself along with the historical reading of the church. But by doing so, it does not seek the history of redemption but the historical-theological concern of the church, and most preeminently the theological concern of the church in the current contemporary community, which can be subjected to change, evidently in denominations that have gone liberal. Even though its theological premises is, so far, orthodox, as suggested by the authors, which is to read the Bible as the authoritative revelation of God in Christ for the church, but it does not guard against future changes of theological presupposition because of its lack of emphasis on redemptive history in the Bible itself by focusing too much of the theological concern of the current church. This is seen evidently in John Milbank's critique that "university-based systematic theology has been dominated by models dependent on the social sciences and modernist philosophy." An example of this, even though it may be able to safeguard its basic theological premises mentioned above, Francis Watson has demonstrated that it has no problem in adopting Barthian theology. Although Barthian doctrine of Scripture and revelation differs from Reformed theology, it has a similar practical implication, as Scripture remains authoritatively as the revelation of the Triune God in Christ. However, the downstream implication is seen in the doctrine of salvation and so on, as Barthian theology allows for a universal atonement and salvation. In conclusion, I do think that this discipline of "theological-reading of Scripture" can be extremely helpful for the church in answering theological questions and ethical concerns for the church today, but it is not “biblical-theology" because it concerns not so much with the biblical data in and of itself but theological implications for the church.
March 15, 2020
An interesting read if you’re into the bifurcation and clarification of schools of thought in biblical theology. That is basically the essence of the book. It does not offer a model of BT, but rather, surveys the different approaches to and definitions of BT.
February 11, 2022
I wanted to like this book, but it was just too technical. I struggled all the way through it and at the end, was probably more confused than when I started. Perhaps if I read it again someday, I may appreciate it more. At least I've learned that the definition of biblical theology is more complicated that I, at first, thought.
November 17, 2017
Edward Klink and Darian Lockett join forces to guide us in defining the term “biblical theology”. In doing so, they will divide the scholarly world into five major schools of thought on the subject. In addition, they will compare theory and practice as well as the origin of it being the church or the academy. Both authors have already published major works. In particular, I greatly admire Klink’s recent commentary on the Gospel of John in ZECNT. I see him as a theological and scholarly writer to keep an eye on in the future.
The introductory chapter surveys what the authors call the spectrum of biblical theology. Though I read widely, I was a little surprised to see what I thought was a commonly accepted term so exactly defined and widely debated. Along the way, they will further try to separate the concept of biblical theology from systematic theology. As will become important as you read the rest of the text, in this introductory chapter they define the issues involved that divide scholars. How the Old Testament connects to the New Testament, whether we should look for historical diversity or theological unity, the impact of the scope and sources of biblical theology, what the actual subject matter of biblical theology is, and finally, whether biblical theology should be defined by the church or the academy. Make sure you linger over the small chart on page 22 that shows a logical way to view the five schools of thought. Spoiler alert: there’s an outstanding summary chart at the end of the book that will make it possible for you to review and make sure you followed the line of thought given in this book.
The design of the book is simple. There’s a chapter of defining the particular school of thought followed by a chapter that fully examines one of its major proponents. In a nutshell, you have biblical theology as historical description with James Barr, as history of redemption with D. A. Carson, as worldview-story with N. T. Wright, as canonical approach with Brevard Childs, and as theological construction with Francis Watson. Please don’t ask me where I land even after reading this book, though I find myself vacillating between the first two schools of thought. Strangely, each point of view had some aspects worth considering, even if some of them had more serious drawbacks.
Some might find this subject a hair too finally split, but I can’t imagine a resource that could more capably define the parameters of this subject. Believe it or not, the authors were so faithful to their task of explaining why this issue is hard and how it’s been viewed that they never championed one viewpoint over the others. This is THE book on the subject.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.
The introductory chapter surveys what the authors call the spectrum of biblical theology. Though I read widely, I was a little surprised to see what I thought was a commonly accepted term so exactly defined and widely debated. Along the way, they will further try to separate the concept of biblical theology from systematic theology. As will become important as you read the rest of the text, in this introductory chapter they define the issues involved that divide scholars. How the Old Testament connects to the New Testament, whether we should look for historical diversity or theological unity, the impact of the scope and sources of biblical theology, what the actual subject matter of biblical theology is, and finally, whether biblical theology should be defined by the church or the academy. Make sure you linger over the small chart on page 22 that shows a logical way to view the five schools of thought. Spoiler alert: there’s an outstanding summary chart at the end of the book that will make it possible for you to review and make sure you followed the line of thought given in this book.
The design of the book is simple. There’s a chapter of defining the particular school of thought followed by a chapter that fully examines one of its major proponents. In a nutshell, you have biblical theology as historical description with James Barr, as history of redemption with D. A. Carson, as worldview-story with N. T. Wright, as canonical approach with Brevard Childs, and as theological construction with Francis Watson. Please don’t ask me where I land even after reading this book, though I find myself vacillating between the first two schools of thought. Strangely, each point of view had some aspects worth considering, even if some of them had more serious drawbacks.
Some might find this subject a hair too finally split, but I can’t imagine a resource that could more capably define the parameters of this subject. Believe it or not, the authors were so faithful to their task of explaining why this issue is hard and how it’s been viewed that they never championed one viewpoint over the others. This is THE book on the subject.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.
January 24, 2025
“The idea for this book grew out of both our fascination and frustration with biblical theology. Our fascination was over how the Bible renders the coherent story of redemption-how the Bible, a historical document, renders theology. Our frustration surfaced as we began to encounter the vast jumble of attempts at reading the Bible theologically-how ‘the theology of the Bible’ is very much a disputed statement.”
This echoes my mixed feelings of frustration and fascination after reading the book. While I see myself in between BT2 (especially in Philadelphia school) and BT3 spectrum (I was really disappointed with another tradition of Christianity I used to be attracted to-that was easily put heretic label on everyone they disagree with such as the MacArthur’s circles that put NT Wright on the dangerous teacher side-that led me to avoid NT Wright’s works), but I can see myself resonate with Watson’s BT5.
This book is not a book for you to understand what biblical theology is, it doesn’t pinpoint what it is, and it shouldn’t.
This tiny book is really helpful and it requires more times to chew on as you digest each school of thoughts.
The reason why I gave 4 stars was because I was hoping that Klink and Lockett would give simple examples on how each spectrums (especially in BT2) approach the same specific text from both OT and NT and how let say a pastor would view that same text differently in preparing a sermon from each lens of the spectrums. And I admit that the chart at the end of the book somewhat provides what I was longing to see because thats like the summary of the book, however, if only they wanna take an extra effort to make more sufficient, distinct, and tangible examples of the usage from each approaches.
Overall, this book will be something that I would definitely go back for my future study.
This echoes my mixed feelings of frustration and fascination after reading the book. While I see myself in between BT2 (especially in Philadelphia school) and BT3 spectrum (I was really disappointed with another tradition of Christianity I used to be attracted to-that was easily put heretic label on everyone they disagree with such as the MacArthur’s circles that put NT Wright on the dangerous teacher side-that led me to avoid NT Wright’s works), but I can see myself resonate with Watson’s BT5.
This book is not a book for you to understand what biblical theology is, it doesn’t pinpoint what it is, and it shouldn’t.
This tiny book is really helpful and it requires more times to chew on as you digest each school of thoughts.
The reason why I gave 4 stars was because I was hoping that Klink and Lockett would give simple examples on how each spectrums (especially in BT2) approach the same specific text from both OT and NT and how let say a pastor would view that same text differently in preparing a sermon from each lens of the spectrums. And I admit that the chart at the end of the book somewhat provides what I was longing to see because thats like the summary of the book, however, if only they wanna take an extra effort to make more sufficient, distinct, and tangible examples of the usage from each approaches.
Overall, this book will be something that I would definitely go back for my future study.
January 29, 2024
A short book (196 pages) offering an overview of 5 different approaches to biblical theology. Further distinctions are made within some views e.g. D.A. Carson's method of biblical theology compared to a Westminster Seminary approach which are both under the category of redemptive-historical or BT2 according to this book.
This is a useful historical survey of views. Due to its scope it doesn't provide much depth on any one view. Although it surveys different theologians it doesn't always provide as much interaction with the other views since this is not a multi-author volume where the authors state their position and provide rebuttals. Some sections were better than others.
My view remains the same after reading the book. I would identify most with the Westminster redemptive-historical approach in the tradition of Geerhardus Vos and those before him within the confessional reformed traditions.
This is a useful historical survey of views. Due to its scope it doesn't provide much depth on any one view. Although it surveys different theologians it doesn't always provide as much interaction with the other views since this is not a multi-author volume where the authors state their position and provide rebuttals. Some sections were better than others.
My view remains the same after reading the book. I would identify most with the Westminster redemptive-historical approach in the tradition of Geerhardus Vos and those before him within the confessional reformed traditions.
September 14, 2024
Best book to understand what BiblicalTheology is
As a student, pastor and Bible college teacher, biblical theology has been a dilemma. I wanted to understand this passionately and bought books after books, but the confusion and frustration grew more than understanding of this subject. I believe it is the providence God that led me finally to this book. If you are looking for a book that brings the nitty gritty in simple form, then this is the book to buy. Now all the books that I bought in the past make sense and they are neatly arranged for further reading. I should have got this books 15 years back.
As a student, pastor and Bible college teacher, biblical theology has been a dilemma. I wanted to understand this passionately and bought books after books, but the confusion and frustration grew more than understanding of this subject. I believe it is the providence God that led me finally to this book. If you are looking for a book that brings the nitty gritty in simple form, then this is the book to buy. Now all the books that I bought in the past make sense and they are neatly arranged for further reading. I should have got this books 15 years back.
January 15, 2019
The aim of this taxonomy is to describe the discipline of biblical theology by comparing five distinct types of contemporary biblical theology. These five types represent the continuum of contemporary biblical theology. The authors provide two chapters to describe each type: the first describes the theory of this specific type, and the second gives an example of a modern scholar. The authors also contribute to the dialogue by offering their brief critique for each approach at the end of the scholar chapter (second chapter of each type). The book is easy to read, and well organized.
January 20, 2018
This book took on quite a task by seeking to examine 5 different biblical-theological approaches that are have influenced both the church and academia today. From what I know of some of the authors that they represented, I believe that they gave a fair approach to each view that they represented in such a short book. I'd recommend this book to people who are looking to understand the differences between DA Carson, NT Wright, Brevard Childs and others' approaches to the Bible.
January 17, 2023
An excellent concise survey of major approaches to biblical theology. Their taxonomy is highly useful. I will say, the reading experience would be better with a friend or in a class. That would help really iron out some of the intricacies of each approach. It does read a bit like a rollercoaster, but that’s the nature of the subject matter. So fasten your seatbelt and enjoy the ride. I can already tell this will be a frequent reference item in my studies, reading, and work in the church.
February 4, 2019
Decent overview of different types of Biblical theology. The writers assume a lot of language and talk abstractly, which makes the book hard to follow for people new to the topic (which seems to be their audience since they are giving an introductory taxonomy to Biblical theology). Few illustrations and almost everything is spoken of abstractly. Hard to follow unless you're familiar with BT.
October 12, 2021
A good overview of the different types of biblical theology being pursued in both church and academia. I do think the authors could have picked a better case study for two of the chapters, though. I also thought they could have done a much better job explaining some key differences between schools of interpretation in chapters 3 and 9.
Overall, however, it is a good read.
Overall, however, it is a good read.
January 9, 2018
Helpful book on thinking through different ways of going about biblical theology. Slightly repetitive but that is what you get when you are reading a book about the same idea through different lenses.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 57 reviews