New Dictionary of Biblical Theology

Editors:

T. Desmond Alexander

Director of Christian Training, Union Theological College, Belfast; formerly Lecturer in Semitic Studies, Queen's University of Belfast

Brian S. Rosner

Formerly Lecturer in New Testament, University of Aberdeen; teaches at Abbotsleigh and lectures at the Macquarie Christian Studies Institute in Sydney, Australia

Consulting editors:

D. A. Carson

Research Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois

Graeme Goldsworthy

Lecturer in Old Testament and Biblical Theology, Moore Theological College, Sydney

Organizing editor:

Steve Carter

Reference Books Editor, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester

L A R I D I A N

Cedar Rapids, Iowa

New Dictionary of Biblical Theology

Electronic Edition

© Inter-Varsity Press 2000

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of Inter-Varsity Press or the Copyright Licensing Agency.

Quotations marked ‘NIV’ are from the Holy Bible, New International Version. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Hodder and Stoughton, a member of the Hodder Headline Group. All rights reserved. ‘NIV’ is a registered trademark of International Bible Society. UK trademark number 1448790.

Quotations marked ‘NRSV’ are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Inter-Varsity Press is the book-publishing division of the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (formerly the Inter-Varsity Fellowship), a student movement linking Christian Unions in universities and colleges throughout Great Britain, and a member movement of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students. For more information about local and national activities write to UCCF, 38 De Montfort Street, Leicester LE1 7GP; World Wide Web: http://www.uccf.org.uk; Email: email@uccf.org.uk.

InterVarsity Press® is the book-publishing division of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA®, a student movement active on campus at hundreds of universities, colleges and schools of nursing in the Untied States of America, and a member movement of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students. For information about local and regional activities, write to Public Relations Dept., InterVarsity Christian Fellowship USA, 6400 Schroeder Road, PO Box 7895, Madison, WI 53707-7895.

Contents

Preface

How to Use This Dictionary

Abbreviations

List of Contributors

Part One: Introduction

Part Two: Biblical Corpora and Books

Part Three: Biblical Themes

Preface

Throughout most of the 19th and 20th centuries biblical theology has undoubtedly been the Cinderella subject in the academic study of the Bible. Although knowledge of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament has increased remarkably in recent years, this has been, to a large extent, at the expense of our understanding of how these two parts of the Christian Bible relate to each other.

Against this background the Two Testaments Project was launched at the Swanwick Jubilee Conference of the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical and Theological Research in July 1994. It was to be a co-operative venture involving the Biblical Theology Study Group of the Tyndale Fellowship and Rutherford House, Edinburgh. When a small planning group, consisting of Geoffrey Grogan (chairman), Desmond Alexander (secretary) and David Searle, subsequently presented the idea of a Dictionary of Biblical Theology to Frank Entwistle and David Kingdon of IVP, their enthusiasm for the project led to the appointment of Desmond Alexander and Brian Rosner as main editors, with Steve Carter of IVP as organizing editor and Don Carson and Graeme Goldsworthy as consulting editors.

As main editors our first tasks were to decide upon the format of the Dictionary and to commission authors. We opted for a tripartite arrangement, with Part One providing an introduction to the whole subject of biblical theology. The articles in this section are intended to provide the reader with a clear statement of the basis upon which the rest of the Dictionary is built. Part Two discusses the theology of those books of the OT and NT which are most commonly accepted as canonical within Christianity. The third section focuses on topics which, in our opinion, are of central importance for an understanding of the unity of the Biblical corpus. In the interests of keeping the volume to a manageable size, some sacrifice of detail has had to be made in these two sections. However, we hope that the Dictionary will prove to be a helpful resource for those who want to familiarize themselves with the Bible's theology.

To those who have contributed articles we are most grateful. The nature of this Dictionary sometimes required contributors to work beyond their own area of specialism. Experts in the OT were asked to interact with the NT, and vice versa. To each one who gave so patiently of time and energy in writing we are deeply indebted. We hope that the end result is a volume that not only brings together the best of evangelical scholarship from throughout the world, but also will be a stimulus to further research and writing in the somewhat neglected field of biblical theology.

Our task as editors was eased considerably by the thoughtful and meticulous attention given to this project by Steve Carter. His contribution has been enormous and for this he has our heartfelt thanks. We are also grateful to his many colleagues in IVP who have played a part in bringing this volume to completion, and to its freelance copy editor, Alison Walley. Finally, we have benefited greatly from the expertise of our two consulting editors, Don Carson and Graeme Goldsworthy. When our own abilities were stretched to the limit, they proved invaluable sources of knowledge and wisdom.

Editing this Dictionary has been a mind-expanding and heart-warming experience. We pray that those who use it will likewise find their minds expanded and their hearts warmed as they contemplate both the simplicity and the complexity of God's revelation to humanity. It is our hope that a better understanding of biblical theology, this Cinderella of subjects, will lead each reader to a deeper knowledge of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Life.

Desmond Alexander

Brian Rosner

How to Use This Dictionary

This introduction provides some guidance on how to use the Dictionary to the best advantage.

Arrangement

The Dictionary is arranged in three parts. Part One consists of twelve major articles, arranged thematically, on the fundamental issues of biblical theology. A list of subjects is provided on the Contents page. Part Two begins with seven articles, arranged in (approximately) canonical order, on the most important biblical corpora; these too are listed on the contents page. They are followed by articles, also arranged canonically, on the individual books of the Bible. Part Three consists of articles, arranged alphabetically, on major biblical themes.

Cross-references

It has been editorial policy in the Dictionary to group smaller topics together and treat them in a single larger article. For example, ‘apostle’ is dealt with in the article on MISSION, and ‘predestination’ in the article on ELECTION. Some of the major articles in Part One also cover a number of related topics.

Cross-referencing is therefore an important feature of the Dictionary.

1. Numerous one-line entries refer the reader to the title of the article in which the topic is treated, e.g. KNOWLEDGE, see WISDOM. All the Part One and Part Two articles have one-line entries, arranged alphabetically, in Part Three.
2. In the printed version of this dictionary, an asterisk adjacent to a single word in the body of an article indicates that an article by that title appears in the dictionary. However, in this electronic version the asterisk has been replaced by a hypertext link ( i.e. , the word is underlined and highlighted in red).
3. A reference in brackets in the body of an article, such as ‘(see ^* Covenant)’, is self-explanatory.
4. 4.Cross-references at the end of an article are headed ‘See also’. These refer to the other articles, usually in the same Part, most closely related to the subject-matter.

Authorship of articles

The author's name is given at the end of each article. A complete list of contributors, in alphabetical order of surname, will be found on pp.

Bibliographies

Guidance for further study has been provided in most articles, sometimes in the body of the article, but in most cases in the bibliography at the end. The works listed in the bibliography may include studies which take a different position from that of the author of the article.

Bible versions

The first time that the Bible is quoted in any article, the translation is identified in parentheses. All subsequent quotes in the same article are from that translation unless otherwise indicated.

Transliteration

Hebrew

Consonants

Vowels

Greek

Abbreviations

1. Books, journals and commentary series

2. Biblical books

Books of the Old Testament: Gen., Exod., Lev., Num., Deut., Josh., Judg., Ruth, 1,2 Sam., 1,2 Kgs., 1,2 Chr., Ezra, Neh., Est., Job, Ps. (Pss.), Prov., Eccles., Song, Is., Jer., Lam., Ezek., Dan., Hos., Joel, Amos, Obad., Jonah, Mic., Nah., Hab., Zeph., Hag., Zech., Mal.

Books of the New Testament: Matt., Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Rom., 1,2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., 1,2 Thess., 1,2 Tim., Titus, Philem., Heb., Jas., 1,2 Pet., 1,2,3 John, Jude, Rev.

3. General abbreviations

List of Contributors

P J H Adam, BD, MTh, PhD, Vicar of St Jude's Carlton, Melbourne, Australia

T Desmond Alexander, BA, PhD, Director of Christian Training, Union Theological College, Belfast, formerly Lecturer in Semitic Studies, The Queen's University of Belfast

Carl E Armerding, AB, BD, MA, PhD, Director, Schloss Mittersill Study Centre, Austria

Bill T Arnold, BA, MDiv, PhD, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages, Asbury Theological Seminary, USA

David W Baker, AB, MCS, MPhil, PhD, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages, Ashland Theological Seminary, USA

Peter Balla, MDiv, MTh, PhD, Lecturer and Head of the New Testament Department of the Faculty of Theology of the Károli Gáspár Reformed University, Budapest, Hungary

Robert J Banks, BA, BD, MTh, PhD, Homer L Goddard Professor of the Ministry of the Laity, Fuller Theological Seminary, USA

Craig G Bartholomew, BTh, MA, PhD, Research Fellow in the School of Theology and Religious Studies, Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education

Gregory K Beale, BA, MA, ThM, PhD, The Kenneth T Wessner Chair of Biblical Studies, Wheaton College Graduate School, USA; formerly Professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, USA

Roger T Beckwith, MA, BD, DD, former Warden of Latimer House, Oxford

Henri A G Blocher, BD, Diplôme d'Etudes Supérieures de Théologie, DD, Professor of Systematic Theology (and Dean Emeritus), Faculté Libre de Théologie Evangélique, Vaux-sur-Seine, France

Craig L Blomberg, BA, MA, PhD, Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary, USA

Darrell L Bock, AB, ThM, PhD, Research Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, USA

Gerald L Borchert, PhD, ThM, MDiv, LLB, BA, Professor of New Testament and Director of Doctoral Studies, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, USA

N E Lennart Boström, MTh, DTh, Lecturer in Old Testament, Örebro Theological Seminary, Sweden

Gerald L Bray, BA, MLitt, DLitt, Anglican Professor of Divinity, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University, USA

Kent E Brower, BSL, MA, PhD, Dean, Nazarene Theological College, Manchester

D A Carson, Research Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, USA

Robert B Chisholm, Jr, BA, MDiv, ThM, ThD, Professor of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, USA

Roy E Ciampa, BA MDiv, PhD, Lecturer in Biblical Studies, College of Evangelical Theological Education, Portugal

Andrew D Clarke, MA, PhD, Lecturer in New Testament, Department of Divinity with Religious Studies, University of Aberdeen

Edmund P Clowney, AB, ThB, STM, DD, Professor of Practical Theology, Emeritus

F Peter Cotterell, BD, BSc, PhD, DUniv, FRSA, Director, Ethiopian Graduate School of Theology; formerly Principal, London Bible College, Northwood

Peter H Davids, BA, MDiv, PhD, Innsbruck, Austria

Stephen G Dempster, BA, MAR, ThM, MA, PhD, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Atlantic Baptist University, Canada

John W Drane, MA, PhD, DD, Head of Practical Theology, Department of Divinity with Religious Studies, University of Aberdeen

Iain M Duguid, BSc, MDiv, PhD, Associate Professor of Old Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary in California, USA

Paul Ellingworth, PhD, former Honorary Professor, University of Aberdeen

Mark W Elliott, BA, BD, PhD, Lecturer in Christian Studies, Liverpool Hope University College

Kevin S Ellis, BA, PhD, Anglican Ordinand, The Queen's College, Birmingham

Peter E Enns, PhD, MA, MDiv, BA, Associate Professor of Old Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia

Craig A Evans, BA, MA, PhD, Professor of Biblical Studies, Trinity Western University, Canada

Mary J Evans, BEd, BA, MPhil, Course Leader for BTh and Lecturer in OT, London Bible College, Northwood

Buist M Fanning, BA, ThM, DPhil, Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, USA

Michael O Fape, BA, STM, PhD, Lecturer in New Testament Studies, Immanuel College of Theology, Nigeria

Richard B Gaffin, Jr, ThD, ThM, BD, AB, Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, USA

Thomas D Gledhill, BA, MA, BD, PhD, Lecturer in Biblical Studies, Evangelical Theological College of Wales

Graeme L Goldsworthy, BA, ThL, BD, MA, ThM, PhD, Lecturer in Old Testament and Biblical Theology, Moore Theological College, Australia

Murray D Gow, MA, BD, ThD, Lecturer, Schloss Mittersill Study Centre, Austria

G L Green, AB, MA, PhD, Associate Professor of New Testament, Wheaton College, USA

Joel B Green, BS, MTh, PhD, Dean of the School of Theology, Director of Greek Studies and Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Asbury Theological Seminary, USA

Geoffrey W Grogan, BD, MTh, DUniv, formerly Principal, Glasgow Bible College

Wayne A Grudem, BA, MDiv, PhD, Professor and Chairman, Department of Biblical and Systematic Theology, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, USA

Donald A Hagner, BA, BD, ThM, PhD, George Eldon Ladd Professor of New Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary, USA

Victor P Hamilton, BA, BD, ThM, MA, PhD, Professor of Religion, Asbury College, USA

Murray J Harris, MA, Dip Ed, BD, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, USA

Ian Hart, BA, BD, MTh, ThD, Minister of Great Victoria Street Presbyterian Church, Belfast

Richard S Hess, BA, MDiv, ThM, PhD, Professor of Old Testament, Denver Seminary, USA

Harold W Hoehner, BA, ThM, ThD, PhD, Chairman and Distinguished Professor of New Testament and Director of PhD Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, USA

Robert L Hubbard, Jr., AB, BD, MA, PhD, Professor of Biblical Literature, North Park Theological Seminary, USA

Paul E Hughes, BA, MA, PhD, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Trinity Western University, Canada

David Instone Brewer, BD, PhD, Research Librarian, Tyndale House, Cambridge

D H Johnson, BS, ThM, PhD, Professor of New Testament, Providence Theological Seminary, Canada

Philip S Johnston, BA, BD, MTh, PhD, Tutor, Wycliffe Hall, Oxford

Brian E Kelly, BA, PGCE, BA, PhD, Dean of Chapel, Canterbury Christ Church University College, Canterbury

Gillian Keys, BA, Grad Cert Ed, PhD, Head of Religious Studies, Sullivan Upper School, Co. Down

David P Kingdon, MA, BD, Managing Editor, Bryntirion Press, Bridgend

Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, BA, PhD, Professor of Old Testament, Tokyo Christian University, Japan

Andreas J Köstenberger, PhD, MDiv, Professor of New Testament, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, USA

Colin G Kruse, BD, MPhil, PhD, Lecturer in New Testament, Bible College of Victoria, Australia

Hans Kvalbein, DTh, Professor, The Norwegian Lutheran School of Theology, Norway

Jon C Laansma, BRE, MDiv, PhD, Assistant Professor of Bible, Moody Bible Institute, USA

Tremper Longman III, BA, MDiv, MPhil, PhD, Professor of Old Testament, Westmont College, USA

Ernest C Lucas, BA, MA, PhD, Vice-Principal and Tutor in Biblical Studies, Bristol Baptist College

Jonathan M Lunde, PhD, ThM, MDiv, BS, Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies, The College of Arts and Sciences, Trinity International University, USA

Robert G Maccini, PhD, MDiv, BA, Adjunct Professor of New Testament, Bangor Theological Seminary, USA

Kenneth Magnuson, BA, MDiv, PhD, Assistant Professor of Christian Ethics at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, USA

Ernest B Manges, BA, MA, MDiv, Lecturer in Theology and Church History, Evangelical Theological College of the Philippines

I Howard Marshall, MA, BD, BA, PhD, DD, Honorary Research Professor of New Testament, University of Aberdeen

Kenneth A Mathews, BA, ThM, MA, PhD, Professor of Divinity, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University, USA

Leslie McFall, BA, MTh, PhD, Researcher, Cambridge

Robert J McKelvey, BA, MTh, DPhil, formerly Principal of Northern College, Manchester

James McKeown, BD, PhD, Vice Principal, Belfast Bible College

Scot McKnight, BA, MA, PhD, Karl A Olsson Professor in Religious Studies, North Park University, Chicago, USA

J Gary Millar, BSc, BD, DPhil, Minister, Howth and Malahide Presbyterian Church, Dublin

Douglas J Moo, BA, MDiv, PhD, Professor, Wheaton Graduate School, USA

Thorsten Moritz, BA, MA, PhD, Senior Lecturer in New Testament, Cheltenham & Gloucester College of Higher Education

J Alec Motyer, MA, BD, DD, Retired Vicar of Christ Church, Westbourne, Bournemouth

Stephen Motyer, BA, MA, MLitt, PhD, Lecturer, London Bible College, Northwood

Raymond C Ortlund, Jr., BA, MA, ThM, PhD, Senior Minister, First Presbyterian Church, Augusta, Georgia, USA

Lawrence H Osborn, BSc, MSc, BD, PhD, Glasgow

William Osborne, BA, MA, MPhil, Lecturer in Hebrew and Old Testament and Co-ordinator for Postgraduate Studies, Bible College of New Zealand, New Zealand

John N Oswalt, AB, BD, ThM, MA, PhD, Research Professor of Old Testament, Wesley Biblical Seminary, USA

J I Packer, MA, DPhil, DD, Board of Governors Professor of Theology, Regent College, Canada

Christine E Palmer, MA, MAR, PhD student, formerly Co-ordinator of Semlink at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, USA

David G Peterson, MA, BD, PhD, Principal, Oak Hill Theological College, London

Christine D Pohl, PhD, MA, BSc, Professor of Social Ethics, Asbury Theological Seminary, USA

Stanley E Porter, BA, MA, PhD, Professor of Theology and Head of the Department of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Surrey, Roehampton

B Ward Powers, BA, BD, Dip RE, BComm, MA, PhD, Director, Tyndale College, Australia

Iain W Provan, MA, BA, PhD, Marshall Sheppard Professor of Biblical Studies, Regent College, Canada

Daniel G Reid, BA, MDiv, PhD, Senior Editor, Inter-Varsity Press, USA

Thomas Renz, PhD, Tutor in Old Testament, Oak Hill College, London

Rainer Riesner, Dr theol. habil., Professor of New Testament, University of Dortmund, Germany

Brian S Rosner, BA, ThM, PhD, formerly lecturer in New Testament, University of Aberdeen, teaches at Abbotsleigh and lectures at the Macquarie Christian Studies Institute, Australia

Philip E Satterthwaite, BA, MA, PhD, Lecturer in Old Testament and Hebrew, Biblical Graduate School of Theology, Singapore

Eckhard J Schnabel, PhD, Associate Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, USA

Thomas R Schreiner, BS, MDiv, ThM, PhD, Professor of New Testament, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, USA

Richard L Schultz, BA, MDiv, MA, PhD, Professor of Old Testament, Wheaton College, USA

Charles H H Scobie, MA, BD, STM, PhD, DD, Former Cowan Professor of Religious Studies, and Head, Department of Religious Studies, Mount Allison University, Canada

David C Searle, MA, Warden, Rutherford House, Edinburgh

Mark A Seifrid, MDiv, MA, PhD, Associate Professor of New Testament, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, USA

Martin J Selman, BA, MA, PhD, Deputy Principal, Spurgeon's College, London

Andrew G Shead, BTh, BSc (Med), MTh, PhD, Lecturer in Old Testament, Moore Theological College, Australia.

Stephen S Smalley, MA, BD, PhD, Dean of Chester

Joel R Soza, MA, Assistant Professor in Biblical Studies, Malone College, USA

Christoph W Stenschke, MDiv, MTh, PhD, Minister, German Baptist Union, Elstal, Germany

Mark L Strauss, PhD, ThM, MDiv, BA, Associate Professor of New Testament, Bethel Seminary, USA

Stephen S Taylor, BA, MA, Associate Professor of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, USA

Anthony C Thiselton, BD, MTh, PhD, DD, Professor of Christian Theology and Head of Department of Theology, University of Nottingham; also Canon Theologian of Leicester Cathedral

Derek J Tidball, BA, BD, PhD, Principal, London Bible College

Philip H Towner, BA, MA, PhD, Translation Consultant, United Bible Societies and Adjunct Professor of New Testament, Regent College, Canada

David T Tsumura, BS, MDiv, MA, PhD, Professor of Old Testament, Japan Bible Seminary, Tokyo.

Laurence A Turner, BA, MDiv, ThM, PhD, Senior Lecturer in Old Testament and Head of the Department of Theological Studies, Newbold College, Bracknell

Max Turner, MA, PhD, Professor of New Testament Studies, and Vice Principal for Academic Affairs, London Bible College, Northwood

Graham H Twelftree, BA, MA, PhD, Senior Pastor, North Eastern Vineyard Church, Adelaide, Australia

Gerard Van Groningen, BA, BD, ThM, MA, PhD, President of Trinity Christian College, USA; Retired Adjunct Professor of Old Testament, Covenant Theology Seminary, USA

Kevin J Vanhoozer, BA, MDiv, PhD, Research Professor of Systematic Theology, Trinity International University, USA

Åke Viberg, Dr, Senior Lecturer in Old Testament, Sweden

Peter W L Walker, MA, PhD, Lecturer in New Testament, Wycliffe Hall, Oxford

Rikki E Watts, ARMIT, MA, MDiv, PhD, Associate Professor of New Testament, Regent College, Canada

H H Drake Williams III, PhD, MDiv, BA, BS, Associate Minister, Central Schwenkfelder Church; Adjunct Faculty Member, Biblical Theological Seminary, USA

Stephen N Williams, MA, PhD, Professor of Systematic Theology, Union Theological College, Belfast

Paul R Williamson, BD, PhD, Lecturer in Old Testament, Irish Baptist College, Belfast

Paul D Woodbridge, BA, PhD, Academic Dean and Tutor in New Testament, Oak Hill College, London

Robert W Yarbrough, PhD, MA, BA, Associate Professor of New Testament Studies, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, USA

Part One: Introduction

Biblical Theology

Biblical theology is integral to the whole process of discerning the meaning of the biblical text and of applying this meaning to the contemporary scene. While we distinguish it from other theological disciplines, such as systematics, historical theology, apologetics and practical theology, its relationship to these disciplines is one of interdependence. Because biblical theology is the fruit of exegesis of the texts of the various biblical corpora it has a logical priority over systematics and the other specialized types of theologizing. However, the mutuality of the disciplines can be seen in our coming to the task of exegesis with certain dogmatic presuppositions about the nature and authority of the Bible. Furthermore, the history of theology and of biblical interpretation means that we engage in our task as biblical theologians from within a living tradition of the Christian church. Biblical theology is principally concerned with the overall theological message of the whole Bible. It seeks to understand the parts in relation to the whole and, to achieve this, it must work with the mutual interaction of the literary, historical, and theological dimensions of the various corpora, and with the inter-relationships of these within the whole canon of Scripture. Only in this way do we take proper account of the fact that God has spoken to us in Scripture.

Although arguably the most demanding type of Bible study, ironically biblical theology holds the greatest interest outside the academy, i.e. in the Christian church and for ordinary Christians, promoting as it does a high view not only of the Bible, but also of Jesus and the gospel. Most Christians have a genuine interest in the worlds of the Bible, in its language, thought forms, archaeology, geography and history (the subject matter of a conventional Bible dictionary). Most also like to engage in the interpretation of individual passages (the function of a Bible commentary). However, all Christians have an intensely personal interest, or more accurately stake, in the subject of biblical theology, i.e. what the Bible teaches about God and his dealings with the human race. And biblical theology of one sort or another, whether acknowledged as such or not, is usually what is going on when the Bible is preached effectively, studied rigorously or read intently by Christian believers.

Of course, not everyone has so positive a view of the discipline. There are some who deny its viability, if not its right to exist. They question its presuppositions, arguing that the canon was a late decision of the church, that ‘orthodoxy’ was a late and artificial imposition, and that the books of the Bible present manifold and contradictory theologies. They also believe that literary theory and the social sciences introduce factors that make biblical theology disreputable (see Challenges to Biblical Theology ).

On the other hand, there are doubtless those who may wonder what other sort of theology there could possibly be for Christians if the Bible is supposed to be the foundation of our faith and practice. However, there is no doubt that many theologies are not biblical, just as many studies of the Bible are not theological (see Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology ).

What exactly is biblical theology? It is imperative that we understand what biblical theology is, for the history of biblical theology shows that confusion ensues and distortions arise when practitioners are not clear about what they are doing. There are in fact a number of valid answers to the question of what biblical theology is, just as there are a number of answers to the question of what civil engineering is, for instance, depending on which way we look at the subject.

To make the comparison clear, civil engineering may be defined as the activity which results from the cooperation of various disciplines including metallurgy, physics, mathematics, sociology and town planning with the goal of producing bridges, sewers, roads, canals, etc. It may also be defined as the physical activity of construction in all its vigour and complexity. Similarly, biblical theology may be defined as the cooperation of various disciplines, and with reference to its various processes or methods and its intended product.

The Primacy of Biblical Theology

The Bible is not only the best selling, but also the most studied book of all time. Theologians have pored over its pages for hundreds of years, and most branches of the humanities have brought their expertise to bear on the task of examining it. English departments study it for its aesthetic value, for the way its narratives and poetry enthral and move readers. Sociologists are fascinated by the group dynamics it enshrines, anthropologists by the power of its rites and symbols, and historians by the impact of its movements and ideas on the course of the world at large.

Without questioning the legitimacy of the Bible as an object of academic study for a wide range of disciplines, biblical theology urges that the interpretation of the text cannot be left there. Biblical theology is not just one of a number of ways to read the Bible, as if there is theologically motivated interpretation alongside historically, aesthetically or ideologically motivated interpretation. Not to attend to theological interpretation is to stop short of interpretation, to ignore the interests of the texts themselves. If not to misinterpret, at best it is to engage in incomplete interpretation. Biblical study is incomplete until biblical theology has been done.

The books of the Bible are first and foremost religious texts. To ignore this dimension is forgivable, if one's interests lie elsewhere. No one would dispute the legitimacy of studying Shakespeare's plays for their artistry and language, or to consider the evidence they provide of the social mores or political conventions of their day, or to trace their impact on the history of literature and ideas. But to do only this is by no means to engage in the interpretation of Shakespeare. The same principle applies to the Bible.

Biblical Theology as Multidisciplinary Endeavour

The biblical theologian needs all the help he or she can get from the other areas of biblical and theological study. Indeed, biblical theology must never be thought of as independent of the other disciplines. It presupposes them. In reading the Bible it does not neglect history, for theology is grounded in the revelation of God in history and salvation history is part of real history. Thus biblical theology avoids an atemporal approach and pays close attention to the Bible's overarching ‘story’. As well as recognizing the profoundly historical rootedness of the biblical books, it also accepts their occasional nature, literary quality and powerful vitality. And it treats such texts with a due sensitivity to the different genres and literary features represented. Biblical theology is impossible without the contributions of those disciplines which take as their focus the historical and literary dimensions of the Bible.

Strangely enough, within the so-called theological disciplines there has been a neglect of the theological interpretation of Scripture. This is in part due to the explosion of knowledge and the practice of specialization which has led to a compartmentalizing of the disciplines. Biblical scholars, for the purpose of division of labour, divide themselves into OT or NT specialists, and even within these divisions specialize further, in for instance the Pentateuch, wisdom or prophecy, or the Gospels, Paul or Hebrews. Such boundaries become barriers to the extent that no one accepts the responsibility of reading the Bible as a whole. On the contrary, such reading is positively discouraged, as trespassing on someone else's territory and feigning expertise in an area where one is not well versed. Worse still, systematic theologians are discouraged from using Scripture too specifically for the same reason, in order not to seem naive in their exegesis of biblical texts. Without denying the immensity of the intellectual challenge, biblical theology calls for the disciplines to work together towards a common goal. As Francis Watson states, ‘biblical theology is an interdisciplinary approach to biblical interpretation which seeks to dismantle the barriers that at present separate biblical scholarship from Christian theology’ ( ^* Text and Truth , p. vii).

Biblical Theology as Engaged, Theological Interpretation of Scripture

As noted above, different readers of the Bible treat it differently, depending on the nature of their interest in it. The Bible is everything from ancient artefact to historical testimony to entertaining literature. How the biblical texts are construed distinguishes the different approaches to the Bible. Biblical theology considers the biblical texts to be Christian Scripture and its reading of them is shaped accordingly (see Scripture ). It affirms that Scripture was written not just for historians and literary critics, but for Christian believers, ‘for us’ ( Ro 4:24; 1Co 9:10; NIV) and ‘for our instruction’ ( 1Co 10:11; RSV).

Indeed the primary location for a theological interpretation of Scripture is the church rather than the university (S. Fowl and L. Jones, Reading in Communion ). Biblical theology is practised by Christian communities and is intricately linked to their determination to shape their faith, life, worship and service in accordance with Scripture under the guidance of the Spirit (see Preaching and Biblical Theology ). One of the achievements of modern hermeneutics is to lay to rest the fallacy of the dispassionate, disinterested reader. All of us bring to the Bible pre-understandings and pre-dispositions which affect what we make of what we read. Purely objective interpretation is not only a myth but an inappropriate strategy for reading the Bible. For biblical theology, the primary goal of exegesis is not objectivity but to hear Scripture as the word of God.

This is not to say that OT or NT scholars ought not to do biblical theology (contra H. Räisänen). They are in the privileged position of having direct access to the literary and historical study of the Bible upon which biblical theology must build. Rather, it is to say that when Christian biblical scholars read the Bible they ought to read it as Christians, reflecting on their own faith in the light of what they read. Biblical scholars who do not share this faith are of course also able to do biblical theology, in the sense of describing the theology of (say) Paul or even of some theme across the canon. But they do so as outsiders, so to speak, not with sympathy and consent, which is the ideal hermeneutic for biblical theology.

Texts assume a certain kind of audience, someone who is best disposed to make sense of what is written, the person or group for whom the texts are intended (M. Bockmuehl, in SJT 51, pp. 298-300). In the case of the Bible the implied or model readers are those who care about what the texts assert and affirm. Such readers believe the apostolic witness to God's work in Jesus Christ, even though they ‘have not seen’ ( 1Pe 1:8). They have undergone a religious, moral and intellectual conversion to the gospel of which the texts speak. They live their lives as part of a local community of faith. Even texts like Luke-Acts and the Pastoral Epistles, though written to individuals, make clear that their ultimate address is the believing communities to which these individuals belong. And those texts addressed to specific churches often give hints that the author's concern is for an even wider audience ( ^* cf. 1Co 1:2, ‘to ... all those in every place who call on the name of the Lord Jesus’). To do biblical theology, then, is to read the Bible as a Christian, someone who welcomes the witness of Scripture to what God was and is doing in Christ, which is ‘according to the Scriptures’. The biblical theologian makes no apology for his or her explicitly theological assumptions about the nature and identity of God.

Peter Stuhlmacher states the matter trenchantly: ‘A biblical theology ... must attempt to interpret the Old and New Testament tradition as it wants to be interpreted. For this reason, it cannot read these texts only from a critical distance as historical sources but must, at the same time, take them seriously as testimonies of faith which belong to the Holy Scripture of early Christianity’ ( ^* How To Do Biblical Theology , p. 1).

Biblical Theology as Construction Site

The task of biblical theology is to present the teaching of the Bible about God and his relations to the world in a way that lets the biblical texts set the agenda. This goal is achieved by allowing them to serve as the very stuff of inductive study and by reading the books more or less in their historical sequence. In other words, biblical theology subscribes to the primacy of the text; the interpretive interest of biblical theology corresponds as closely as possible to what the text is about. In this sense biblical theology may be distinguished from philosophical theology, which relies more directly upon reason, natural theology, which looks to the natural world and order for knowledge of God, and systematic theology, which concentrates on the contemporary articulation of Christian faith.

Beyond this fundamental point, the biblical theology which this volume attempts to practise includes five other specifications:

1. 1.the tools of the trade are analysis and synthesis;
2. 2.the building materials consist of both biblical concepts and biblical words;
3. 3.the bridge to be constructed is a single span across the whole Bible;
4. 4.the building plans follow the blueprint of the Bible's ‘storyline’; and
5. 5.the foundation and pinnacle of the structure is Jesus Christ.

Analysis and synthesis

Biblical theology is characterized by two distinct but related activities which may be broadly described as analysis and synthesis . The first seeks to reconstruct the individual theologies of the writings or collections of writings of the Bible. Exemplary here is G. B. Caird's biblical theology of the NT which hosts an imaginary symposium with the various authors in attendance, such as Luke, Paul, John and the author of Hebrews, a sort of apostolic conference in which each distinctive voice is heard. The accent in such work is on the particular contribution to theology of the book or books in question.

There is a temptation in studying the Bible's theology too quickly to read one part of it in the light of another and thus to miss the individual contours of the terrain and flatten out the whole. In doing biblical theology much is lost if James is read in the light of Paul, or Mark in the light of Matthew. It is more accurate and productive first to let James be James and Mark be Mark and so on, thus appreciating their particular colours and hues, before going on to see how their perspectives look on the larger canonical canvas. Too often one part of the Bible is given undue and oppressive priority over the others (see The Unity and Diversity of Scripture ).

Part Two of the present volume employs this method, analysing the distinctive theologies of the various corpora and books of the Bible in their own right. To analyse the theology of a book of the Bible is to read it as articulating a particular vision of the divine-human relationship, to consider its unique part in the progressive unfolding of God's plan of salvation for humanity.

Part Three focuses on the task of synthesis by presenting the theology of particular themes across the whole Bible. This approach, called ‘pan-biblical theology’ by James Barr, is concerned ultimately to construct one single theology for the Bible in its entirety. It confronts the question: in what sense can the Old and New Testaments be read as a coherent whole (see Relationship of Old Testament and New Testament )? This question has many facets and lies at the heart of not only the method but also the substance of biblical theology.

To return to our analogy with civil engineering, if analysis involves the individual tradespeople working from their own plans on different parts of the project, synthesis recalls the work of the site architect or foreman who is responsible for the overall structure. Both have a necessary function to perform.

Concepts, not just words

A further question of method concerns the extent to which the study of the Bible's theology should be based on word studies. Such an approach admittedly has its attractions; how better to do theology on the Bible's own terms than by undertaking exhaustive investigations of its key terms? A number of major reference works have taken this approach in the past. However, it has been rightly criticized. Word studies alone are a shaky foundation upon which to base theology. A study of the biblical words for love, for example, does not fairly represent the Bible's teaching on love, since it ignores numerous narratives and parables, such as the Good Samaritan, which do not mention the word ‘love’ but are nonetheless highly relevant. The word for ‘church’ is rarely used in the Gospels, but they contain much significant material for a treatment of the topic of the church, including the notion of the kingdom as embodied in the lives of people on earth, the calling of the twelve disciples to be with Jesus, and the frequent use of communal language such as family, fraternity, little flock and city. Sometimes a biblical author will pursue the same concept as another author but with his own vocabulary. Concepts rather than words are a surer footing on which to base thematic study such as that involved in biblical-theological synthesis.

In most cases the concept is in fact far bigger than the words normally used to refer to it, even when the words in question appear frequently. Three examples suffice to make the point, namely, grace, exclusion and gentleness.

A number of biblical words are relevant to an understanding of grace, including mercy, love, kindness and beneficence. The vocabulary of grace denotes spontaneous kindness and acts of generosity grounded in a disposition of compassion towards those in need. However, the biblical concept includes the notions of loyalty and constancy, often in connection with the covenant. Grace as a characteristic of God grounds divine-human relations in his generous initiative and sustaining faithfulness. Of course, the concept of grace can be present, and often is, even when the related words are absent, especially when God visits people for the purposes of blessing and salvation.

The notion of exclusion from the believing community (excommunication or church discipline) is captured in a host of terms. In one key passage alone, 1Co 5, it is expressed in five different ways, using the verbs ‘to remove’, ‘to drive out’, ‘(not) to eat with’, ‘to deliver (to Satan)’ and ‘to purge away’. However, the topic raises questions about the motivations for such drastic action which are not communicated simply by the appearance of such words. The fact that people are to be disciplined is less instructive than the reasons for the judgment. In the Bible serious offenders are excluded from the community because of the solidarity of the community, in order to maintain the holiness of the group, due to a breach of covenant, in the hope of restoration and because of the prospect of salvation. Such teaching can be gleaned only from a range of material including both laws and historical examples of exclusion.

Gentleness is a somewhat ambiguous concept, for it can denote both strength and vulnerability. Usually in the Bible it is a positive quality, a characteristic of peaceable and controlled kindness, the opposite of arrogance or domination. The concept can be expressed using any of the following terms: ‘gentleness’; ‘graciousness’; ‘clemency’; ‘kindness’; ‘humility’; ‘consideration’; ‘courtesy’; ‘loving-kindness’; and ‘meekness’. However, it deserves a coherent treatment which a series of individual word studies does not accomplish, since it is both a defining attribute of God and Jesus and constitutive of Christian character.

If concepts are generally bigger than words, some concepts have a relatively slim lexical base and yet can lay no less a claim to be of central importance. There are many examples, including hospitality, providence, vanity, testimony and revelation.

There is no specific word for hospitality in the OT, and yet the practice is evident in the welcome, food, shelter and protection-asylum that guests received in OT times. Commands in the Pentateuch and exhortations in the prophets to care for strangers attest to the importance of hospitality in the OT. Narratives demonstrate that hospitality was closely connected to the recognition of Yahweh's lordship and to covenant loyalty. Stories provide evidence of God's presence and provision in the context of hospitality. And hospitality is at the heart of the gospel and practice of the early church.

One concept which raises issues about the character of God and divine government but does not correspond to one particular term is providence; the idea is expressed by a cluster of biblical terms. A precise linguistic basis is difficult to identify. The notion of providence, which encapsulates the conviction that God sustains the world that he has created and directs it to its appointed destiny, is scattered throughout and at many points taken for granted in the Bible. Belief in God's providence evokes not only humility and wonder, but also gratitude and trust, for believers know God as Father. The subject simply cannot be treated adequately by doing a few word studies.

The word for vanity occurs only here and there in the Bible. However, the concept captures much of the human predicament of sin under God's wrath. The whole of salvation history, from creation to the ultimate consummation of all things, illustrates the tension which arises between the wilful desires of human folly and the benevolent purposes of a loving God. The earliest biblical example of this tension is the divine curse on the ground ( Ge 3:11-19), which resulted from the attempt of disobedient humanity to become autonomous, like God. The mutual harmony between God, humanity and the created order was disrupted, and working the land be came a toil and burdensome. The removal of vanity, at the other end of salvation history, is a picture of ultimate redemption. The subject is noteworthy in the Bible for both its poignancy and its scant explicit mention.

The technical terms ‘witness’ and ‘testimony’, given their infrequent appearance, might seem incidental to the message of the Bible. However, the concept of testimony is found throughout the canon. Because of the cardinal role played by the law in the formation and life of ancient Israel, the roots of testimony are juridical. But because that life was not divided into discrete legal and religious compartments, those juridical roots blossom throughout the biblical narrative into religious proclamation, confession and martyrdom. This intermingling of legal and religious testimony is entirely natural, for the law was given in order that Israel, by obeying the law, might be a living testimony to its author, the Lord their God ( Dt 4:5-8; 26:16-19). In Scripture heaven, earth, John the Baptist, the apostles and in fact all God's people give testimony. Indeed, the pinnacle of biblical testimony is its proclamation of God's unfolding purpose to bring salvation to the ends of the earth, whereby every tongue will testify that there is but one true God, and that this one true God has made Jesus Christ Lord of all.

The word ‘revelation’ and its cognates occur fewer than one hundred times in the whole Bible, according to the NIV. However, the ubiquity and centrality of revelation, as the disclosure by God of truths at which people could not arrive without divine initiative and enabling, is considerably more impressive than this statistic implies. The study of revelation must extend beyond the mere use of the word. The Bible does not so much discuss or reflect on revelation as assume, embody and convey it in a hundred different ways. Revelation is as universal as creation itself, is accomplished by God both speaking and acting, and involves both the miraculous, like dreams, visions and prophecy, and the mundane.

A whole-Bible biblical theology

Over the last couple of centuries there has been a division in the practice of biblical theology into virtually separate consideration of OT and NT theology. Until a few notable exceptions in recent times no one wrote biblical theologies of the whole Bible. The present volume aims to contribute to a whole-Bible biblical theology (see The Canon of Scripture ) in a number of ways. Part Two articles, for instance, are not deaf to such concerns in that while concentrating on analysis, they give some consideration to the place of the distinctive ideas under discussion in the canon, both in terms of OT antecedents (for the NT articles) and NT developments (for the OT articles).

Whereas it might be convenient to treat a book like Proverbs in isolation, a responsible biblical theological approach goes beyond a summary of its many practical themes and addresses its place in the Bible as a whole. Proverbs displays little interest in the main biblical themes of covenant and salvation-history. How then can it be related to the rest of the Bible when its content seems peripheral? The article in Part Two suggests that the answer may lie partly in the Solomonic narrative, where Solomon's wisdom is connected with the account of the building and dedication of the temple. With Solomon and the temple, God is in the midst of his people in Zion, and rules through his anointed king who is the son of David. In short, the revelation of God's wisdom in his plan of salvation is the only framework within which authentic human wisdom can flourish. The consideration of such questions has a profound effect on how Proverbs is read and distinguishes a whole-Bible biblical theology.

The links between the Testaments in the form of direct quotation of or allusion to the earlier by the later are obvious to every reader familiar with the OT and are of vital importance to biblical theology (see New Testament Use of the Old Testament ). Virtually every major doctrine in the NT is supported with some reference to Scripture. The search for the unity of the Bible, however, cannot limit itself to such quotations and even allusions, for even where these explicit links are rare the NT texts can scarcely be understood without reference to the way in which they relate to the OT. In twenty-one chapters the Gospel of John, for example, quotes the OT only some fifteen times. Yet John's opening phrase, ‘in the beginning’, recalls the beginning of Genesis, and the Gospel's teaching about Jesus throughout is firmly grounded in OT antecedents, from Jesus as the son sent by the father and the bread descending from heaven, to Jesus as the fulfilment of Jewish feasts (Tabernacles and Passover) and institutions (the Temple), to the seven ‘I am’ sayings.

Particular biblical themes are investigated in Part Three in a manner which attempts to synthesize the message of the Bible. Obviously the choice of topics in itself has an impact on the results which emerge from the various investigations. As well as subjects which have a basis in a wide range of biblical texts, themes were chosen which span the Testaments and clearly call for some attempt at synthesis. Instead of one article on Passover and another on the Lord's Supper, there is an entry on Sacred Meals which treats the Passover and the Lord's Supper, along with the peace offering, the last supper and the marriage supper of the Lamb, as part of the one vibrant and purposeful tradition. Similarly, rather than an article on the ascension of Jesus, there is one on exaltation which sets Jesus' ascension in the context of the frequent presentation of God in the OT as the great king over all the earth, proud humanity's urge to lift itself up in self-sufficiency and disobedience, and Jesus' enthronement in heaven and second coming.

Furthermore, in articles on what might normally be considered specifically NT themes due consideration is given to OT roots. The term ‘kingdom of God/heaven’, for instance, does not occur in the OT. Nonetheless, the idea of the rule of God over creation, all creatures, the kingdoms of the world and, in a unique and special way, over his chosen and redeemed people, is the very heart of the message of the OT. The ‘kingdom’ in the NT can be understood only against the backdrop of this rule and dominion, which is characteristically rejected by the human race, and whose final stage is anticipated in the prophets in terms of radical renewal and completion.

The storyline of the Bible

Even though the Bible is strictly speaking a collection of books written over hundreds of years with widely varying contents, it does tell a unified story; the tale of creation, fall, judgment and redemption culminates with the gospel concerning Jesus Christ, which the apostles regarded as attested to by all Scripture (see Biblical History ). As with any other book, a legitimate question to ask when reading the Bible is: what is it about? Even if the Bible's storyline contains numerous sub-plots, its main story can be told, and often is with reference to major themes of systematic theology such as sin, salvation and worship. Such topics act as centres around which the Bible's basic plot and message can be organized. Thus the Bible is about humankind falling into sin, and God's determination to put things right. It is about salvation, God's rescue plan for human beings under judgment. It is about the worship of the one true God and the rejection of gods that fail.

One goal of biblical theology, however, is, in the words of a famous hymn, to ‘tell the old, old story’, in fresh and unexpected ways. ‘Sin’, ‘salvation’ and ‘worship’ are not the only one-word answers to the question: what is the Bible about? Others include ‘violence’, ‘peace’, ‘victory’, ‘glory’ and even ‘clothes’ and ‘cities’, to name but a few of the many subjects appearing in part three.

The Bible is about violence, brutal but sometimes ambiguous. It begins with the foundational premise that the fallen world, and humanity in particular, is violent. An entire episode of human history is sealed with the narrator's judgment that the earth was filled with violence. We first encounter God's own violence in the flood, a divine judgment that destroys the greater part of human and animal life. But God's violence is different in that it is a function of his governance that is ultimately aimed towards the redemption of his creation. The prophets foresaw in Jesus a new and powerful vision of this redemption in which violence is absorbed and transformed.

The Bible is about peace, the bringing together of warring parties. The OT is full of the language of peace, with which one person wishes peace upon another, or wishes to be and live in peace, free from enemies or other dangers. However, peaceful relations between humans, as important as they might be, are not nearly so important as peace with God, which is achieved through sacrifice, in the end that of Jesus Christ.

The Bible is about victory, which ultimately belongs to the Lord and is entirely within his gift. Yahweh's military victories, which mark the high points of the national experience of pre- and early monarchical Israel, come about only when the people seek and obey him. Thus it is no surprise when their disobedience leads to ignominious defeat and exile. Confidence that victory still belonged to Yahweh is maintained in some of the Psalms, where it is asserted that Yahweh had conquered the cosmological forces of chaos, and in the prophets, who focus not on a decisive victory in the past, but on the coming decisive demonstration of the victory of God in the future. In the NT, this victory of God is demonstrated supremely in the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Though the victory has been decisively achieved, its final celebration and realization awaits the day of the Lord which is yet to come.

The Bible is about glory, radiant and ineffable, lost and regained. God's glorious presence, whether for salvation or destruction, is prominent in the key moments and central institutions of Israel's history and is decisively revealed in Jesus Christ. Through their sinful rebellion, human beings have forfeited the privilege, as image-bearers of God, of reflecting his glory. Yet through Christ believers are restored to glory.

The Bible is about clothes, used not only to denote community identity, signal social status and enact legal agreements, but also and more significantly to illustrate God's redemptive activity. From the first act of mercy extended to fallen humanity, the covering of Adam and Eve with clothes, to the end of the age, when the community of the redeemed will be clothed with an imperishable, immortal, heavenly dwelling, the exchange and provision of garments portray God's gracious and redemptive provision.

The Bible is about cities, in particular Jerusalem and Babylon and their fates and associations. Jerusalem as the religious centre of the holy land, both originally and in its final restoration, represents the people of God. The word of God issues forth from Jerusalem, peoples gather in Jerusalem to honour God, and the messianic king will appear there victoriously. Conversely, Babylon serves as a symbol of wickedness. Babylon is the proud and wicked city that will be left uninhabited and in ruins, whose name will be cut off for all time. Christians are citizens of the Jerusalem above. The clash between the city of God and the city of Satan will come to a head in the eschaton, with the fall of Babylon and the arrival of the new Jerusalem.

Thus biblical theology explores the Bible's rich and many-sided presentation of its unified message. It is committed to declaring ‘the whole counsel of God ... [in order] to feed the church of God’ ( Ac 20:21-28).

A Christ-centred structure

Finally, biblical theology maintains a conscious focus on Jesus Christ, not in some naive and implausible sense, where Christ is found in the most unlikely places, but in noting God's faithfulness, wisdom and purpose in the progress of salvation history. It reads not only the NT, but also the OT, as a book about Jesus. Even if in the OT religion was focused on present relationship with God, based on his dealings with and for his people in the past, there is a firm and growing belief in the future coming of God on the day of the Lord for judgment and salvation. Christians believe that this hope culminates in Jesus and read the OT as a book which prepares for and prophesies his coming and the people of God he would renew and call into existence. The books of the NT connect Jesus with the OT in a variety of ways, seeing Jesus as the fulfilment of prophecy, the ideal to which individuals and institutions aspired, or the climax of God's dealings revealed in various types.

Virtually every theme in biblical theology, as may be seen from the examples noted in the previous two sections, leads to Christ as the final and definitive instalment. Not only do we see Christ and his work in a different light by considering themes such as victory, peace and glory; the momentous nature of his appearance means that the reverse is also true. A host of topics, such as death and resurrection and sacrifice, and less obviously, but no less profoundly, humanity, Israel and obedience, are seen differently in light of the advent of Christ. The article on Jesus Christ could be cross-referenced to every article in Part Three, for all the subjects are relevant to him as God's final word and decisive act, and he to them. Even the articles on biblical people, such as Abraham, Moses, David, Elisha and Jonah, refer to Christ, in a typological sense and/or as the fulfilment of the promises made to these people. Indeed, the Messiah is the theme which unites the Old and New Testaments (T. D. Alexander, The Servant King ). If biblical theology seeks to connect text and truth (to use Watson's phrase), it never forgets that Jesus is the truth.

Conclusion

What is biblical theology? To sum up, biblical theology may be defined as theological interpretation of Scripture in and for the church. It proceeds with historical and literary sensitivity and seeks to analyse and synthesize the Bible's teaching about God and his relations to the world on its own terms, maintaining sight of the Bible's overarching narrative and Christocentric focus.

Further clarification of the nature and promise of biblical theology is presented in the other articles in Part One. However, in the end, like civil engineering, biblical theology is best judged and understood by examining what it produces. The purists will always want more exact definition. Ultimately the proof that civil engineering and biblical theology are well conceived is in the quality of the things they build. For the latter, this can be inspected in Parts Two and Three.

Bibliography

T. D Alexander, The Servant King (Leicester, 1998); J. Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology (London, 1999); M. Bockmuehl, ‘“To be or not to be”: The possible futures of New Testament scholarship’, SJT 51, 1998, pp. 271-306; G. B. Caird, New Testament Theology , compiled and edited by L. D. Hurst (Oxford, 1994); D. A. Carson, ‘New Testament theology’, in DLNTD , pp. 796-814; B. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis, 1992); S. Fowl and L. G. Jones, Reading in Communion: Scripture and Ethics in Christian Life (Grand Rapids, 1991); R. J. Gibson (ed.), Interpreting God's Plan: Biblical Theology and the Pastor (Carlisle, 1998); G. L. Goldsworthy, According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible (Leicester, 1991); J. B. Green and M. Turner, Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, 1999); H. Räisänen, Beyond New Testament Theology (London, 1990); P. Stuhlmacher, How To Do Biblical Theology (Allison Park, 1995); W. VanGemeren, The Progress of Redemption: From Creation to the New Jerusalem (Carlisle, ² 1995); F. Watson, Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology (Edinburgh, 1997).

B. S. Rosner

History of Biblical Theology

Introduction

While some trace the origin of biblical theology to the Protestant Reformation, and others to J. P. Gabler's 1797 address, ‘An Oration on the Proper Distinction Between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each’, the fact is that the Christian church was concerned from a very early date to articulate a ‘biblical theology’ in some form. As far as is known, the actual term ( ^* theologia biblica , biblische Theologie ) was first used in the early 1600s, but the attempt to discern a unified and consistent theology in the scriptures of the OT and NT is much older.

It might be argued that biblical theology has its origin within the Bible itself. Summaries of ‘salvation-history’ found in the OT ( ^* e.g. Dt 26:5-9; Ne 9:7-37; Ps 78,105,106) and also in the NT ( Ac 7; Heb 11) trace the continuity of God's dealings with his people. The NT Gospels and epistles interpret the Christ event in the light of the OT, but also reinterpret the OT in the light of the Christ event. Paul, it has been suggested, was the first ‘Old Testament theologian’, and the same claim could well be made for the writer to the Hebrews.

The Early and Medieval Periods

As soon as the Gospels, the letters of Paul and other Christian writings began to be used alongside the Hebrew Scriptures, and well before the finalizing of what came to be recognized as the NT, these scriptures were employed by the church in formulating its beliefs and in countering what it believed to be false teaching. From the outset it faced the problem of unity and diversity (a major problem in biblical theology to this day). The church refused to follow Marcion's solution of rejecting the OT altogether, and also set aside proposals to recognize only one Gospel (Marcion) or combine all four in a harmony (Tatian). Instead it opted for the fullness of scriptural witness with the attendant problems of diversity.

Irenaeus (late 2nd century) defended the fourfold Gospel as inspired by the one Spirit, and could well be regarded as the first biblical theologian. In countering the gnostic challenge he sought to develop a Christian understanding of the OT integrated with a consistent interpretation of the Gospels and epistles, an understanding that was in turn integrated with ‘the rule of faith’ preserved in those churches that claimed direct succession from the apostles.

Following the lead of Origen ( ^* c. 185-254), the church made extensive use of allegorization as a method of biblical interpretation. This enabled interpreters to find a uniform theology throughout Scripture, but it frequently bypassed the historical meaning and encouraged the reading of later doctrines back into the text. By medieval times Scripture was supposed to have four senses: literal (or historical); allegorical; moral (or tropological); and anagogical (or spiritual). The allegorizing ‘School of Alexandria’ was opposed, however, by the ‘School of Antioch’ which took a more historical approach, anticipating some of the findings of modern scholarship. Despite the popularity of allegory, the historical sense was championed by, for example, the 12th-century Victorines, and its primacy was asserted by Thomas Aquinas ( ^* c. 1225-74). For all its faults, medieval interpretation recognized the existence of different levels of meaning in Scripture which could be used to nourish the faith and life of the church.

The Reformation

The Reformers appealed to the teaching of Scripture alone ( sola Scriptura ) against centuries of church tradition, and consequently practised a form of biblical theology. Martin Luther (1483-1546) scrutinized the church's beliefs and practices in the light of Scripture. In general he rejected allegorization and emphasized the grammatical and literal sense, and he addressed the diversity of the Bible by taking ‘justification by faith’ as his key hermeneutical concept. He focused on those books that ‘show Christ’, and questioned the canonicity of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.

John Calvin (1509-64) regarded Scripture as the supreme authority for Christian belief. Both in his Institutes of the Christian Religion and in his biblical commentaries he sought to ground the faith of the church in the Bible more comprehensively and systematically than Luther did, attempting to do justice to the full range of biblical material. While the supreme revelation is found in the NT, Christ is revealed in the OT also. Faith is essential for the interpretation of Scripture and its truth is conveyed to believers by the ‘internal testimony of the Holy Spirit’. Thus while Calvin was, by modern definition, a dogmatic theologian, in many ways he can be seen as the initiator of a truly biblical theology.

The Emergence of Biblical Theology as a Separate Discipline

The fresh insights and bold discussions of the Reformers were followed by the period of ‘Protestant Orthodoxy’, which produced rigid dogmatic systems. A notable exception is found in the work of the Reformed theologian Johannes Cocceius (1603-69) who in his major work Summa Doctrina de Foedere et Testamento Dei (1648) sought to interpret the Bible as an organic whole by giving a central place to the concept of ‘covenant’. Cocceius laid the basis for the influential ‘federal’ or ‘covenant’ theology; he also anticipated later developments in biblical theology through his emphasis on covenant and on God's dealings with his people in the ‘history of salvation’.

In the 17th and 18th centuries three major trends led to the emergence of biblical theology as a more separate discipline.

First, the practice developed, especially within Lutheran orthodoxy, of compiling collections of proof texts ( dicta probantia ) to demonstrate the biblical basis of Protestant doctrine. These collections, sometimes referred to as collegia biblica ( ^* collegium = collection) were usually arranged in accordance with the standard topics ( ^* loci communes ) of dogmatic theology. Beginning around 1560, these collegia flourished for about two centuries, and the earliest works bearing the title ‘Biblical Theology’ were of this nature. While the shortcomings of a ‘proof-texting’ approach are obvious, nevertheless these collections did turn attention back to the teaching of the Bible itself.

A second major trend was Pietism which, under the leadership of such figures as P. J. Spener (1635-1705) and A. H. Franke (1663-1727), reacted against dry and rigid orthodoxy and emphasized personal religious experience. Pietists turned to the Bible not for proof texts to support orthodox doctrine (though they did not intend to depart from orthodoxy), but for spiritual and devotional nourishment. Spener contrasted ‘biblical theology’ ( theologia biblica ) with the prevailing Protestant ‘scholastic theology’ ( theologia scholastica ), and in the 18th century several Pietists published works with the term ‘biblical theology’ in their titles.

A third trend was the development in the 17th and 18th centuries of new critical methods of literary and historical research, and of what came to be known as the ‘historical-critical’ or ‘grammatico-historical’ approach. Pioneers of the new approach included Richard Simon (1638-1712), Benedict Spinoza (1632-77), and J. S. Semler (1725-91) who argued that the books of the Bible must be studied in their original historical context as one would study any ancient book, and that this study must be separated from the use of the Bible by dogmatic theologians. Eighteenth-century rationalism saw in this new approach an objective method by which to free the church from centuries of dogma and identify the true Christian faith. The rationalists sought to extract from the Bible universal and timeless truths, in accordance with reason, distinguishing them from what was merely historically conditioned and timebound. This approach is seen in the work of K. F. Bahrdt, and especially in G. T. Zachariä's five volume Biblische Theologie (1771-75). W. F. Hufnagel in his Handbuch der biblischen Theologie (1785-89) argued that biblical texts must be used to correct theological systems, not vice versa.

Gabler's Definition

It was at this point that J. P. Gabler delivered his 1787 inaugural address at the University of Altdorf on ‘The Proper Distinction Between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each’, an address which most historians see as a significant milestone in the development of biblical theology. Gabler was a professing Christian though strongly influenced by the rationalism of his day, and saw ‘biblical theology’ as a historical discipline, separate from ‘dogmatic theology’ which applies the eternal truths of Christianity to the theologian's own time. Later, however, Gabler drew a distinction within ‘biblical theology’. ‘True ( wahre ) biblical theology’ is the historical study of the OT and the NT, their authors and the contexts in which they were written. This is then to be followed by ‘pure ( reine ) biblical theology’, which consists of a comparative study of the biblical material with a view to distinguishing what is merely time-conditioned and what is eternal Christian truth; it is the latter that becomes the subject-matter of dogmatic theology. On this view, biblical theology is not merely descriptive but is also part of the hermeneutical process.

Gabler's views were not so much original as typical of his day. As the 19th century progressed, however, the title of his address became more influential than its content. Biblical theology came to be seen as a purely historical, descriptive and objective discipline, separate from the concerns of biblical interpreters. Hence it could increasingly be pursued in an academic setting, in effect divorced from the life and faith of the church.

The Rise and Fall of Biblical Theology

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries rationalist scholars made increasing use of the developing historical-critical method to produce ‘biblical theologies’. Generally these works were used to criticize orthodox theology. Typical of this approach were the biblical theologies of C. F. von Ammon ( ^* Entwurf einer reinen biblischen Theologie , 1792) and G. P. C. Kaiser ( ^* Die biblische Theologie , 1813-21). More significant was the work of W. M. L. de Wette ( ^* Biblische Dogmatik des Alten und Neuen Testaments , 1813), a more independent scholar who distinguished ‘Hebraism’ from (post-exilic) ‘Judaism’, regarding the latter as an inferior form of religion. A more moderate rationalism characterized the Biblische Theologie (1836) of D. G. C von Cölln.

Most of these scholars demanded that revelation be subordinated to reason, as they understood it, the result being that the supernatural was largely eliminated from their theology. Diversity within Scripture was addressed by the removal of temporally conditioned ideas ( Zeitideen ), which represented an ‘accommodation’ to the thought of people in biblical times; what was left was the essence of biblical religion, the timeless rational truths of religion and morality.

Not surprisingly, orthodox and conservative scholars stood aloof from this new movement, though in time they realized that biblical theology could also be written from a more conservative viewpoint. The earliest such work by a conservative scholar was L. F. O. Baumgarten-Crusius' Grundzüge der Biblischen Theologie (1828), which adopted a historical approach but emphasized the essential unity of Scripture. The more conservative J. C. K. von Hofman, in reaction to those who sought within Scripture a system of doctrine, stressed that the Bible is rather the record of ‘salvation history’ ( Heilsgeschichte ), an insight that was to prove influential. J. L. S. Lutz's Biblische Dogmatik (1847) and the massive and influential work of H. Ewald ( ^* Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott oder Theologie des Alten und Neuen Bundes , 1871-76) represent a moderate conservatism.

By the middle of the century, however, historical study of the Bible was revealing ever more clearly the diversity of the biblical material, and above all the difference between the OT and the NT in relation to their original historical settings. The very possibility of a ‘biblical’ theology was called in question. Ahead of his time in a number of respects, the rationalist scholar G. L. Bauer had written a Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments (1796), followed by a separate Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments (1800-2). In due course Bauer's procedure came to be accepted as the norm not only by critical scholars but even by conservatives, and a series of ‘Theologies of the Old Testament’ and ‘Theologies of the New Testament’ was produced. For approximately a century from around 1870 ‘biblical theology’, in the sense of works on the theology of the OT and NT together, virtually ceased to exist.

OT and NT Theology

For the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, OT and NT theology pursued separate though generally parallel paths frequently reflecting the prevailing theological climate. Thus Hegelian influence was strong in NT theology, especially in the work of F. C. Baur (1792-1860) and the ‘Tübingen School’. This approach brought a new awareness of the historical nature of the biblical documents and of historical development in biblical theology.

The application of historical-critical methods altered the consensus on the authorship and dating of the biblical books. Thus, for example, the belief in Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was abandoned in favour of source criticism which assigned every verse to J, E, D or P. Mark was deemed to be the earliest Gospel, while the Pastorals were assigned to the 2nd century. As a result new chronological schemes emerged for tracing the theology of both OT and NT; the emphasis was on diversity and development.

Liberal Protestantism tended in this period to downgrade and neglect the OT, so that OT theologies came from conservative scholars such as J. C. F. Steudel (1840), H. A. C. Hävernick (1848) and G. F. Oehler (1873-74). H. Schultz continued to regard religion as divine revelation while being open to more critical views in the later editions of his Alttestamentliche Theologie (1869-96). The German monopoly was broken by C. Piepenbring's Théologie de l'Ancien Testament (1886) and A. B. Davidson's The Theology of the Old Testament (1904).

Despite the shock waves caused by D. F. Strauss' Life of Jesus (1835, 1836), liberal scholars generally were confident of rediscovering ‘Jesus as he actually was’ by means of historical methodology. Harnack found ‘the essence of Christianity’ in Jesus' teaching on the Fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of humanity and the infinite value of the human soul.

The most influential liberal NT theology was that of H. J. Holtzmann ( ^* Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Theologie , 1896), while a moderate conservatism, influenced by liberal scholarship, is seen in the NT theologies of B. Weiss (1868-1903) and W. Beyschlag (1891-92). English-speaking scholarship is represented by E. P. Gould ( ^* The Biblical Theology of the New Testament , 1900) and G. B. Stevens ( ^* The Theology of the New Testament , 1901). Of major importance was the work of A. Schlatter (1852-1938) who sought to work out a position independent of rationalism and liberalism on the one hand and conservatism on the other; while adopting a historical approach, he emphasized the basic unity of the NT and grounded NT theology in the historical Jesus. Evidence of his stature as a biblical theologian may be seen in the 1973 publication in English of a key methodological essay (in R. Morgan, The Nature of New Testament Theology , pp. 117-166), the publication of a biography by Werner Neuer (1996), and the belated translation into English of his Theologie des Neuen Testaments (1909-10, ² 1921-22) in two volumes, The History of the Christ: The Foundation of New Testament Theology (1997) and The Theology of the Apostles: The Development of New Testament Theology (1999).

From Theology to Religion

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries archaeological discoveries (which continue to this day) began to provide information about the ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman world. For many, these discoveries appeared to call in question the uniqueness of biblical faith. Babylonian creation myths and law codes, Jewish apocalypticism, Hellenistic mystery religions and pre-Christian Gnosticism all provided striking parallels to the biblical material, which could no longer be studied in isolation. A comparative approach to biblical religion was strongly favoured. Reacting against both liberals and conservatives who spoke of biblical ‘doctrines’, the history of religions ( Religionsgeschichte ) approach emphasized that the true subject matter of biblical studies is religion . The Bible is not a book of doctrine but the record of the life and religious experience of the communities of Israel and the early church. According to W. Wrede, the true subject matter of ‘so-called New Testament Theology’ is not in fact theology but early Christian religion, which must be investigated objectively and completely divorced from any system of dogma or systematic theology. The boundaries of the canon should be ignored: the intertestamental literature and the Apostolic Fathers are just as important for the historian of religion as the canonical books.

An early example of this approach (despite its title) is A. Kaiser's Die Theologie des Alten Testaments (1886), while R. Smend's Lehrbook der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte (1893) inaugurated a series of works which usually bore the title ‘History of Religion’ ( Religionsgeschichte ). Representative works from the field of NT studies are H. Weinel's Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments (1911) and W. Bousset's Kyrios Christos (1913). The influence of this approach in the English-speaking world can be seen in two works with significant titles, S. J. Case's The Evolution of Early Christianity (1914) and E. F. Scott's The Varieties of New Testament Religion (1943).

The history of religions approach remained dominant until the First World War, and it continues to be a major force in biblical studies, particularly in university ‘departments of religious studies’. However legitimate it may be as an academic discipline, from the point of view of the community of faith it raises serious questions. Can an approach which totally ignores the canon really be considered ‘biblical’, and can an approach that fails to recognize the biblical material as theologically normative be appropriately designated ‘theology’? It might appear that the post-Gablerian separation of biblical and dogmatic theology had led not just to the division of biblical theology (into OT and NT theologies) but eventually to its demise.

The Revival of Theology

The period following the First World War saw a major reaction against liberalism in the theology of Karl Barth. In biblical studies there was a renewed emphasis on biblical ‘theology’, though still in the form of separate treatments of the OT and NT.

Many see the 1930s as having inaugurated the golden age of OT theology. Particularly influential was W. Eichrodt's Theologie des Alten Testaments (1933-39), though the English translation, Theology of the Old Testament , did not appear until 1961-67. Other mid-century contributions included OT theologies in German by E. Sellin (1933), L. Köhler (1935) and O. Procksch (1949), in Dutch by T. C. Vriezen (1949) and in French by E. Jacob (1955). The most influential post-Second World War OT theology was that of G. von Rad (1957-60). A notable feature of this period was the entry of Roman Catholic scholars into the field following a 1943 papal encyclical which approved a more modern historical approach to Scripture; a transitional work was the Theologie des Alten Testaments (1940) of the Dutch scholar P. Heinisch, and a major contribution was the Théologie de l'Ancien Testament (1954-56) of P. van Imschoot. The tradition of writing OT theologies has been continued by such scholars as W. Zimmerli (1972), J. L. McKenzie (1974), C. Westermann (1978), H. D. Preuss (1991-92) and W. Brueggemann (1997). Another trend has been the entry of conservative-evangelical scholars into the field with contributions by W. C. Kaiser (1978) and W. Dyrness (1979).

The revival of NT theology came somewhat later and was dominated by the brilliant but controversial two-volume work by R. Bultmann ( ^* Theologie des Neuen Testaments , 1948-53). A sceptical form critic, Bultmann regarded the historical Jesus as a presupposition of NT theology rather than a part of it, and focused largely on Paul and John where he found themes congenial to his existentialist ‘demythologizing’ of the Christian message. In the Bultmann tradition is H. Conzelmann's Grundriss der Theologie des Neuen Testaments (1967), though he adds a section on the Synoptics.

At the opposite pole stand scholars for whom the historical Jesus is the starting point of NT theology. These include A. Richardson ( ^* An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament , 1958), and J. Jeremias ( ^* Neutestamentliche Theologie, I: Die Verkündigung Jesu , 1971: no further volumes were published). Jesus is also the starting point for W. G. Kümmel's Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments (1969). Other important works include those by F. C. Grant (1950) and G. B. Caird, whose New Testament Theology was published posthumously in 1994. Roman Catholic contributions include NT theologies by M. Meinertz (1950), J. Bonsirven (1951) and the four-volume Theologie des Neuen Testaments (1971-78) of K. H. Schelkle. Contributions by conservative-evangelical scholars include New Testament theologies by G. E. Ladd (1974, revised 1993), D. Guthrie (1981) and L. Morris (1986).

Every author who writes a biblical theology of this type has to adopt a structure. The earliest practice was to employ the standard topics of systematic theology (‘God’, ‘Humanity’, ‘Sin’, ‘Law’, ‘Salvation’, etc. ) especially as these had been developed in the dicta probantia of Protestant Orthodoxy. Schemes like this were adopted by Pietist and rationalist scholars alike, and they were revived, with some variations, in OT theologies such as those by Köhler (1935), Baab (1949) and van Imschoot (1954). Jacob (1955) attempted to break new ground, but in fact still largely followed a traditional scheme. Twentieth-century NT theologies that have more or less followed traditional theological categories include those of Grant (1950), Richardson (1958) and Schelkle (1968-1976). Though many have adopted this approach it has been widely criticized as imposing an alien scheme on the biblical material, omitting important biblical themes ( ^* e.g. wisdom, the land), and imposing an artificial unity on the diversity of the biblical books.

With the development of the historical-critical approach in the late 18th and early 19th centuries the Bible began to look less like a textbook of systematic theology and more like a history book. Theologies of both OT and NT generally adopted a chronological structure, tracing the development of religion through the history of Israel and the history of the early church, a common practice to this day. Such schemes generally depend on modern critical reconstructions of the dating of the various books. Some have adopted a hybrid scheme combining the systematic and historical approaches. For example, D. Guthrie's New Testament Theology (1981) has a basically systematic structure, but each topic is then traced through the Synoptics, John, Acts, Paul, Hebrews, other epistles and Revelation. Von Rad (1957-60) rejected systematic categories and focused on the biblical testimony to God's continuing activity in the history of Israel (which he saw as something quite different from the history of Israel as reconstructed by modern critical scholarship). A somewhat different approach is adopted by those who follow more or less the canonical order: an OT example is Oehler (1873), and a New Testament one is Ladd (1974).

Dissatisfaction with both systematic and historical approaches has led some scholars to structure their works around themes or topics which they see as arising from the biblical material rather than being imposed upon it. The classic example is Eichrodt, who took the concept of ‘covenant’ as the organizing principle for his Theology of the Old Testament . This stimulated a debate regarding the appropriate ‘centre’ or ‘focal point’, initially for OT theology, then for NT theology also. The difficulty of finding any one theme comprehensive enough to embrace all the diverse biblical material led others to adopt a multi-thematic approach. E. A. Martens, for example, in his Plot and Purpose in the Old Testament (1981) identifies four key themes: salvation/deliverance, the covenant community, knowledge/experience of God, and land. W. J. Dumbrell, in a study of Rev 21 and 22 (1985), traces five basic biblical themes: the new Jerusalem; the new temple; the new covenant; the new Israel; and the new creation. A more recent trend is to emphasize the dialectical nature of biblical theology: Westermann, for example, balances ‘The Saving God and History’ with a discussion of ‘The Blessing God and Creation’, while Brueggemann utilizes categories of ‘testimony’ and ‘counter-testimony’ in structuring his Theology of the Old Testament (1997).

Some have spoken of a ‘biblical theology movement’ that flourished, especially in the English-speaking world, from around 1945 to 1960. ‘Movement’ may be too strong a word, but certain trends did characterize this period, including a renewed interest in ‘theology’ (without the abandonment of the historical-critical approach), and an emphasis on ‘the God who acts’, on the ‘uniqueness’ of biblical faith and on the unity of the Bible. O. Cullmann's work on ‘salvation-history’ was seen by some as a key to understanding the basic unity of the biblical material. Typical also was the ‘word-study’ approach to biblical theology, evidenced in the production of biblical ‘wordbooks’. The ‘movement’ is generally believed to have collapsed by the early 1960s, partly due to damaging methodological criticisms, and partly due to changing priorities among scholars.

From Theology to Theologies

One of the dominant trends in the latter part of the 20th century has been a renewed emphasis on diversity and development within the Bible, to the point where not only the concept of ‘biblical theology’ but even those of OT and NT theology have been radically called in question. This reflects the growing complexity of biblical studies resulting from new discoveries, the proliferation of methodologies and the seemingly endless output of secondary literature. In consequence many no longer consider themselves even OT or NT scholars, but specialize in a narrower area.

Many scholars prefer to speak of OT ‘theologies’ (Yahwist, Deuteronomic, Priestly, and so on). Similarly, many NT scholars focus on the disparate ‘theologies’ of Paul, John, Luke, and even of the hypothetical ‘Q’ document. Biblical theology appears to have reached an impasse. The post-Gablerian separation of biblical theology from the life and faith of the church, as a discipline to be pursued in an objective, historical, descriptive way, has arrived at the point where many declare that a ‘biblical theology’ is in fact an impossibility.

New Approaches

There has been a wide diversity of approaches to biblical theology in recent decades. One striking feature has been the questioning of the dominance of the historical-critical method. Few would reject it altogether, but many suggest a more thorough questioning of its (often rationalistic) presuppositions, and a willingness to see it as only one among several legitimate approaches to Scripture. Modern hermeneutical theory calls into question whether any approach to an ancient text can be neutral and objective, and scholars such as P. Stuhlmacher have called for ‘a hermeneutics of consent to the biblical texts’.

The last third of the 20th century saw an explosion of interest in the literary approach to the Bible. Using diverse methodologies, literary critics focus on the final form of the biblical text. For example, the literary critic N. Frye in his The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (1981) sought to understand the Bible as a literary whole, a task for which source analysis and modern theories of authorship are irrelevant. The Bible is undoubtedly the end product of a long and complicated literary process, but it needs to be studied in its own right. Frye sees a sequence or dialectical progression in the Bible, consisting of seven main phases which form a chain of types and antitypes.

One feature of the literary approach has been a renewed interest in biblical narrative or story, which has led to the development of ‘narrative theology’. Some see this as part of ‘the collapse of history’ in recent biblical studies. A popular slogan is that the Bible is not ‘history’ but ‘story’ and some scholars deny any referential function to biblical narrative. Many scholars engaged in the literary study of the Bible are either indifferent or even opposed to a religious understanding of the text. A literary approach need not, however, be based on secular presuppositions and a number of scholars, such as L. Ryken and T. Longman, have shown that it is quite compatible with more conservative presuppositions, including a high view of the historicity of the text. By looking at biblical stories and poems as literary wholes as well as locating them in their wider, literary, canonical context, biblical literary criticism has the potential to make an important contribution to biblical theology.

The latter part of the 20th century also saw a surprising interest in the canon of Scripture, a subject that has not usually been regarded as of first importance in biblical studies. J. A. Sanders' form of ‘canonical criticism’ can be seen as a reaction against a historical-criticism that frequently treated only the (reconstructed) original form of a biblical text as ‘authentic’. In his studies of the nature and function of canon Sanders stresses the importance of the whole process of transmitting, editing and shaping the material up to and including its final canonical form. In his view the canonical process was marked by both stability and adaptability.

Significantly different from this is the ‘canonical approach’ of B. S Childs first enunciated in his Biblical Theology in Crisis (1970) and worked out in canonical introductions to both OT and NT. Childs does not reject historical criticism but is acutely conscious of the gap between such criticism and the use of the Bible as authoritative Scripture by the Christian community. Thus he argues that biblical theology must be based primarily on the final form of the canonical text. His approach is like that advocated in the methodology of G. F. Hasel, who sees biblical theology not as merely historical in its approach but rather as ‘theological-historical’, and as based on the canonical form of the biblical texts.

Another recent trend is the sociological approach to Scripture. This can be seen as an extension of the historical-critical approach, and it shares some of that approach's limitations, as it tends to be based on hypothetical reconstructions of the social situations out of which the biblical texts emerged. Moreover, a sociological approach is no more free from presuppositions than any other. Sociologists transfer models from other societies, and this procedure may not be valid in relation to biblical societies of two or three millennia ago. Nevertheless a sociological approach can provide a different perspective and can complement other methodologies.

Related to this approach has been a new interest not just in the context of the original writer but also in that of the modern interpreter. One criticism of the so-called ‘biblical theology movement’ was its irrelevance to the emerging social, economic and political issues of the 1960s. Since then various types of ‘liberation theology’ (Latin American, Third World, black, feminist) have sought a biblical-theological basis. Some of these focus on the Exodus as a key event which demonstrates that God is on the side of the oppressed and downtrodden; others, on the OT prophets' calls for social justice. A striking example is the work of N. Gottwald ( ^* The Tribes of Yahweh , 1979), who draws on Marxist analysis to present the early history of Israel not in terms of the traditional ‘conquest’ but rather primarily as a peasant revolt within Canaanite society. Feminist biblical theologians stress the thoroughly patriarchal nature of biblical society which in contemporary hermeneutics needs to be radically reinterpreted if not totally rejected. Others, however, see a basically egalitarian approach within Scripture, in the teaching and example of Jesus and possibly in Paul (but not in the Pastorals), an approach that was smothered by re-emerging patriarchalism even within the NT period. All forms of liberation theology combine biblical interpretation with a call to radical action in terms of contemporary social, political and economic structures. Such ‘contextual theologies’ need not be seen as reading contemporary concerns back into Scripture; rather, they can serve the very useful purpose of bringing out neglected aspects of biblical theology. Nevertheless the obvious focus on a ‘canon within the canon’ raises serious concerns as to how adequately these approaches can serve as the basis for a truly ‘all-biblical’ theology.

The Rebirth of Biblical Theology

In the midst of a wide variety of new approaches in biblical studies there are signs that rumours of the death of biblical theology may have been exaggerated. In recent years a number of attempts have been made to bridge the rigid division between OT and NT studies and to return to some form of ‘biblical’ theology.

One such attempt can be seen in the ‘history of traditions’ approach associated especially with the German scholars H. Gese and P. Stuhlmacher. This is based on the assumption that in the time of Jesus the OT canon was not yet closed, and that biblical theology is concerned with a continuous history of tradition. Divine revelation is not to be located only in the earliest forms of the tradition but in the entire process, which was long and complex as traditions were continually selected, edited and reinterpreted. This approach has been demonstrated in studies of such themes as ‘wisdom’, ‘law’ and ‘righteousness’. Critics, however, point out that this type of tradition-history depends on a particular view of the canon (a subject that is currently very much under debate), that its use of non-canonical material is open to question, and that locating revelation in the process of tradition history fails to identify the norm of Christian faith.

Further evidence of a renewed interest in biblical theology in the 1980s and 1990s may be seen in the Fortress Press series Overtures to Biblical Theology , Abingdon's Biblical Encounters series and the New Studies in Biblical Theology series published by Eerdmans and Inter-Varsity Press. Many of these studies do biblical theology by tracing biblical themes through both OT and NT, not ignoring diversity, but also seeking unity or at least continuity, in the biblical material.

The 1980s and 1990s also saw vigorous scholarly debate on topics such as ‘Paul and the law’ (J. D. G. Dunn, L. Gaston, H. Hübner, H. Räisänen, E. P. Sanders, P. Stuhlmacher), a theme that demands consideration of the place of the law in the OT as well as in other NT writings.

One unresolved tension in biblical theology is that between the academy and the believing community. The increasing use of the ecumenical lectionary in worship, for example, highlights the fact that for the church biblical theology is not an academic discipline but an integral part of its faith and life. F. Watson has argued cogently that a true biblical theology must bridge the gaps that presently exist not only between OT and NT specialists but also between biblical scholars and theologians. Such a biblical theology must emphasize ‘both the ultimate coherence of the two Testaments and the theological dimension of the interpretative task’ ( ^* Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology , p. 8). Some see biblical theology as an activity to be practised in the exegesis of biblical passages or in studies of individual books, authors or themes. Whether it is possible to go beyond this and produce an ‘all-biblical theology’ ( gesamtbiblische Theologie ) is a matter of debate. Some ( ^* e.g. H. Hübner) have argued that the present state of scholarship rules out such an enterprise, which in any case would be beyond the competence of any one individual. Despite this, however, the late 20th century saw a revival of interest in the possibility of writing a ‘biblical theology’ encompassing both OT and NT. Two early 20th-century examples come from opposite ends of the theological spectrum. M. Burrows' An Outline of Biblical Theology (1946) is written from a liberal Protestant viewpoint, but is more akin to a dictionary of biblical themes than a full-fledged ‘theology’. The Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (1948) of G. Vos is written from a strongly conservative perspective, though it acknowledges a progressive revelation; it is worth reading, though unfortunately it is incomplete. Of major importance is S. Terrien's The Elusive Presence: The Heart of Biblical Theology (1978), which uses the theme of divine presence as a hermeneutical key in a study of each of the main units of the biblical canon, and which seeks to uncover what the author calls ‘a certain homogeneity of theological depth’ which binds the biblical books together. Other biblical theologies include Horst Seebas' Der Gott der ganzen Bibel (1982) which presents a sketch rather than a full biblical theology; H.-R. Weber's Power: Focus for a Biblical Theology (1989), another example of the one-theme approach, and the more conservative and popular volume by G. Goldsworthy, According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible (1991). The most significant 20th-century biblical theology is B. S. Childs' Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (1992), which is the culmination of the author's ‘canonical approach’. This volume first presents the ‘discrete witness’ of the OT and the NT, tracing the development of traditions in each of the main units of the canon; then it proceeds to theological reflection on the Christian Bible, discussing the biblical material under ten major topical headings, and concluding by relating these to contemporary theological discussion.

Despite the criticism levelled at these works from various quarters they demonstrate that it is possible once again to attempt the writing of a truly ‘biblical theology’, and they suggest both some of the pitfalls to avoid and some of the approaches that are worth pursuing.

See also: Challenges to Biblical Theology ; Relationship of Old Testament and New Testament .

Bibliography

G. Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present (Leicester and Downers Grove, 1996); B. S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia, 1970); W. Harrington, The Path of Biblical Theology (Dublin, 1973); G. F. Hasel, New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids, 1978); idem , Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids, ⁴ 1991); R. Morgan, The Nature of New Testament Theology (London, 1973); J. Reumann (ed.), The Promise and Practice of Biblical Theology (Minneapolis, 1991); H. G. Reventlow, Problems of Biblical Theology in the Twentieth Century (Philadelphia, 1986); J. Sandys-Wunsch and L. Eldredge, ‘J. P. Gabler and the distinction between biblical and dogmatic theology: Translation, commentary and discussion of his originality’, SJT 33, 1980, pp. 133-158; J. D. Smart, The Past, Present and Future of Biblical Theology (Philadelphia, 1979); P. Stuhlmacher, How To Do Biblical Theology (Allison Park, 1995); F. Watson, Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids and Edinburgh, 1997).

C. H. H. Scobie

Challenges to Biblical Theology

Introduction

The discipline of biblical theology has faced challenges of various kinds since the end of the 19th century. In 1897, William Wrede published an essay entitled Über Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten Neutestamentlichen Theologie in which he argued that the discipline of NT theology should be replaced by study of ‘the history of early Christian religion and theology’ (ET; in The Nature of New Testament Theology , p. 116). Heikki Räisänen's programmatic study, Beyond New Testament Theology (1990), and his numerous subsequent articles have revived Wrede's proposal. Although these works focus primarily on NT theology, their effect is to undermine biblical theology as a whole.

Biblical theology is also challenged implicitly by those who do not want to move ‘beyond’ the discipline but rather to modify it to such an extent that its traditional name can hardly be justified. For example, there is a widespread view that the diversity of the Bible's theological ideas rules out any unified biblical theology (see e.g. P. Pokorný, ‘The Problem of Biblical Theology’, HBT 15, 1993, pp. 83-94, esp. 87).

Thus, there are two main challenges to biblical theology: first, the argument against confining study to the ‘Bible’ as defined in the canon; and secondly, the argument against the basic theological unity of the biblical authors and books.

There are also challenges which do not question the discipline of biblical theology as such, but which criticize some of the ways it has been practised. For example, in his article ‘Revelation through history in the Old Testament and in modern theology’, James Barr argues that the idea of revelation through history should not be overemphasized against other forms of revelation in the Bible, for example, the ‘verbal self-declaration of Yahweh’ ( ^* Int 17, 1963, pp. 193-205, quote from p. 197). He does not deny that salvation-history, Heilsgeschichte , is a central theme of the Bible, but stresses ‘that there are other axes through the biblical material which are equally pervasive and important’ (p. 201).

Similarly, Barr repeatedly criticizes the biblical theology movement that lay behind Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament , for grounding the unity and distinctiveness of the Bible in the alleged theological distinction between Hebrew and Greek thought and in the supposed rejection by the biblical writers of natural theology. However, even in his major work, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961), Barr affirms that his purpose ‘is not to criticize biblical theology or any other kind of theology as such, but to criticize certain methods in the handling of linguistic evidence in theological discussion’ (p. 6). His main criticism is that Kittel's Dictionary places too much emphasis on single words at the expense of combinations of words or sentences. Barr has put forward his thesis as follows (p. 263): ‘It is the sentence (and of course the still larger literary complex such as the complete speech or poem) which is the linguistic bearer of the usual theological statement, and not the word (the lexical unit) or the morphological and syntactical connection.’

Scholars engaging in biblical theology ought to learn from such criticism in order to improve their methods; rather than abandoning the enterprise altogether they should attempt to write better biblical theological works.

In the present article we survey and attempt to answer some of the challenges to biblical theology. Many of these are related to hypotheses which, by virtue of their having become a majority view, are often presented as assured results of biblical scholarship. Our focus will be on NT theology. We shall briefly state the major challenges relating to the development of the NT canon and to the unity of its basic theology, and marshal some arguments in favour of studying biblical theology at the level of historical, descriptive inquiry.

Religious Experience Instead of Doctrine?

The history-of-religion approach presents a challenge to biblical theology in its emphasis on experience over doctrine. Wrede argued against the dominant approach to NT theology in his day, i.e. the attempt to isolate doctrinal concepts, Lehrbegriffe (in The Nature of New Testament Theology , p. 73).

Räisänen has taken up this argument, claiming that ‘religious thought is only one, relatively small, part of religion’ ( ^* Beyond , p. 105). Although he suggests that for pragmatic reasons a ‘comprehensive history of early Christian religion’ should begin with the study of religious thought, he qualifies his statement (p. 106): ‘A history of early Christian thought as I see it ought to make abundantly clear the connections of the thoughts and ideas with the experiences of individuals and groups. The development of thought is to be analysed precisely in the light of the interaction between experiences and interpretations.’

In response, it should be said that the theology of the Bible and its doctrinal concepts are not identical. Theology should be defined more widely as affirmations and actions involved in relationships between God and humans.

Furthermore, there is no need to exclude from the field of ‘theology’ what Räisänen calls ‘aspects’ or ‘branches’ of religion: ‘cult, rite, myth, communality’ including ‘historical, psychological and social realities’ ( ^* Beyond , p. 105). Inasmuch as these were part of the early church's beliefs about God they belong to a biblical theology. In other words, such a theology can include a wide range of religious phenomena; it is not limited to doctrine.

Thus it seems that the study of experience does not pose a challenge to biblical theology if we accept a wider definition of that theology, one which includes experiences relating to religious beliefs. Biblical theology should describe the experiences of God recorded in the Bible as well as the doctrine contained therein.

No Distinction Between Canonical and Non-Canonical Early Christian Literature?

The claim that there is no historical justification for distinguishing a ‘canon’ of Scripture from other early Christian writings is a serious challenge to biblical theology.

According to Wrede and Räisänen, one particularly problematic issue is the relationship between early Christianity and Christianity as reflected in the canonical NT. They argue that NT theology should not be confined to the canonical writings. We shall focus on the problem of distinguishing between early Christian literature in general and the NT canon in particular; for discussion of the OT canon, see The Canon of Scripture .

Is ‘orthodoxy’ a late phenomenon?

One major argument against the separation of canonical writings from non-canonical ones is drawn from the (supposed) history of the process whereby orthodoxy was distinguished from heresy. In what follows we retain the usual meaning of the terms ‘heresy’ and ‘orthodoxy’, as defined by the 2nd century church.

Walter Bauer, renowned for his Greek lexicon, wrote an important study in 1934 entitled Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum . Georg Strecker summarizes Bauer's thesis in the preface to the second edition of Bauer's work, as follows: ‘In earliest Christianity, orthodoxy and heresy do not stand in relation to one another as primary to secondary, but in many regions heresy is the original manifestation of Christianity’ (ET, p. xi). This thesis would render the distinction between heresy and orthodoxy irrelevant for the historian, and undermine the distinction between canonical and non-canonical writings.

Bauer argues that heresy in Edessa, Egypt and some parts of Asia Minor (especially central and eastern Asia Minor) was earlier and stronger than orthodoxy. However, he concedes that in some other parts of Asia Minor ( ^* e.g. Ephesus) and in Rome, orthodoxy was early and strong.

In his essays published in 1971 under the title Trajectories through Early Christianity , Helmut Koester revived and further developed the thesis of Bauer. He agrees with Bauer that ‘Christian groups later labelled heretical actually predominated in the first two or three centuries, both geographically and theologically’ (‘ GNOMAI DIAPHOROI : The origin and nature of diversification in the history of early Christianity’, in Trajectories , pp. 114-157, quote from p. 114). Koester focuses ‘on those developments which begin in the earliest period’ (p. 119), that is, in ‘the apostolic age’, which ‘is seldom considered in Walter Bauer's study’.

Koester's aim is to show how certain lines of development can be drawn in the history of early Christian traditions. These trajectories often start outside early Christianity and go beyond it. For example, in ‘One Jesus and four primitive Gospels’ (in Trajectories , pp. 158-204), Koester analyses the stage of gospel tradition prior to the writing of our four canonical Gospels. His detailed study of ‘prophetic and apocalyptic sayings’ (pp. 168-175), ‘parables’ (pp. 175-177), ‘I-sayings’ (pp. 177-179), ‘wisdom sayings and proverbs’ (pp. 179-184), etc. (in all of which he claims to find heretical developments), clarifies the various genres. But it does not prove that there can be no distinction made, among writings dependent on these sources, between canonical and non-canonical. It is possible that the oldest examples of these genres were thoroughly orthodox. Koester has not proved his thesis that the canonical Gospels were constructed on one pattern only, i.e. the kerygma of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Thomas A. Robinson has presented a convincing refutation of Bauer's and Koester's thesis. In The Bauer Thesis Examined: The Geography of Heresy in the Early Christian Church (Queenston, 1988), he shows that the ‘Bauer Thesis’ proves to be indefensible with reference to western Asia Minor—an area from which there is plenty of evidence concerning orthodoxy and heresy. Robinson also argues that Bauer's thesis may be even more insecure with reference to areas from which we have little evidence. Thus the traditional view may be maintained, that heresy was later than orthodoxy in the early Christian church.

Different groups identified themselves by ‘canons’

We may further argue for a legitimate distinction between the NT canon and other early Christian literature by pointing to different groups in early Christianity which identified themselves by their own group of sacred writings, i.e. by their ‘canons’. There are three such groups apart from the ‘orthodox’. These Christian groups—later labelled heretics—produced and treasured sacred writings which they regarded as Scripture.

First, Marcion produced a collection of writings (a Gospel and ten Pauline letters) which he and his followers held to be Scripture. Secondly, whilst it is uncertain as to whether the Montanists' canon presupposes the existence of the orthodox Christian canon, there is no doubt that they regarded their writings as ‘Holy Scriptures’. Thirdly, Bardesanes wrote his own Psalms and had his own congregation with its own place of worship and order of service. Even Walter Bauer acknowledged that Bardesanes' congregation used its own ‘Scripture’.

These three examples from the 2nd century point to the development by different Christian groups of their own sacred writings—their own ‘canonical’ Scripture—as an expression of their identity. It was through these ‘canonical’ writings that they could show how they differed from other groups. Since there were various groups in early Christianity that identified themselves by their ‘canons’, it is legitimate to study the theology of one particular group and its sacred writings. NT theology is justified in focusing its attention on one particular canon, that of the ‘orthodox’ group.

Is the Canon a Late Decision of the Church?

There is a widespread view that the canon was created by the decision of certain theologians and bishops of the earliest Christian centuries. It is also often claimed that their decision cannot be binding upon later generations. Such a claim challenges the focus of biblical theology on the canonical writings. For example, Wrede wrote that ‘anyone who accepts without question the idea of the canon places himself under the authority of the bishops and theologians’ of the first four Christian centuries (in The Nature of New Testament Theology , p. 71). Räisänen claims that it is ‘arbitrary’ to limit the scholar's work of interpretation to the NT canon ( ^* Beyond , p. 100).

In response to this challenge, arguments may be advanced for an early beginning to the process of ‘canonization’, and for a ‘canonical awareness’ on the part of the early Christians long before the 4th century, even if they did not use the term ‘canon’ to refer to a list of sacred writings until then.

Is the ‘orthodox’ canon an answer to Marcion's canon?

There is a widely accepted view that in the middle of the 2nd century the church found itself in a critical position because of the emergence of false teachers and sects. Thus it was necessary for the ‘catholic’ church to take action. Marcion produced his canon; the ‘orthodox’ section of the church created its own canon in response.

Against this view it is worth noting the case put forward by Theodor Zahn at the end of the 19th century. In his Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons (vol. 1.2, Leipzig, 1889), he argued as follows. Marcion held that the message of the gospel was distorted (p. 650) and that this distortion had already happened in the time of Paul (pp. 593, 652). He opposed Christian tradition and the church's Scripture, but from this it is clear that he acknowledged the existence of a church canon (pp. 595, 626-671 passim ). Recently, G. N. Stanton has argued that the very fact of four canonical gospels suggests they were not ‘canonized’ in response to Marcion; one gospel would have been a more effective answer (‘The Fourfold Gospel’, NTS 43, 1997, pp. 317-346, see esp. 336). Furthermore, we can argue for a ‘canonical process’ going on prior to Marcion's time ( ^* i.e. before the middle of the 2nd century), if we can show that the NT writers thought they were writing with an authority similar to that of the OT prophets.

TEXT OMITTED FOR PREVIEW

The NT

Much of this OT background is assumed in the NT. God is the Most High and he alone should be worshipped and exalted. The Synoptic statement, ‘whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted’ ( Mt 23:12, RSV; Lk 14:11; 18:14) is exactly consonant with OT ideas. This principle is the basis for one of the NT's descriptions of Jesus' course of life: he was humbled in his incarnation, suffering and death, but God highly exalted him in his resurrection, ascension and enthronement. This paradoxical path then becomes the way of discipleship for all his followers: suffering and then glory; obedient service and then greatness ( Mk 8:34-38; 10:42-45; Phl 2:1-11).

In the NT the theme of God's exaltation of Jesus after his suffering and death is one of the most important and pervasive ways of reflecting on who Jesus is and what he has accomplished. It is taken up by virtually every NT author and is found in both early and late writings. But the theme is expressed by five different motifs, which in some passages overlap with one another.

Resurrection

Paul points to Jesus' death and resurrection as the foremost themes of his gospel preaching ( 1Co 15:3-4). He readily acknowledges that in this he mirrors what others have preached before him (v. 3a), and the early sermons in Acts reflect a similar focus on the cross and resurrection of Jesus ( ^* e.g. Ac 2:22-24,32-36). Likewise in introducing his letter to the Romans Paul immediately defines his calling from God as one focused on ‘the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord’ ( Ro 1:1-4). The resurrection of Jesus confirmed his divine sonship and constituted not just a restoration to physical life, but his transformation to a position of such heavenly power and glory that he becomes a ‘life-giving spirit’ who offers the hope of resurrection to all who are in him ( 1Co 15:20-22; 45-49; cf. Ro 6:3-11; Phl 3:20-21). The resurrection, as the constant counterpart to the cross in Paul's thinking, demonstrates God's acceptance of Jesus' death as the means of justification and propitiation ( Ro 3:24-26; 4:24-25). Jesus' exaltation to highest glory and universal lordship came only by the path of humble obedience ‘unto death, even death on a cross’ ( Phl 2:8-11).

Luke also commonly ties Jesus' suffering and glory or suffering and resurrection together ( Lk 24:26,46; Ac 3:18; 17:3; 26:23). That this theme is drawn from the Suffering Servant passages in Isaiah ( ^* cf. 52:13; 53:11-12) can be seen in Ac 3:13-18, where Messiah's suffering as something ‘God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets’ is connected with God's glorification of ‘his servant Jesus’.

For Paul this truth is certainly rooted in the experience which changed everything for him: his conversion on the Damascus Road ( Ac 9:1-22; 22:6-16; 26:12-23; 1Co 9:1; 15:8). His encounter with the risen Lord completely transformed Paul's understanding of who Jesus was and what he had accomplished: he was not a criminal justly put to death for blasphemy, but the exalted Lord. Jesus' death was actually the expression of God's power and wisdom, the crucifixion of ‘the Lord of glory’, as a means of redemption foreordained by God but never understood by merely human wisdom ( 1Co 1:18-25; 2:6-8). Thus for Paul, Jesus' resurrection ultimately demonstrates not just that God had exalted an obedient human who served to the point of death. It shows that Jesus is the preexistent one, who reflects the invisible God because God's fulness dwells in him, and he ‘existed in the form of God’ before he humbled himself to become human ( Phl 2:6-11; Col 1:11-20).

Ascension

Explicit accounts of the ascension of Jesus are given only by Luke, but more general references are made to it elsewhere, and it is presupposed in other texts, especially those that speak of Jesus' enthronement at God's right hand (see Session/Enthronement below). Luke records Jesus' departure from earth to heaven as a visible phenomenon occurring forty days after the resurrection ( Lk 24:50-51; Ac 1:2-3,9-11). In both passages this is linked with the promise that his followers would receive ‘power from on high’ in the form of the Holy Spirit, and in Acts it brings with it the expectation that ‘he will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven’ ( 1:11).

Paul only rarely mentions the ascension ( Ro 10:6; 1Ti 3:16), but in one text he too connects it with the bestowal of the gifts of the Spirit from on high ( Ep 4:7-11). John speaks of Jesus' ‘ascending’ to heaven ( 3:13; 6:62; 20:17), but also of his ‘going’, or ‘going away’ to the Father ( 14:2, 12, 28; 16:7, 28; 7:33; 8:14, 21; 13:33, 36; 14:4; 16:5, 10, 17). This also is linked to the sending of the Spirit ( 14:16-18; 16:7). In addition, John portrays Jesus' ascension in several places as a return journey ‘to where I was previously’, or ‘to the Father who sent me’, or as presupposing his prior descent from heaven to earth in the incarnation ( 3:31; 6:38, 62; 8:23; 13:3; 16:28).

Glorification

The Gospel of John contributes a unique nuance to the portrayal of Jesus' exaltation in the NT. While John, as others, uses the term ‘exalt’ or ‘lift up’ (Gk hypsoō ) to describe Jesus' lofty status, he uses it with a typical Johannine double sense. In one sense to be ‘lifted up’ is to be crucified, raised up on the cross to die; but in another sense it is to be exalted to heavenly honour. In Jesus' fulfilling of his mission from God the two are inexorably tied together: ‘As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up’ ( 3:14); ‘When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to myself’ ( 12:32; cf. also 8:28; 12:34). The same can be said for Jesus' glorification in John's Gospel: the cross is his ultimate glorification, the event in which God magnifies and honours him ( 7:39; 12:16, 23, 28; 13:31-32; 17:1-10). In his death and its effects Jesus' true glory is seen, ‘glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth’ ( 1:11-15), the glory that he shared with the Father before the world began ( 17:5). (See Atonement .)

Session/Enthronement

Jesus' enthronement at the right hand of God is the extraordinary theme the early Christians found in Ps 110:1, the OT verse most often quoted or alluded to in the NT (some 33 times): ‘The LORD said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put your enemies under your feet.’ The application of this psalm to Jesus was highly influential in the development of NT Christology and is a primary expression of his exalted status, sometimes assuming and eclipsing the motifs of resurrection and ascension ( ^* e.g. in Hebrews resurrection is hardly ever mentioned, since it is assumed in the references to Jesus' heavenly session).

This use of Ps 110 began with Jesus' own teaching on two occasions as recorded by all three Synoptics ( Mt 22:44/ Mk 12:36/ Lk 20:42-43; Mt 26:64/ Mk 14:62/ Lk 22:69). It is a significant theme in the early sermons in Acts ( 2:33-35; 5:31; 7:55-56). Paul also utilizes the psalm ( Ro 8:34; 1Co 15:25; Ep 1:20; 2:6; Col 3:1), often combining it with Ps 8:6 to speak of Jesus having ‘all things subjected under his feet’ ( 1Co 15:27; Ep 1:22; Phl 3:21). Jesus' session at God's side is also described in 1Pe 3:22 and Rev 3:21.

A number of these texts emphasize the benefits that derive from Jesus' exalted status at God's side: his authority over principalities and powers and ultimately over all things ( 1Co 15:25; Ep 1:20; 1Pe 3:22); his intercession on behalf of Christians ( Ro 8:34); the giving of the Spirit and forgiveness of sins ( Ac 2:33-35; 5:31). They also connect these blessings with the fulfilment of OT promises, first the promise that a son of David would reign in his line for ever ( Ac 2:30, quoting from 2Sa 7:8-17; Ps 89:3-4,19-37) and also the promise of a new covenant providing full forgiveness and internalizing of the law through the Spirit ( Je 31:31-34, alluded to in Ac 2:33-35; 5:31). In the inaugurated eschatology of these passages Jesus is seen as already enthroned on high and providing salvific benefits to his people, but as not yet exacting the complete submission of his enemies. The consummation of his rule over all creation is expected in the future.

The most extensive use of Ps 110 in the NT, however, is found in Hebrews, where verse 1 is evoked five times ( 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12-13; 12:2) and verse 4 nine or ten times ( 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:3, 8 [?], 11, 15-17, 21, 24-25, 28). This psalm is so central to the argument of Hebrews that virtually the whole sermon ( ^* cf. 13:22) is a theological exposition of these two verses. The writer has come to see Jesus as God's Son and High Priest, exalted now to the position of greatest honour in God's presence. This view of Jesus' sitting in God's very presence after offering himself for sins is the basis for the author's whole argument about the eternal efficacy of Jesus' sacrifice and the need for Christians to hold firmly to their faith in him. The insight that this exalted position is rooted in a priesthood different from the Levitical one, and eternal, is the basis for all that is said about the change from old to new in God's saving work. The recognition that Jesus' path to this heavenly status required costly obedience learned ‘through the things that he suffered’ ( 5:8) is the foundation for all the exhortations to faithful endurance, for which Jesus is the model ( 12:1-3).

For this last point the writer relies also on Ps 8:4-6 ( Heb 2:6-8), to show that Jesus' status of glory and honour is the result of his suffering and death for the sake of humankind, in whose fleshly likeness he had shared. This was God's design to perfect him as the merciful and faithful high priest: faithful to God and sympathetic to all those who are weak and tempted ( 2:10, 17-18; 4:14-16).

Another striking OT theme, the stone testimonia found in Ps 118:22, Isa 8:14-15; 28:16 and Da 2:34-35, is used also to expound Jesus' central importance as the one exalted after suffering and death. These passages are interpreted individually ( Mt 21:42-44; Mk 12:10; Lk 2:34; Ac 4:11) or in combination ( Lk 20:11-18; Ro 9:32-33; 1Pe 2:4-8) to show that Jesus was the ‘stone’ rejected by those who should know about such things, the one who has now become the ‘head of the corner’. God has made him the precious cornerstone, the tested foundation stone, and those who rely on him will never be put to shame. On the other hand, he will be a stumbling stone for those who ignore him, causing the fall of many and the crushing of all on whom it falls.

Return

The hope of Jesus' return to earth in glorious triumph is another NT motif expressing the theme of his exaltation. The expectation of return entails a previous absence, and several verses make clear that Jesus will come down or come back from heaven ( Jn 14:2-3; Ac 1:11; Phl 3:20; Col 3:1-4; 1Th 1:10; 4:16).

Jesus' exalted status also reveals his authority to judge and produces an anticipation that his reigning power, which has already been inaugurated, will one day be consummated and acclaimed in all creation. The coming of the Son of Man in power and glory is anticipated in several passages in the Synoptics ( Mt 24:30; Mk 13:26; Lk 21:27). It is linked explicitly with his session at God's right hand in Mt 26:64 and with his prerogative to judge in Mt 16:27 and Mk 8:38.

It is appropriate then that the book of Revelation, which most graphically portrays the return of the exalted Christ, should provide the final scenes of the canonical scriptures. All of Revelation reveals Jesus as exalted to heavenly glory, rightly sharing with God the status of Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end: from John's vision of the resplendent Son of Man in chapter 1; to the surprising view of the heavenly throne room in chapters 4-5, in which the one worthy of all worship and authority together with God is the Lamb who was slain to provide redemption; to the unveiling of judgments on sinful humanity that constitute the wrath of God and of the Lamb; all the way through to the pictures of the return and reign of Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords and the eternal blessedness of all the redeemed centering on the presence of the Lord God and of the Lamb. The exaltation of God and of Jesus Christ is the proper and joyful focus of all of existence.

Bibliography

D. L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus (Tübingen, 1998); B. K. Donne, Christ Ascended: A Study in the Significance of the Ascension of Jesus Christ in the New Testament (Exeter, 1983); M. Gourgues, A la droite de Dieu: Résurrection de Jésus et actualisaton du Psaume 110:1 dans le Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1978); D. M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Ps 110 in Early Christianity (Nashville, 1973); W. R. G. Loader, ‘Christ at the right hand: Ps. CX.1 in the New Testament’, NTS 24, 1978, pp. 199-217; J. F. Maile, ‘The Ascension in Luke-Acts’, TynB 37, 1986, pp. 29-59; C. C. Newman, Paul's Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric (Leiden, 1992); M. C. Parsons, The Departure of Jesus in Luke-Acts: The Ascension Narratives in Context (Sheffield, 1987); M. C. Parsons, ‘Son and High Priest: A study in the Christology of Hebrews’, EvQ 60, 1988, pp. 195-216; M. Saucy, ‘Exaltation Christology in Hebrews: What kind of reign?’, TJ 14, 1993, pp. 41-62; P. Toon, The Ascension of Our Lord (Nashville, 1984); A. W. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology (Leiden, 1997).

B. M. Fanning

Exclusion

The word ‘exclusion’ could be used to translate a host of biblical terms. In 1Co 5 alone the command to exclude the incestuous man is given in five different ways, using the verbs ‘to remove’, ‘to drive out’, (not) ‘to eat with’, ‘to deliver’ (to Satan) and ‘to purge away’. Ironically, for this very reason, the concept of exclusion from the community of God's people is relatively neglected in lexicons and theological dictionaries, especially those which do theology one word at a time. Yet as a concept exclusion covers a wide range of biblical material, including both laws, which treat the subject in theory, and narrative, which works it out in practice. The laws in Deuteronomy, the case of Achan, and the examples of Ezra and of Paul (in 1Co 5) will provide the key texts for discussion.

The subject may be treated from a number of angles, for example, who is excluded (and for which sins and heresies)? How does the exclusion take place ( ^* i.e. what procedure is to be followed)? Who authorizes it (a leader, the congregation or God)? And what does it involve (the withdrawal of certain social contacts or permanent excommunication)? This article concentrates on the theologically central question of the rationale of exclusion. Why are sinners to be expelled? What are the reasons for exclusion? The material is covered under the headings of community , holiness, covenant, restoration and salvation. These five motifs or images are drawn directly from the Bible and serve as a framework for our reading of the relevant texts.

The Solidarity of the Community

The foundational texts for a biblical theology of exclusion are found in Leviticus (see next section) and Deuteronomy. Those guilty of idol worship, contempt for the Lord, sexual offences and a variety of social crimes are condemned in Deuteronomy with the formula, ‘you must purge the evil from among you’ (NIV, cf. 13:5; 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 24:7; cf. Jdg 20:13; 1Co 5:13b), which denotes the most extreme form of exclusion, i.e. execution. However, in the history of its transmission and interpretation, a curse (see Blessing/Curse ) of exclusion is substituted for the death penalty in this formula (regularly in Targum Onkelos, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Sifre and usually in the LXX). Similarly, in 1Co 5:13b we find that ‘the evil man’ rather than ‘the evil’ is to be put away.

The notion of corporate responsibility is associated with the formula in Dt 19:13 and 21:9, which concern murder. The reason for the expulsion/execution of the offender is ‘so that it may go well with you’, i.e. , the nation ( 19:13, cf. 21:8). The community, it seems, is held responsible for the sin of the offender while he or she remains within it. The lesson is reinforced in Dt 23:14b where Israel is warned to deal with sin in the camp, lest the Lord ‘see among you anything indecent and turn away from you’ ( ^* cf. 29:19-21). The same solidarity is evident in a number of incidents throughout the OT, involving Sabbath breaking ( Ex 16:27-28), the sin of Korah, Dathan and Abiram ( Nu 16:24-27), Achan's sin ( Jos 7:1-26; 22:20), and the Reubenites, Gadites and Manassites' supposed sin in setting up an altar east of the Jordan ( Jos 22:16-18). Like the pagan sailors who felt compelled to eject Jonah in order to obtain a safe passage for their ship, the people of God removed certain offenders as an exercise in corporate responsibility, in order to avoid impending judgment and to preserve the harmonious relationship between the community and God.

The prayers of Ezra (ch. 9), Nehemiah (chs. 1,9) and Daniel (ch. 9) also express the idea of association with the guilt of others. In each case the leaders mourn (LXX pentheō ) over the unfaithfulness of the exiles ( ^* cf. Ezr 10:6; Ne 1:4; Da 10:2), just as Paul enjoined the Corinthians ( 1Co 5:2) to ‘mourn’ ( pentheō ) over the sin of the incestuous man. When used in connection with sin, pentheō signifies mourning in the sense of confessing the sin of others as if it were one's own. It is not that the community is guilty of the sin itself, but it is held responsible for purging the evil from its midst.

Such judgments are to take place in the presence of the whole community and of the Lord ( ^* cf. Dt 19:16-20). The ‘entire assembly’ is to stone the Sabbath-breaker ( Nu 15:35) and the blasphemer ( Lev 24:14,16), and to judge the murderer ( Nu 35:24), just as the decision to exclude the sinner in 1Co 5:4 is to be made when the church is ‘gathered together’. Indeed, Paul addresses the church as a body throughout the chapter ( ^* cf. the nine occurrences of the second person plural pronoun) and directs them to act as a group. Exceptions to this principle appear in 2Co 13:1-3; 1Ti 1:19-20; and 3Jn 9-10, where apostles act individually.

In the Bible exclusion from the community is normally effected by the community and for the community's sake. Upon what basis does the solidarity of the community rest? The following section suggests that holiness guarantees its essential unity.

The Maintenance of Holiness

Whereas in OT teaching on exclusion social crimes are associated with the notions of ‘purging’ or ‘utterly removing’ the evil and the curses of Dt 27 and 28, the term ‘to cut off’ has to do with ritual offences ( ^* cf. Ge 17:14; Ex 12:15,19; 30:33,38; 31:14; Lev 7:20,25-27; 17:4,9,14; 19:8; 22:3; 23:29; Nu 4:18; 9:13; 19:13,20; 1Sa 2:33) and is related to the cult and holiness. In Leviticus, ‘unclean’ individuals are removed from the camp, which is meant to be a holy place. A process of cleansing is necessary to restore unclean people at the end of their period of exclusion, a practice which highlights the incompatibility of the holy and the unclean. However, it was the laws of admission to the temple which did most to establish the link between exclusion from the community and the maintenance of holiness.

The origin of these restrictions is in the exclusion of individuals from the ‘assembly of the Lord’ on the basis of physique and descent in Dt 23:1-8. Ezr 9:1-2 and Ne 13:1-3,23-27 allude to this passage as the basis for the exclusion of foreign wives. The lamentation over the destruction of Jerusalem in La 1:10 also recalls it. However, as revelation progresses, moral conditions for admission become more important. Biblical evidence for this evolution includes the ‘entrance-torot’ ( Ps 15; 24:3-5; Isa 33:14-17), the exclusion of rebels from the eschatological congregation ( Eze 20:38-40), and the indictment of Israel for admitting the ‘uncircumcised in heart’ to the sanctuary ( Eze 44:6-9). Josephus and Philo interpret Deuteronomy as excluding not only aliens but also gravely-offending Jewish sinners.

Concerning 1Co 5, it is no coincidence that the idea of the community as God's holy temple is introduced only twenty-three verses earlier in 3:16-17. In calling for the incestuous man to be removed Paul in effect cleanses the temple, calling for his destruction ( 5:5), for ‘if any one destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred’ ( 3:17).

In biblical thought, holiness and unholiness do not mix, and the danger of contamination is taken seriously, not only in the laws in Leviticus but also in the ban, a curse of exclusion on people and objects resulting from their contact with foreign gods ( ^* cf. Dt 7:26; 13:12-18); whoever takes possession of a devoted thing must also be devoted. Likewise for Paul the sinner must be removed because holiness and unholiness cannot co-exist: ‘a little leaven leavens the whole lump’ ( 1Co 5:6, RSV). After cleansing the temple it was customary, at least in OT times, to celebrate the Passover (see 2Ch 29:5,35; 30; 35:1-19; 2Ki 23:1-23; Ezr 6; cf. Mt 21:12-13; Mk 11:15-18; Lk 19:45-47; Jn 2:13-22). Paul seems to endorse this practice. In 1Co 5:7-8 he calls on the Corinthians to keep the festival (spiritually) once they have got rid of the old yeast (a metaphorical reference to the exclusion). The death of Christ is the basis for Paul's demand that the community maintain its sanctified status: ‘For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.’ As Tit 2:14 observes, ‘Christ gave himself ... to purify for himself a people that are his very own.’

The community's solidarity and the maintenance of its holiness make the practice of exclusion a necessity. But this practice is also just with respect to the offender, because he or she has breached God's covenant.

Breach of Covenant

In both the Deuteronomic expulsion formulae and the curses listed in chapters 27,28 ( ^* cf. Lev 26), which censure virtually the same offences, discipline is exercised because of failure to keep the covenant obligations. Dt 17:2-7, for example, demands that evil be purged because the offender has ‘done evil in the eyes of the Lord your God in violation of his covenant’ ( 17:2). Likewise, in the case of Achan, Jos 7:15 declares that, ‘he [Achan] has violated the covenant of the Lord’ ( ^* cf. Jos 23:16). Ezra conceives of his reform in terms of a return to covenant obligations ( Ezr 10:3; cf. Ne 9:32-34). Building on such teaching the Damascus Document at Qumran also gives breaches of the covenant as grounds for expulsion from the community.

These examples underscore the notion of personal responsibility. Certain rules, when broken, automatically exclude the offender. The sins in 1Co 5:11 are remarkably similar to those connected in Deuteronomy to the formula Paul quotes in 5:13b. People are excluded primarily for the sake of others, but they have no one but themselves to blame. As Tit 3:10-11 says of a divisive person who is to be avoided, he or she is ‘self-condemned’. The gracious gift of membership in the community carries with it certain demands. In neither testament is open rebellion against God tolerated among his people.

Another reason given for exclusion is to deter a further breach of covenant in the community. Dt 19:19b-20a states: ‘You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid and never again will such an evil thing be done among you.’ (See ^* Dt 13:12-18; 17:2-7,12-13; 21:18-21.) In the NT too this reason for exclusion is cited in 1Ti 5:20 (‘Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning’); in the case of Ananias and Sapphira ( Ac 5:1-11), when following their deaths ‘great fear seized the whole church’ (presumably at the prospect of further divine judgment); and in the yeast proverb in 1Co 5:6 and Ga 5:9, which has a modern equivalent in the saying, ‘one bad apple spoils the whole barrel’.

Exclusion reminds us how seriously the Bible takes the setting of both a good and a bad example. Even in material which stresses the offender's personal responsibility his or her effect on others is never far from view.

The Hope of Restoration

The OT supplies the key texts dealing with exclusion on the basis of community solidarity, maintenance of holiness and breach of covenant, though these ideas are confirmed in the NT. However, the notion of exclusion for the purpose of bringing about the repentance and restoration of the sinner, although not absent from the OT ( ^* cf. David's sin with Bathsheba) and anticipated in some strands of Judaism, becomes prominent only in Christian teaching.

The remedial function of exclusion is implied in Ga 6:1 (‘If someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently’; cf. Jas 5:19-20) and explicit in 2Th 3:14-15 (‘If anyone does not obey our instruction ... Do not associate with him ... Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother’). That such continuing concern for the one under discipline was meant to lead to reinstatement is clear in 2Co 2:5-9, where Paul tells his readers that since the one who has been punished has shown genuine repentance he should be lovingly restored to the fellowship.

In Mt 18:15-18 the main concern is for the restitution of the sinner, at least up until the point of exclusion, rather than for the purity of the church. The point of the cautious steps leading up to the excommunication (private, then semi-private, than open rebuke before the church) is obviously to ‘gain the brother’ ( 18:15b). We need not interpret this in opposition to a passage like 1Co 5, however, since we are introduced to the Corinthian story at a late stage, probably after such appeals for repentance have already taken place. There is an implicit promise in the 1Co 5 exclusion; if he repents, he will be restored. Whereas in the Pentateuch a single act of transgression brings exclusion, in 1Co 5 the character and lifestyle of the sinner, not an isolated offence, provoke the penalty ( 5:10-11).

One text in the NT which appears to be inconsistent with the idea of the remedial purpose of exclusion is 1Co 5:5 where Paul says that the man is to be, literally, ‘handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh’. This sounds as if exclusion is a final and irrevocable punishment. It is commonly held that Paul here enjoins the pronouncing of a curse on the immoral man that will lead to physical suffering and ultimately to death ( ^* cf. NEB, ‘this man is to be consigned to Satan for the destruction of the body’). However, this is not the best interpretation of the verse. To hand the man over to Satan is to turn him back out into Satan's sphere, outside the edifying and caring environment of the church where God is at work. In other words, verse 5 states metaphorically what Paul says literally in verses 2 and 13: the man is to be excluded from the community of faith. A similar metaphorical elaboration is found in verse 7: ‘get rid of the old yeast’. ‘The destruction of the flesh’ refers not to the man's death but to his turning from evil desires, the destruction of ‘the sinful nature’. When Paul contrasts flesh and spirit, as here in verse 5, he is contrasting evil and good tendencies ( ^* cf. Ro 8:5-17 and Ga 5:16-24). ‘Flesh’ refers to the person oriented away from God and ‘spirit’ to the person oriented towards God. It is the man viewed as one at enmity with God who is to be ‘destroyed’. That the man in 1Co 5 is not expected to die, at least immediately, is clear from verse 11 where the Corinthians are told not to ‘associate with’ him and from 1Ti 1:19-20, where Hymenaeus and Alexander are ‘handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme’ (that is, to change their behaviour). The incestuous man is handed over to Satan to be taught not to commit sexual immorality, in the hope of his restoration to the Christian community. Of course the work and intent of Satan is evil and may even involve the infliction of suffering, but it serves God's ultimate purpose, the salvation of the sinner.

The Prospect of Salvation

Exclusion is not always undertaken, however, with a remedial intent. Sometimes individuals are excluded or exclude themselves, usually on the basis of false belief rather than conduct, because they do not belong to the company of the saved. 2Jn 10-11 gives one example: ‘If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work’ (RSV, cf. 1Jn 2:19). The expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden and, hence, from proximity to God is perhaps the first example of this punitive exclusion. Such texts raise the issue of how exclusion is related to an individual's salvation, on which there is surprisingly little NT material.

On the one hand, damnation can be perceived as the ultimate ‘exclusion’, as a final and retributive exclusion from God's presence ( ^* cf. 2Th 1:9): in 1Co 6:9-10, Ep 5:5 and Col 3:5-6 those who have no future with God are said to be guilty of roughly the same sins as those who should be excluded from the community according to 1Co 5:11. On the other hand, there is no hint that the act of excluding people damns them. On the contrary, in 1Co 5:12-13 such judgment is explicitly said to be God's exclusive prerogative.

Exclusion from the community and salvation are linked in 1Co 5:5b, but the former does not lead to the loss of the latter. On the contrary, the express purpose of this expulsion is the offender's salvation. Paul's ultimate aim in excluding the man is his own good. How is this purpose to be understood? Paul assumes (see 6:9-11) that those who persist in flagrant sin have no future with God; in this sense 6:9-11 clarifies 5:5b. Yet he is confident that God's faithfulness will confirm believers ‘until the end ... blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus’ ( 1Co 1:8). However, future salvation is not a forgone conclusion for one ‘who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral’ (v. 11). The passage does not teach that ethical failure results in the loss of salvation, but that assurance of salvation depends in part on ethical progress; cf. 6:11: ‘that is what some of you were ’. Paul does not answer the question of whether the man is currently ‘saved’. His point is that so-called brothers who engage in blatant sexual misconduct will be finally saved ‘on the day of the Lord’ only if ‘the sinful nature is destroyed’. According to 5:5b exclusion is undertaken not only to benefit the community and the individual in the present, but also to secure the salvation of the sinner in the future.

Conclusion

Few topics do more to emphasize the corporate dimension of the Christian faith, the seriousness and consequences of sin and the holiness of God, than exclusion. In the Bible serious offenders are excluded from the community because of its solidarity, in order to maintain its holiness, because of a breach of covenant, in the hope of their restoration and to secure their future salvation.

Exclusion teaches us something about both God and the people of God. It reveals how the holiness of God works itself out in relation to his purposes. It reminds us that God's grace in election cannot be taken for granted and that certain standards of conduct cannot be continually transgressed with impunity. The gift of being included in God's people demands appropriate behaviour. In the present evil age, in anticipation of the age to come, God uses various means to call out and purify a people for himself, one of which, ironic as it seems, is exclusion. He deals with this people, not only as individuals, but also and primarily as groups. Exclusion is a powerful reminder that such groups, or churches, are responsible to one another as well as to God. Their behaviour, whether doing good or committing sin, affects the community's well being; exclusion underlines the profound interrelation and interdependence of believers in the body of Christ.

Bibliography

G. Forkman, The Limits of the Religious Community (Lund, 1972); J. M. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance (Tübingen, 1990); W. Horbury, ‘Extirpation and Excommunication’, VT n.s. 35, 1985, pp. 13-38; I. H. Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away (London, 1969; repr. Carlisle, 1996); C. Roetzel, Judgement in the Community: A Study of the Relationship Between Eschatology and Ecclesiology in Paul (Leiden, 1972); B. S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1Co 5-7 (Leiden, 1994); idem , ‘“Drive out the wicked person”: A biblical theology of exclusion’, EvQ 71.1, 1999, pp. 25-36.

B. S. Rosner

Excommunication

See Exclusion

Exegesis and Hermeneutics

See Exegesis and Hermeneutics in Part 1

Exile

Introduction

Although the exile of Israel as a nation did not occur until relatively late in the OT period, the theological concept of exile is present virtually from the beginning of biblical revelation. Exile, in theological terms, is the experience of pain and suffering that results from the knowledge that there is a home where one belongs, yet for the present one is unable to return there. This existential sense of deep loss may be compounded by a sense of guilt or remorse stemming from the knowledge that the cause of exile is sin.

The Exile Foreshadowed

The expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden is the archetype of all subsequent exile ( Ge 3:24). Paradise has been lost because of their sin, and now they must live as strangers in a land from which they have become alienated ( Ge 3:17-19). Throughout the rest of the Bible, the state of God's people is one of profound exile, of living in a world to which they do not belong and looking for a world that is yet to come. Abraham was already aware that, even though he was dwelling in the land God had promised to give to him, he lived there as a stranger and alien ( Ge 23:4; cf. Heb 11:8-10). Jacob's deception of his father Isaac and his stealing of his brother's birthright compelled him to flee the Promised Land and live in exile with his uncle Laban for many years. In the time of Joseph, famine brought Abraham's descendants down into Egypt, where they would subsequently experience the bitterness of servitude in a land that was not their own. On the other hand, that bitterness and the correlative sense of exile was not quite universal among the Hebrews. From his privileged position growing up in Pharaoh's household, Moses became aware of his status as an alien only after he left behind the luxuries of Egypt. His new sense of being an exile was expressed in the name he gave to his first son, ‘Gershom’; he recognized that he had now become an alien in a foreign land ( Ex 2:22).

Even before God's people entered the land he had promised them under the leadership of Joshua, the prospect of their exile from that land as a punishment for disobedience was in view. The land, which had been given to Israel as a gift, would be removed from their care if they were disobedient. If the people failed to keep the terms of the covenant, they would be scattered among the nations ( Lev 26:33; Dt 28:64; 30:3-4). The possibility of exile is taken into account in Solomon's prayer at the dedication of the temple; exile is the seventh, climactic example of circumstances in which prayers may be made towards the temple, seeking forgiveness and restoration from the Lord ( 1Ki 8:46-50).

However, for Israel exile is not simply the loss of the land. More importantly, it is the loss of the Lord's presence with them. For that reason, even though the land had not been lost, the loss of the ark to the Philistines in 1Sa 4 can be described as the glory of the Lord ‘going into exile’ ( ^* glâ ; 1Sa 4:22). This prefigured the visionary departure of the glory of the LORD from the Jerusalem temple in Eze 10, which itself preceded the historical exile in 586 BC. After the Lord had abandoned the land, it was only a matter of time before the people would go into exile.

The Exile as Historical and Theological Reality

This threatened judgment of God came upon his people in two stages. First, the northern kingdom of Israel was carried into captivity by the Assyrians in 722 BC. Then the southern kingdom of Judah followed them into exile at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians in 586 BC. In the providence of God, the time delay meant that exile had significantly different consequences for Israel and Judah. The Assyrians had a policy of resettling captured lands with replacement people groups, so producing a mixed population. The Babylonians, on the other hand, moved the skilled members of captive peoples from the edges of the empire to the centre. Thus the people of Judah had the prospect of returning to a relatively empty homeland; the people of the former northern kingdom did not.

The exile was not simply a historical event, however; it had profound theological significance. In the same way that Jewish thought in the later 20th century had to deal with the impact of Auschwitz, even on those who were not yet born in 1945, so also the exile had an enormous impact on all subsequent OT writings. After the exile, life could not simply return to the way it was before. How could there be joy when all that was sacred and precious had been defiled and destroyed by the invaders?

The first result of the exile was, naturally, an outpouring of grief. The exiles sat down by the rivers of Babylon and wept ( Ps 137:1). They wept both because of the consequences of exile, i.e. Jerusalem in ruins and her infants slaughtered ( Ps 137:7-8), and because they recognized the fundamental cause of exile: their own sin and the sin of their forefathers ( La 3:42,49). Because of the close connection between the Lord and the Promised Land, they may have felt that to be isolated from their land was also to be abandoned by their God. For that reason, the prophet Ezekiel was given a vision of God's glory by the river Kebar, in Babylon itself ( Eze 1:1). The good news that the prophet brought to the exiles was that God himself would be a sanctuary for them where they were, in Babylonia ( Eze 11:16). In abandoning the land, God had not turned his back on all his people.

Yet, paradoxically, the recognition that God had sent his people into exile because of their sin caused the exiles not only to mourn but also to hope and to dream. The one who had bruised them could also bind up their wounds; the one who had rejected his people could restore them to himself ( La 5:21). Indeed, the ancient covenant documents that threatened Israel with exile for disobedience also spoke of a restoration for the exiles ( Lev 26:44; Dt 30:3). Because of God's covenant faithfulness to his people, the exile could not be the end of Israel's story. The Lord's enduring ḥeseḏ , his covenant love, was the basis of their hope for the future ( La 3:21-22). The Lord had associated the honour of his name with the fortunes of his people, and for the sake of that name he would once again restore them ( Eze 36:23-24).

In the meantime, the exiles were able, indeed obliged, to reinvent Israel. The captives dreamed not simply of a return but of a renewal, a rebirth of Israel in greater conformity to God's original design. Much of the exilic writing focuses, therefore, on critiquing the past and drawing up plans for a better future, a future in which Israel's sins will no longer come back to haunt them. With everything reduced to rubble, a radically new future could be conceived in which obedience to the LORD would no longer be a dream but a reality. Indeed, the Lord promised that he would bring about such a change in the hearts of his people that there would be, in effect, nothing less than a new covenant ( Je 31:31-34; Eze 36:16-28). This ‘re-visioning’ of the future also served the present needs of the people, by providing an alternative construction of reality from the dominant model in the culture around them. Although they saw a world firmly in the grip of Babylonian imperialism, by faith they beheld a different ruler on the throne and believed that their narrative would have a better conclusion.

Exile in the NT

Although the return from exile that occurred in the time of Cyrus is viewed in several passages of Scripture as a fulfilment of the promises of restoration and the end of the exile, it fell short of the great expectations raised by the visions of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Israel's land was still governed by foreigners, not by a descendant of the line of David; many (the diaspora) were still scattered through other lands;, and those who returned persisted in all kinds of sin, obdurately resisting God's word. Because of the people's hardness of heart, the exile was in some respects still a reality. A further action on God's part would be necessary to deal with Israel's sin, to inaugurate a genuinely new covenant, as promised in Je 31:31-34, and to bring about the full salvation of God's people.

In the light of that sense of continuing exile and the expectation of a new work of God to redeem his people, the NT's interest in the concepts of exile and restoration is explicable. The exile's importance as a historical event is immediately clear in the structure of Jesus' genealogy in Mt 1, where the three major reference points of redemptive history are Abraham, David and the exile ( Mt 1:17). Moreover, as a child Jesus himself experienced exile, going down to Egypt to flee the wrath of Herod ( Mt 2:13). There Jesus grew up as a sojourner, far away from God's people and land.

In this, as in other respects, Jesus was partaking of the same experience as that of his fellow human beings ( Heb 2:14) and especially that of his fellow Israelites. For God's new-covenant people, the Israel of God, are, like their forefather Abraham, strangers and exiles in this world ( 1Pe 1:1; 2:11; Heb 11:13). They are the true diaspora, those who are scattered among the nations ( Jas 1:1; 1Pe 1:1). This term denotes not only their physical location but also, more profoundly, their theological location ( ^* cf. the LXX of Dt 30:4; Ps 147:2). Christians are the true exiles, living in a world to which they do not belong and with which they are not to fall in love ( 1Jn 2:15), while they long for a world which they do not yet see but to which they look forward in hope ( Heb 11:1). They live in a world that is seduced by the political and economic attractiveness of ‘Babylon’ ( Rev 17-18), but they dwell there as the children of the Jerusalem that is above ( Ga 4:26). That is why God's people can never feel fully at home in this world.

However, the decisive act in the ending of exile and the restoration of God's people has now taken place in Christ. While life in exile is still painful, its sting has been drawn by the cross. At the cross, Jesus experienced the sting of exile—punishment for sin—in its fullness for his people. The one who had never sinned was made sin for them ( 2Co 5:21), and the one who for all eternity had dwelt in the bosom of the Father was thereby exiled from his presence. In the midst of that experience of exile, he cried out ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ ( Mt 27:46). But his exile has redemptive power. By it, his people are once and for all reconciled to God.

For that reason, even though NT believers are physically absent from the LORD, yet spiritually he is always with them ( Mt 28:20). He walks among the lampstands and knows intimately what is happening in the seven churches of Asia Minor ( Rev 1:13; 2:1-3:22). Indeed, the visions of Revelation are given to one who is himself in exile for the sake of Jesus, his servant John ( Rev 1:9).

Moreover, Paul was optimistic that the redemptive work accomplished in Christ would in the fullness of time be applied not simply to the Gentiles but also to the Jews. Because of their disobedience and hardness, the Jews were still experiencing exile ( Ro 10:21). But ultimately exile could never be the end of the story for God's chosen people. The ancient promises of God could not be nullified. Through their continuing exile, salvation had come to the Gentiles ( Ro 11:11), but God's overarching purpose was to move his own people to jealousy. This jealousy would in turn lead to a still greater restoration and the incorporation of Jews and Gentiles into a single olive tree, the one Israel of God ( Ro 11:12-31). Then indeed all the prophecies of the OT would be completely fulfilled.

Like the exiles of the OT, NT believers dream of home, a new Jerusalem where the sin and suffering of their present existence will be no more and the time for weeping will finally be past. There they will no longer be exiles but rather will be at home with the LORD ( 2Co 5:8). There Jew and Gentile will be united in a single, sin-free people, to the glory of God the Father. This new heavenly home is depicted in all its glory in Rev 21-22, as an encouragement both to dream passionately of the future, and to live obediently and with perseverance in the present.

See also: Israel (Nation) ; Land .

Bibliography

P. R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century BC (Philadelphia 1968); W. Brueggemann, Cadences of Home: Preaching among Exiles (Louisville, 1997); T. C. Eskenazi, ‘Exile and dreams of return’, CurrTM 18, 1990, pp. 192-200; R. W. Klein, Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation (Philadelphia, 1979); J. M. Scott, ‘Restoration of Israel’, in DPL , pp. 796-805.

I. M. Duguid

Exodus (Event)

Introduction

There are over 120 explicit OT references to the Exodus in law, narrative, prophecy and psalm, and it is difficult to exaggerate its importance. Foundational to Israel's self-perception ( Dt 6:20-25)—they are here first designated a people ( Ex 1:9)—it is recalled in liturgy ( ^* e.g. Ps 78,105; Ex 12:26-27), prayer ( ^* e.g. 2Sa 7:23; Je 32:16-21; Da 9:4-19), and sermon ( ^* e.g. Jos 24; Jdg 2:11-13; 1Sa 12:6-8; 1Ki 8). As the pre-eminent saving event in their history ( Dt 4:32-40), the Exodus profoundly shaped Israel's social structures, calendars, remembrance of the ancient past, and hopes of future restoration. Because of their conviction that Jesus fulfilled Israel's destiny, the NT authors couch their works in Exodus language, albeit on a cosmic scale and with reference to all peoples.

Beginnings

The Exodus cannot be understood apart from Genesis. It fulfils the patriarchal promises of progeny and land ( Ge 12:7; 13:11-17; 15:18) and begins a new creation, albeit in microcosm, whereby God establishes a new humanity, provides them with a new Edenic land, and dwells among them. The first overt reference to the Exodus occurs in the covenant ratification of Ge 15:7-21. Abram is warned that his descendents will be enslaved for three generations, but in the fourth, when Amorite wickedness is complete, they will go free with great wealth ( Ex 3:22; 12:35-36). The confirming theophany of a smoking brazier and a flaming torch passing through the split animals adumbrates the pillar of fire and cloud ( Ex 13:21) and (possibly) Yahweh's causing Israel to pass through the split sea ( Ps 136:13-14). (Joseph, aware of this promise, later requires that the people take his bones with them when they leave Egypt, Ge 50:25.) But as the reference to the Amorites' sin indicates, possession of the land is tied to behaviour: if Israel fails to be obedient, she too will be expelled.

The Exodus

The Exodus comprises three fundamental elements: Israel's deliverance from Egypt; the journey through the wilderness; and the arrival in the Promised Land ( Jos 24:5-13; Ex 3:7-21). It is bracketed by the beginning and end of Moses' life, by the miraculous crossings of the Reed Sea and the Jordan ( Ex 14-15; Jos 1:2; 3-4; Ps 114:1-5; 66:6), and by the defeat of Pharaoh and the Canaanites ( Jos 24:11-18).

The patriarchal promise of offspring

The account of the Exodus begins with the introduction of a central motif, that of Yahweh's covenant faithfulness: the patriarchal/creation promise of offspring is fulfilled ( Ex 1:1-20; Ge 1:28; 15:5; 46:8-20). Pharaoh, however, with serpent-like cunning ( Ex 1:10a), embarks on a policy resulting in hard service, pain in childbearing, and death, all of which are associated with life outside the garden of Eden ( Ge 3:16-19). Emulating the murderous line of Cain, Lamech, and the sons of the gods ( Ge 4:8,23-24; 6:5), he pretends to deity, presiding over an anti-Eden ( Ex 1:13; Ge 2:15; 13:10). But Yahweh hears Israel's cry and remembers his covenant ( Ex 2:23-25; 3:7-10,16; Ge 50:24). In an act of new creation, he provides Moses ( Ex 2:1; lit. ‘she saw that he was good’; Ge 1:4,10, etc. ), who like Noah is preserved through waters by an ark ( Ge 6:14-19).

The revelation of the divine name

Yahweh appears to the exiled Moses ( Ex 3:1-4:17), announcing that he will redeem Israel with an outstretched hand and great wonders ( 3:20; 6:6). As God of the patriarchs, he reveals his name, I AM WHO I AM, which denotes his dynamic and personal presence. He is incomparable, and comprehensible only in terms of his self-generating and self-sustaining being ( 3:14; 6:3). The sign promised to Moses, that Israel will worship Yahweh on Mt Sinai ( 3:12), emphasizes that their identity is grounded not in their independence and liberty but, as God's son, in Yahweh's presence with them and their worship of and loyalty to him. After initial reluctance, Moses returns to Egypt to demand the release of Yahweh's firstborn ( 4:22-23).

The hardening of Pharaoh's heart: creating Pharaoh in his own image

Integral to the Exodus is the hardening of Pharaoh's heart ( Ex 4:21; 7:3; by Pharaoh, 8:15, 32; and by Yahweh, 9:12; 10:1; etc. ). His inability to control even his own thoughts mocks his idolatrous pretension to deity ( Ps 115:5-8; 135:15-18; Isa 44:17-18) and reflects the principle of lex talionis : as Pharaoh hardens his heart to Israel's hard labour ( Ex 1:14; Dt 15:7; 26:6) so Yahweh's hard hand ( Ex 3:19) hardens him so that, ironically, he finally drives Israel out with his own hard hand ( 6:1). Pharaoh's hardness, in the face of many signs and wonders, becomes the occasion for acts of judgment intended to show all Egypt that Israel's God is Yahweh ( 7:3-5).

TEXT OMITTED FOR PREVIEW

The role of the priests

The ordinary Israelite was forbidden to enter the holy place, but could meet with the LORD at the entrance curtain of the tabernacle ( Ex 29:42-46). Only if the sacrificial ordinances of God were carried out according to his decrees would he manifest himself in grace, allowing his glory and his word to dwell among them, to bless them. God consecrated a special priesthood to himself from amongst the Israelites to enable them to relate to him through the cult. The priests did not derive their authority and function from the community but from God, who set them apart to be his servants, attending to the maintenance of his ‘house’. The LORD consecrated the sanctuary in which the priests would operate by allowing his glory to dwell there in the first place, and all this was so that he could continue to reveal himself to his people in glory. In making his presence known among them through his word, he would be fulfilling his covenant promise to be ‘their God’ and his purpose in saving them ‘out of Egypt’.

Sacred festivals

Annual festivals were prescribed to enable God's people to acknowledge his hand in the fruitfulness of the earth and to celebrate his goodness with sacrifices and feasting. The Passover, followed by the seven days of unleavened bread, was connected with the barley harvest ( Ex 12:6; 23:15; Lev 23:5-8; Nu 28:16-25; Dt 16:1-8); Pentecost, the Feast of Weeks, celebrated the wheat harvest ( Ex 34:22; Lev 23:10-14; Nu 28:26-31); and Tabernacles (Booths) was at the same time the Feast of Ingathering, the general harvest festival ( Ex 23:16; Lev 23:33-36,39-43; Dt 16:13-15). These occasions were also related to the saving acts of God by which he brought Israel to himself. The Israelites were regularly reminded that the God of creation is the LORD who had revealed himself uniquely to Israel in the great events of her history. The Sabbath, which was a weekly festival, was meant to be another sign of the special relationship between God as creator and redeemer and Israel as his holy people ( Ex 31:13-17).

The fact that the year was marked by a whole series of festivals is a reminder of the extent to which celebration, praise and thanksgiving were at the heart of Israelite religion. It would be wrong to think that people in OT times were wholly occupied with the business of atonement for sins and to regard their worship as a sombre and dreary necessity. The Psalms especially testify to the joy of the pilgrims journeying to Jerusalem and the longing of the godly to meet with God and his people in the courts of his temple ( ^* e.g. Ps 122,42,43,48; 118:19-29). Indeed, praise and thanksgiving belonged to the whole life of God's people. (See Sacred Meals .)

Temple and Sacrifice in Prophetic Perspectives

The temple as God's earthly dwelling-place

Apart from obvious differences in size and magnificence, the design of the temple reflected to a large extent the pattern provided for the tabernacle. Like the tabernacle, the temple was to represent God's rule over Israel and to be a reminder of his special presence among them, to bless them and make them a source of blessing to the nations. This was made very clear at the dedication ceremony ( 1Ki 8:1-21). Solomon's prayer questions whether God can really dwell on earth ( 8:27). Nevertheless, he is conscious of being in God's presence (literally ‘before your face’, 8:28) and requests that prayers directed towards ‘this place’ might be answered by God from heaven, his dwelling-place ( 8:30). In particular, the temple signified that there was a future for Israel as the people of God because the building itself expressed the continuation of God's covenant promise to be with them and bless them ( 8:56-61). Even when national sin reached its ultimate end in exile, prayer directed to the place where God had set his name would bring restoration and forgiveness ( 8:46-51).

Prophetic criticisms of sacrifice and the temple

Numerous passages in the prophetic writings condemn priests and people for their corruption of the sacrificial system ( ^* e.g. Am 4:4-13; Ho 8:11-13; Je 7:21-26; Eze 16:15-21; 20:25-31). Sometimes these deal with the introduction of pagan ideas and practices into Israelite worship, or the attempt to worship other gods whilst still claiming to serve the LORD. Often they attack the hypocrisy of engaging in the sacrificial ritual without genuine repentance or a desire to live in obedience to God's moral law. Sometimes, in order to clarify the sort of response the cult was meant to inculcate in God's people, prophecies are worded in ways that appear to reject the cult categorically ( ^* e.g. Am 5:21-27; Ho 6:6; Isa 1:10-17; 66:1-4; Mi 6:6-8). However, there are also texts which speak with approval of future sacrificial activity, portraying a time when God would renew his people and their worship ( ^* e.g. Isa 19:19-21; 56:6-7; 60:7; Je 17:24-27; 33:10-11,17-18; Eze 20:40-41). In other words, it is not correct to say that the prophets condemned sacrifice absolutely or that they envisaged the survival of Israel apart from the provision of some form of sacrifice.

Although the prophets could argue that the LORD's presence with his people in his sanctuary on Mt Zion meant that he would defend them against their enemies and bless them ( ^* e.g. Isa 8:9-10; 31:4-5; 37:33-35), they made it clear that God's protection was not to be regarded as unconditional ( ^* e.g. Isa 29:1-4; Je 7:1-15). If Israel remained disobedient to the covenant and neglectful of the worship that was truly honouring to him, terrible judgment would come from the hand of the LORD himself ( ^* e.g. Isa 1; Mi 3). If his holiness continued to be desecrated by their corrupt practices, then the temple would have to be destroyed ( ^* e.g. Je 7:1-15; Eze 7-9).

Sacrifice and temple in the prophetic hope

Although the prophets saw God as acting in judgment at the time of the exile, they proclaimed that in due time he would act in forgiveness and restoration, allowing a remnant to return to their homeland ( Isa 40:1-11; Je 31:31-34; Eze 20:39-44). Some indicated that the temple would be restored and become the spiritual centre not only of Israel but also of the nations ( ^* e.g. Isa 2:2-3; 44:28; cf. Mi 4:1-3; Je 3:17-18). The coming of the Gentiles, with all their offerings, to God would be the means by which he would adorn his glorious house in the coming age and glorify himself in their midst ( Isa 60). Ezekiel's prophecy of the restoration actually included a plan for a new temple ( Eze 40-48). The purifying and sanctifying influence of the new temple upon the land would restore it to a paradise for God's people ( 47:1-12; cf. Ps 36:7-9), for God himself would be there ( ^* cf. 48:35). This temple plan, with all its symbolism, combines a number of biblical ideals and points to their ultimate fulfilment, not by some human building programme, but by the sovereign and gracious act of God ( ^* cf. Eze 20:40-44).

Worship Under the New Covenant

The replacement of the temple

The Gospels give various indications of the way in which Jesus replaces the Jerusalem temple in the plan and purpose of God. For example, Matthew records his claim that ‘one greater than the temple is here’ ( 12:6). As the incarnate Son of God, Jesus represented God's royal presence and authority more fully than did the temple. Moreover, his cleansing of the temple expressed God's imminent judgment against those who abused it ( ^* cf. particularly Mk 11:12-21). At the end of the Gospels, the resurrected Jesus indicates that he will continue to draw many into relationship with himself through the witness and teaching of his disciples, thus becoming the centre of salvation and blessing for the nations ( Mt 28:18-20; Lk 24:46-49; cf. Jn 12:20-33). The prophetic hope of the nations' uniting with the faithful in Israel to acknowledge and serve the LORD is being fulfilled in Christ. The tearing of the curtain of the temple from top to bottom at the moment of his death ( ^* e.g. Mt 27:51) further suggests the opening of a new way of access to God.

Jesus' cleansing of the temple in Jn 2:12-22 more explicitly reveals him as the one sent to replace the institutions of the Mosaic covenant. ‘Destroy this temple’ he claims, ‘and I will raise it again in three days’ (v. 19). The insight that this saying referred to his resurrection body came only after he had been raised and the disciples ‘believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken’ (v. 22). John indicates that Jesus' concern to establish the purpose of God for Israel, Jerusalem, and the temple will destroy him. Because of this zeal, the Jewish leaders will bring about his death, but Jesus will take up his life again. The temple is fulfilled and replaced in John's perspective by the death and resurrection of the incarnate Son of God, which secure the ultimate liberation from sin and bring believers to eternal life. The apostle Paul later extends this image to include the community of those who are united to Christ by faith and who are indwelt by his Spirit ( ^* e.g. 1Co 3:16-17; 2Co 6:16-18; Ep 2:20-22).

Worship ‘in spirit and truth’

In Jn 4:20-24, a Samaritan woman inquires about the appropriate place to worship God, leading Jesus to speak more fundamentally about how to worship God acceptably. In contrast with Samaritan worship, Jewish worship was truly based on divine revelation and was therefore honouring to God (v. 22). However, ‘the hour is coming and now is’ (RSV), when the OT method of approaching God is to be fulfilled and replaced (vv. 21, 23). The coming ‘hour’ is the time of Jesus' return to the Father ( ^* e.g. Jn 2:4; 7:30; 12:23; 13:1; 17:1). Through his cross and resurrection the new temple is raised up ( 2:19-22) and the Spirit is given ( 7:37-39). Thus, Jesus becomes the means by which the Father obtains ‘true worshippers’ (Greek, alēthinoi proskynētai ) from every nation ( 4:23; cf. 12:32). This expression suggests that the OT pattern of worship prepared for the reality which was to come in Jesus.

Worship ‘in spirit and truth’ ( 4:23) involves acknowledging Jesus as the truth ( 14:6), who uniquely reveals the Father and his purposes ( 8:45; 18:37). It also means receiving from him the Spirit who is available for all who believe in him ( 7:37-39). Jesus is not the object of worship in Jn 4 but the means to a God-honouring worship under the new covenant. True homage and devotion to God is possible only for those who recognize the significance of Christ and yield him their allegiance. Furthermore, the relationship with God that Jesus makes possible is not tied to any earthly ‘place’ ( 4:20) or cult, for the prophetic hope of the temple as the centre for the universal worship of God in the End time ( ^* e.g. Isa 2:1-4) has been fulfilled in the person and work of the Messiah. The exalted Christ is now the ‘place’ where God is to be acknowledged and honoured. The Father cannot be honoured unless Jesus is given all the honour due to him as the Son ( ^* cf. Jn 5:22-23; 8:49).

The Greek verb proskynein is used elsewhere in the NT to show that the Son of God himself is to be accorded the homage and devotion due to the LORD God of Israel ( ^* e.g. Mt 14:33; 28:9,17; Lk 24:52; Jn 9:38; Heb 1:6; Rev 5:9-14; cf. Phl 1:9-11; Rev 1:12-18). Even where the terminology is not employed, it could be argued that apostolic preaching aimed to bring people to worship Christ in the sense of yielding their allegiance to him as Saviour and Lord ( ^* e.g. Ac 2:36-39; 10:36-43; cf. Ro 10:9-13). ‘Bending over to the Lord’ in NT terms means responding with repentance and faith to the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who are concerned about God-honouring worship will be pre-occupied with bringing people to Christ. Such worship also involves praying to him ( ^* e.g. Ac 7:51-60; 1Co 16:22b; 1Th 3:11), calling upon his name as Lord ( ^* e.g. 1Co 1:2), and obeying him in all the affairs of life.

Pauline Perspectives on New Covenant Worship

The worship that Jesus' sacrifice makes possible

The apostle Paul describes Jesus' death as ‘a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood’ ( Ro 3:25, NIV; cf. Ep 5:2). Only by his sacrifice can the wrath of God be averted ( ^* cf. Ro 1:18-28; 2:5). Paradoxically, as in OT teaching about the sacrificial system, it is God who provides the means of forgiveness, cleansing and restoration. In Ro 5:8-9 Jesus' blood /death is again identified as the means by which sinners are justified and saved from the wrath of God. It is the sacrifice which secures for believers all the blessings of the new covenant and the kingdom of God.

In response to what God has done for believers in Jesus Christ, they are to present themselves to him as ‘living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God’ ( Ro 12:1). The sacrifice in question is their ‘bodies’, meaning themselves as a totality, not just skin and bones ( ^* cf. 6:13, 16, ‘offer yourselves’). Christ's obedience makes possible a new obedience for the people of God. As those who have been brought from death to life, through Jesus' death and resurrection ( ^* cf. Ro 6:4-11), they belong to God as a ‘living sacrifice’. This is further described as their (literally) ‘understanding service’ (Gk. logikēn latreian ), suggesting that the presentation of themselves to God in Christ is the essence of Christian worship. The mind is certainly central to Paul's teaching here, but his focus is not simply on rationality. The service for which he calls is obedience motivated by faith in Jesus Christ and what he has done for believers. The lifestyle of those whose minds are being transformed and renewed by God will no longer be conformed to the values, attitudes and behaviour of ‘this age’ ( Ro 12:2; cf. Col 3:9-10; Ep 4:22-24). Acceptable worship is the service rendered by those who truly understand the gospel and want to live out its implications in every sphere of life. In common parlance the word ‘service’ is so linked to Christian gatherings that the Bible's teaching on the whole of life as the context in which to offer ‘divine service’ is easily forgotten.

Worship and Christian ministry

The link between ministry to others and service to God is particularly obvious in what Paul says about himself. In Ro 1:9 he indicates that his service takes place specifically in the sphere of gospel ministry. Intercessory prayer is part of it ( 1:8-10), but gospel preaching is the focus and goal of all his activity ( 1:11-15). In Ro 15:16, Paul again describes his work using transformed worship terminology. As ‘a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles’, he is God's designated servant, bestowing benefits on the Gentiles with the gospel. Indeed, he is engaged on Christ's behalf in discharging a ‘priestly’ ministry. Sacral terminology is used in a transformed way to portray the work of preaching by which he enables the Gentiles to offer themselves to God as an acceptable sacrifice, ‘sanctified by the Holy Spirit’. Gospel preaching brings about the obedience of faith through Jesus Christ, which is the ‘understanding worship’ that pleases God. Since preaching was not regarded as a ritual activity in Paul's world, he clearly gives that ministry a novel significance when he describes it as the means by which he worships or serves God.

The apostle uses another verb (Gk. leitourgein ) in Ro 15:27 to describe the service offered by certain Gentile churches to ‘the poor among the saints at Jerusalem’. The service to which he refers is financial support. The Gentiles have shared in the Jews' spiritual blessings and owe it to them literally ‘to benefit them in material things’. Here, and in 2Co 9:12 (‘this service that you perform’), the terminology refers to the bestowal of public benefits on those in need by those with means ( ^* cf. also Phl 2:25,30). However, this is clearly a ministry that will glorify God ( 2Co 9:13) and such gifts are ‘a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God’ ( Phl 4:18, NRSV). The notion of worshipping or serving God by means of serving one another is thus implied.

Worship and edification

Paul regularly uses the terminology of upbuilding or edification , rather than the language of worship, to indicate the purpose and function of Christian gatherings ( ^* e.g. 1Co 14:1-5,12,17,26; 1Th 5:11; Ep 4:11-16). This imagery portrays the founding, maintaining and advancing of the church as God's eschatological ‘building’. While all ministry must be understood as a response to God's grace, and not in any sense as a cultivation of his favour, ministry to others is an aspect of our service or self-giving to God. Moreover, edification is really the exalted Christ's work in our midst, through the gifts and ministries that he empowers and directs by his Spirit ( Ep 2:20-22; 4:7-16; see Spiritual Gifts ). When Christians gather together to minister the truth of God to one another in love, the church is manifested, maintained and advanced in God's way.

It may be best to speak of congregational worship as a particular expression of the total life-response that is the worship of the new covenant. In the giving and receiving of various ministries, Christians may encounter God and submit themselves to him afresh in praise and obedience, repentance and faith ( ^* cf. Col 3:16; 1Co 14:24-25). Worship and edification can be two different ways of describing the same activity. Ministry exercised for the building up of the body of Christ is a significant way of worshipping and glorifying God.

Drawing Near to God Through Jesus as High Priest

Jesus' high priestly ministry

Hebrews says much about how the ministry of Christ fulfils and replaces the priesthood and cult associated with the old covenant. ‘Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings’ are all set aside by ‘the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all’ ( 10:5-14, NIV). As the high priest of the new covenant, he has entered once for all into the heavenly sanctuary, ‘having obtained eternal redemption’ ( 9:11-12, 24-28). The writer several times insists on the unique and unrepeatable character of Jesus' sacrifice, in contrast with the numerous and repeated offerings prescribed in the OT ( ^* e.g. 7:27; 9:24-28; 10:10, 12, 14). The priestly ministry of Jesus is superior because it involved the offering of himself as a pure and unblemished sacrifice to God ( 7:26-27), securing all the benefits promised in Je 31:31-34 ( ^* cf. Heb 8:6-13). As a heavenly high priest, ‘he is able to save completely those who come to God though him, because he always lives to intercede for them’ ( 7:25). He is willing and able to go on applying the benefits of his once-for-all sacrifice to believers, in the midst of all their trials and temptations ( ^* cf. 4:14-16; Ro 8:34; 1Jn 2:1-2). In the argument of Hebrews, the sacrifices, altar and priesthood of the OT all find their fulfilment in the saving work of Jesus Christ, not in some ongoing activity in the Christian congregation.

Experiencing the benefits of Christ's saving work

In two key passages of exhortation, Hebrews challenges Christians to hold fast to their confession and to keep on ‘drawing near’ to God with confidence ( 4:14-16; 10:11-23). This is another important worship term adapted from the LXX (Gk. proserchesthai , e.g. Ex 16:9; Lev 9:5; Nu 16:40). In both cases, the appeal is based on the fact that Christ is the perfected and enthroned high priest, who has entered the heavenly sanctuary by means of his death and heavenly exaltation and opened up ‘a new and living way’ into that sanctuary for us. Christians can approach God without the aid of human priesthood, because they rely on the priestly mediation of Jesus Christ. ‘Drawing near to God with confidence’ is at the heart of what it means to be a Christian. It is the expression of an ongoing relationship of trust and dependence ( 10:22, ‘with a true heart in full assurance of faith’). In 4:16 it means specifically seeking mercy for past failures and ‘grace to help us in our time of need’.

Although believers must draw near to God individually, it is also true that those who turn to Christ come together into the heavenly presence, to join by faith in the celebration of the heavenly assembly ( ^* cf. 12:21-24). The notion of collectively drawing near to God is similarly suggested by the context of Heb 10:22. Gathering together is an important means of encouraging one another to persevere in love and obedience ( 10:24-25; cf. 3:12-14). As Christians expose themselves to the ministries of others and to the word of God, they engage with God as the family of God together.

Serving God in the perspective of Hebrews

As in Ro 12:1, in Hebrews Christian worship is also the service rendered in everyday life ( Heb 9:14; 12:28, where latreuein is used). The motivation and power for such service is specifically the cleansing that comes from the finished work of Christ ( 9:28) and the hope which that work sets before believers ( 12:28). Gratitude expressed in service is the sign that the grace of God has been grasped and appreciated. However, the writer introduces a more serious note when he asserts that acceptable worship is characterized by ‘reverence and awe’, and supports his challenge with an allusion to the coming judgment of God (‘for our God is a consuming fire’). Heb 13:1-7 shows what this means in terms of practical lifestyle.

In 13:8-16 there is a restatement of the theme that the OT system of worship finds its fulfilment in the work of Christ, concluding with another reference to the worship that is ‘pleasing to God’ (vv. 15-16). The ‘sacrifice of praise’ Christians are to offer to God through Jesus is ‘the fruit of lips that confess his name’. This could involve the celebration of Christ as Saviour and Lord in personal or corporate acts of praise. However, the writer's meaning here cannot simply be restricted to what might be called ‘church activities’. His concern in the immediate context is to exhort believers to acknowledge Christ in the world , in the face of opposition and suffering (vv. 12-14). In its widest sense, this sacrifice of praise will be rendered by those who confess Jesus ‘outside the camp’, in various forms of public testimony or evangelism. The offering up of praise to God is certainly not just a matter of singing hymns or giving thanks in a congregational context, though these activities can be a stimulus to effective proclamation elsewhere ( ^* cf. Ep 5:18-20; Col 3:16-17).

The Heavenly Locus of New Covenant Worship

Like Hebrews, the Revelation of John focuses on the realm where Jesus the crucified Messiah reigns in glory. The whole of life is to be lived in relation to the new Jerusalem and the victory of ‘the Lamb who was slain’ ( 5:12). Visions of heaven portray the offering of adoration and praise to God and the Lamb, and the language of worship pervades the whole document. Most significantly, the Greek worship term proskynein is used twenty-four times, in ways that indicate the centrality of this theme to the author's message. In most passages the word describes some form of homage to the living and true God by heavenly beings or by those redeemed from earth ( Rev 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 11:1,16; 14:7; 15:4; 19:4,10; 22:9). Such homage is offered by gesture and by words of acclamation and praise.

However, despite this interest in the worship of the heavenly host, John's apocalypse also concentrates on the earthly scene. Various forms of idolatry are portrayed ( 9:20; 13:4, 8, 12), together with prophecies of the awful judgment coming upon those who bow to false gods and refuse to acknowledge the living and true God. John effectively divides humanity into two categories, the worshippers of the dragon and the beast, and the worshippers of God and the Lamb ( ^* e.g. 14:1-11). The vision of the new creation ( 21:1-22:5) portrays the future of the faithful in terms of a city where God himself dwells ( 21:22) and where his servants serve him unceasingly ( 22:3; Gk. latreuein , cf. 7:15). This fulfils the ideal of the OT, which was only partially realized for Israel in the prescriptions of the Mosaic law. Meanwhile, faithful service to God as ‘a kingdom and priests’ on earth is commanded ( 1:4-6; 2:1-3:22; 14:12; cf. Ex 19:6; 1Pe 2:5,9).

More than any other NT book, Revelation stresses the importance of praise and acclamation as a means of honouring God and encouraging his people to trust and obey him. The pattern of the heavenly assembly suggests that singing the praises of God and the Lamb is a way of affirming fundamental gospel truths and of acknowledging God's powerful but gracious rule over nature and history. Together with teaching and various forms of exhortation, it can strengthen Christians to maintain their confidence in God and in the outworking of his purposes in a world devoted to idolatry and every kind of God-rejecting activity. Testifying to the goodness and power of God in the congregation of his people can be a means of encouraging faithful testimony before unbelievers in everyday life.

Bibliography

R. T. Beckwith and M. J. Selman (eds.), Sacrifice in the Bible (Carlisle and Grand Rapids, 1995); D. A. Carson (ed.), Worship: Adoration and Action (Carlisle and Grand Rapids, 1993); R. P. Martin, The Worship of God: Some Theological, Pastoral and Practical Reflections (Grand Rapids, 1982); C. F. D. Moule, Worship in the New Testament (Bramcote, ² 1977-78); D. G. Peterson, Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship (Leicester and Grand Rapids, 1992).

D. G. Peterson

Wrath

See Anger

Zeal

See Assurance

Zechariah

See Zechariah in Part 2

Zephaniah

See Zephaniah in Part 2

Zion

See Jerusalem