The relationship between biblical theology and Theological Interpretation of Scripture (TIS) is complicated. For starters, meaningful comparison can only be done between two entities that are properly defined. But both biblical theology and Theological Interpretation of Scripture seem to have almost as many definitions as practitioners. What follows is my attempt to map the general contours of the biblical theology and Theological Interpretation of Scripture streams, cataloguing the various historical tributaries and contemporary branches of each discipline. From there, I will compare biblical theology and Theological Interpretation of Scripture, noting both similarities and differences. Finally, I will evaluate the prospects that both biblical theology and Theological Interpretation of Scripture hold for evangelical interpreters.
History of Biblical Theology
In many ways, the practice of biblical theology can be traced back to the authors of Scripture. In both the Old Testament (Psalm 78) and the New Testament (Acts 7), we find the biblical authors summarizing and synthesizing the history of God’s dealings with man. In fact, it could be argued that much of the New Testament—consider the book of Hebrews for instance—was a divinely inspired project of biblical theology, as the authors of the New Testament explain both the theological significance of the historical facts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and the reality of the church using terms and concepts rooted in the Old Testament text.
Brevard Childs (1923–2007) argues against James Barr (1924–2006) in Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments that biblical theology did not spring up in a vacuum, but rather can be traced back to the early church fathers down through the Reformation to today.[1] We can identify the second century church father Irenaeus, specifically in his treatise Against Heresies, as one the first non-canonical examples of biblical theology.[2] Irenaeus, facing the heretic Marcion’s claims that the Old Testament text should be discarded and replaced by the New Testament, argued for a unity of the testaments by the means of God’s unfolding plan in salvation history. As I will argue below, I believe this unity to be a sine qua non tenet of biblical theology—something of absolute necessity—namely, a historical organizing principle in approaching the biblical text.
1. Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 5–10.
2. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994); see e.g., 3.18–22; 4.20–22; 5.14–36.
From Irenaeus to Chrysostom to Nicholas of Lyra to Thomas Aquinas, the presence of a recognizable biblical theology could be traced by a careful reader, although to apply this term to them might be seen as anachronistic. For the most part, pre-Reformation interpreters did not perceive a conceptual distance between the theology of the Bible and the theology of the church—a point made by Kevin Vanhoozer in his essay on exegesis and hermeneutics in The New Dictionary for Biblical Theology.[3] But with Luther, Calvin, and the Reformers, it was necessary to make the distinction between the Bible’s theology and theology that is (purportedly) based on the Bible.
3. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Exegesis and Hermeneutics,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 52.
Due to the rise of humanism in the late 1400s and early 1500s, access to and appreciation for the original languages of the biblical text was growing, and with that came better clarity of reading the text on its own terms. Luther’s project, one could say, was a project in a recovery of biblical theology, or the Bible’s theology. Chief among the theological and hermeneutical presuppositions that aided Luther in his reformation project were his commitments to the principle of sola scriptura and his almost wholesale rejection of the medieval fourfold sense of Scripture. He rejected this in favor of the primacy of the literal meaning, or the plain sense of the text––what Hans Frei identifies in Eclipse of Biblical Narrative as the “narratival” or “historical meaning.”[4] Calvin likewise largely rejected the multiple senses of Scripture and operated out of the assumption that reading the Bible involved understanding the sensus literalis, or the literal sense.
4. Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974).
Ironically, students of the development of post-reformational hermeneutics recognized that this distance made apparent between church teaching and the Bible’s theology led to the separation and fragmentation of biblical studies into biblical theology and dogmatic (or systematic) theology, as we will see below.
After the Reformation in the 1500s, we can trace the rise of historical-critical exegesis in the academy (and again, this is a more skeptical and anti-supernatural view of the Bible) and the rise of various opposing dogmatic systems in protestant scholasticism and German pietism. It is in this milieu that J. P. Gabler (1753–1826), who is almost everywhere identified as the father of biblical theology, made his proposal for the formal separation of biblical theology and dogmatic theology. Gabler was not the first to make this unfortunate distinction, but in his 1787 address at the University of Altdorf, he called for a new era in theology.[5] Looking out at all of the various protestant dogmas and systems that had sprung up after the Reformation and the infighting that followed, Gabler suggested a way forward that could attain objective unity among scholars.
5. Johann Philipp Gabler, “An Oration on the Proper Distinction Between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each” (1787), in Old Testament Theology: Flowering and Future, ed. and trans. Ben C. Ollenburger (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 497–506.
For Gabler, Biblical theology was to be the unifying and even “scientific” discipline on which everyone could agree, a discipline rooted in the text in an attempt to describe what the biblical authors believed. By this time, however, a miracle-denying philosophical naturalism was in vogue and skepticism reigned in the academy with regard to the events recorded in the Bible. Therefore, Gabler proposed that the task of the biblical theologian was to run the beliefs of the authors through the discipline of historical criticism in order to determine what “actually happened”—what he called biblical theology. From here, Gabler argued, the dogmaticians could formulate their doctrines in accordance with what comported with reason (philosophical rationalism) and the dogmaticians’ particular traditions. Again, this process effectively muffles the true meaning of the biblical text, and especially the supernatural aspects.
It is one of the great ironies of hermeneutical history that the father of biblical theology, attempting to unify the academy and Protestantism in general, opened the gates to the greatest fragmentation of theology, which led to the siloed status of the nineteenth century biblical studies departments. The New Testament was separated from the Old Testament, Gospel studies and Pauline studies were set at odds, and form-, source- and redaction-criticism were the scholar’s greatest tools for mining the “meaning” of the text—a meaning which had less and less regard for the plain historical referents and the “literal” sense of Scripture (I’m using that term here in Frei’s sense), and more regard for what “actually” happened “behind” the text in their critical reconstruction.
Quickly after Gabler, historical critics (who largely view the supernatural aspects of the Bible with skepticism) such as Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834) argued that the canonical unity of the Scriptures––and the historical reality witnessed to therein––was inconsistent with the academy’s commitment to a philosophical naturalism that disdained the supernatural. Thus, disregard for the plain (historical/literal) meaning of Scripture was calcified. “Theologies” of the Bible were replaced by the “history of religions” school, and only conservative scholars committed to the authority of Scripture attempted “biblical theology.”
It is this context that makes Geerhardus Vos (1862–1949) so important. At the turn of the twentieth century, Vos planted his flag in the discipline of biblical theology, taking a newly created chair of biblical theology at Princeton. Arguably, it was Vos’s (evangelical) commitment to the authority and verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible that led to his recovery of a rich tradition.
This was the context in which the Biblical Theology Movement of the twentieth century, as exemplified in the work of G. E. Wright, sprung up and grew. The Biblical Theology Movement insisted on a return to the unity of the canon, but, unlike Vos, it imported the historical-critical assumptions and conclusions of the previous generation. Brevard Childs has noted that the Biblical Theology Movement shared the anti-supernatural presuppositions of the historical critics while using the language of orthodoxy, rendering their project nearly incomprehensible.[6] It was the Biblical Theology Movement that led to the crisis of biblical theology identified by Brevard Childs in the middle of the twentieth century––a rather remarkable illustration in the importance of theological presuppositions. While Vos’s successors are writing biblical theologies today, the Biblical Theology Movement has no heirs. Wisdom is justified by all her children.
6. Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), 103.
In the twenty-first century, biblical theology is alive and well, with both evangelical and non-evangelical scholars participating in the discipline. The what’s, why’s, and how’s of biblical theology, however, are being answered in a variety of different ways. Instead of outlining the various approaches that go by the name “biblical theology” (for an attempt at this project, see Klink and Lockett’s recent taxonomy),[7] I will identify below two key distinctives of biblical theology that most in the discipline share:
7. Edward W. Klink III and Darian R. Lockett, Understanding Biblical Theology: A Comparison of Theory and Practice (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012).
- A Historical Organizing Principle. Geerhardus Vos argued that the difference between biblical theology and systematic theology can be found in their organizing principles: biblical theology has a historical organizing principle, while systematic theology has a logical organizing principle. What Vos means by this is that biblical theology is necessarily grounded in the history of the text—that is, the historical realities the text points to and the historical situatedness of the text itself. Biblical theologians recognize the progressive revelation of the canon, and they read the books of the Bible in light of their historical provenance––including author, date, etc. While there are several “horizons” on which the text should be read, including the literary and canonical, the historical horizon is never neglected in a true biblical theology. I will speak more of this below when comparing biblical theology to Theological Interpretation of Scripture, as this is one of the main divergences I see between these two disciplines.
- A Relationship between the Old and New Testaments. For the most part, biblical theology is a synthesizing discipline. Biblical theology recognizes the canonical form of the Scriptures. I will argue that evangelicals are able to do this best, as they have the only sound warrant for holding the canon together––namely, the divine inspiration of the scriptures. But biblical theologians read the constituent parts in light of the whole. This is one reason why I think Klink and Lockett’s taxonomy fails, since James Barr is included among the list of biblical theologians. Barr’s project is set squarely in the history of religions school, which puts the canon on the same level as extra-canonical un-inspired documents for determining “meaning” and reconstructing “history.”
While there are other distinctives of biblical theology that could be mentioned, we will now move on to examining Theological Interpretation of Scripture.
History of Theological Interpretation of Scripture
The history of Theological Interpretation of Scripture is much shorter than the history of biblical theology. In fact, the phrase “theological interpretation of scripture” is only around two decades old. It was first used by Stephen Fowl, a theologian who remains a spokesperson for the movement that is as diverse as it is hard to define. The Theological Interpretation of Scripture movement, like the biblical theology movement, includes evangelical interpreters such as Kevin Vanhoozer and Scott Swain, and also many non-evangelical interpreters such as Christopher Seitz and Stephen Fowl. Instead of rehearsing its extremely short history, I will attempt to list some Theological Interpretation of Scripture distinctives:
- Theological Interpretation. Inherent in the name, theological interpretation is an attempt to interpret the biblical text theologically. In many ways, this is a direct repudiation of the vision set forth by J. P. Gabler for biblical theology. Instead of seeking to separate biblical studies from systematic theology, Theological Interpretation of Scripture practitioners purport to read the text through the lens of their theological commitments, and do so unashamedly. That is, the Theological Interpretation of Scripture movement tends to want to erase the distinction between biblical theology and systematic theology.
- Rule of Faith. Although the theological commitments of Theological Interpretation of Scripture interpreters are multiform and thus produce multiple readings, the one “governing” theological criterion seems to be the Rule of Faith (regula fidei). By Rule of Faith, Theological Interpretation of Scripture interpreters often refer to the seven ecumenical councils, and most often they particularly mean the Nicene Creed. If one’s interpretation cannot be refuted by the creeds––the argument tends to go––then one’s interpretation cannot be refuted.
- Pre-critical Exegesis. A common theme among Theological Interpretation of Scripture practitioners is an attempt to recover and deploy pre-critical modes of interpretation that are beyond the grammatical-historical or historical-critical modes, which they label as “modernistic.” This method includes, if not prefers, the fourfold sense of meaning: literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical. This commitment is stated in the preface to the new Brazos Theological Interpretation of Scripture commentaries edited by R.R. Reno,[8] where Trier outlines the unique attributes of the series: each contributor is committed to exploring the allegorical, moral, and anagogical readings of Scripture.
- Ressourcement/Retrieval. A final distinctive of Theological Interpretation of Scripture, which is part and parcel with pre-critical exegesis, is giving ear to earlier “readings” of Scripture. The Theological Interpretation of Scripture movement has set about rejuvenating lost and forgotten interpretations of Scripture. Interestingly, this is done most often from the patristic and medieval period, and less often are readings revived from the Reformation onward, such as the project undertaken by Scott Swain and Michael Allen in their 2015 book Reformed Catholicity.[9]
8. R. R. Reno, gen. ed., Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2005–ongoing.
9. Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain, Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015).
Theological Interpretation of Scripture vs. Biblical Theology
Similarities
Theological Interpretation of Scripture and biblical theology, as separate disciplines, share several broad similarities. In practice, however, the similarities between Theological Interpretation of Scripture and biblical theology have more to do with the presuppositions and theologies of the interpreter than the discipline they are consciously operating in. Evangelical practitioners of Theological Interpretation of Scripture and biblical theology both share a commitment to: (1) the verbal, plenary, inspiration of the Bible, (2) the primacy and authority of the canonical books, and (3) a rejection of the historical-critical conclusions that stem from a naturalistic worldview. Below, I will list more broad agreement between the Theological Interpretation of Scripture and Biblical Theology disciplines:
- Canonical Interpretation. Both Theological Interpretation of Scripture and biblical theology are committed to canonical interpretation. That is, both biblical theology and Theological Interpretation of Scripture reject the notion that the Old Testament should be sequestered off from the New Testament, and vice versa. Even when biblical theologians are operating at the level of a singular book, or author, or testament, they are aware of the canonical context.
- Textually Oriented. Both Theological Interpretation of Scripture and biblical theology are textual enterprises. While the how of interpretation is often different, what is being interpreted is the same. It is the Bible’s theology that biblical theology is after, and the interpretation of Scripture that Theological Interpretation of Scripture is concerned with. Whether or not this comes with an evangelical warrant––namely, the inspiration of the canonical writings—both biblical theology and Theological Interpretation of Scripture recognize the object of study to be the canonical text.
Differences
If we do not limit the investigation to evangelical practitioners of Biblical Theology and Theological Interpretation of Scripture, it is clear that there are far more differences than similarities between the two.
Geschichte vs. Historie
At the end of the nineteenth century, a German scholar by the name of Martin Kähler used the terms Geschichte and Historie to describe an undercurrent that had been present in biblical studies since Immanuel Kant in the eighteenth century. Kant is famous for his distinction between the noumena and phenomena, a distinction that he found necessary after he was “awakened” by the philosophy of David Hume. For Kant, the visible, experiential realm is accessible through the senses alone and is determined by natural cause and effect. This realm he called the phenomena. The noumena, while it may or may not exist (for Kant, it did exist), is the realm that is not “provable” by experience or observation––in other words, it is not provable by science. The noumena is not governed by naturalistic cause and effect and is only accessible by “faith.” Many scholars recognize Platonic undertones to this Kantian system.
Thus when Kähler used the term Geschichte to describe the biblical text, he was talking about “salvation-history” that was not verifiable nor explainable in naturalistic terms (noumena). Only Historie is verifiable, explainable, and is bound by naturalistic cause and effect (phenomena). In Kähler’s system, Historie and Geschichte, while they both may really exist, were closed off from one another. This Historie/Geschichte distinction made a profound impact on the theologies of two of the most important theologians in the twentieth century: Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976) and Karl Barth (1886–1968).
For both Bultmann and Barth, Historie is rooted in chronos, or natural time, and Geschichte in kairos, or heavenly time(lessness). Bultmann applied the concept of Geschichte (again, unverifiable salvation history) to the realm of faith––the personal experience of the believer with the “Christ of Faith.” He then juxtaposed this Christ of Faith—with all of his supernatural miracles and his resurrection from the dead —with the supposed “Jesus of History”––in order to make the message of the Bible palatable to modern, naturalistic hearers who did not believe in the miraculous.
Barth applied the concept of Geschichte to salvation-history, much in the same way as Kähler. But Barth believed that miracles took place and Jesus rose actually from the dead, he was just unwilling, even unable, to say that these things happened in Historie. In other words, Barth quizzically affirmed that the miracles and Christ’s resurrection happened, but that they couldn’t be historically verified, which the apostle Paul sees as critically significant in 1 Corinthians 15:17. This is precisely what makes Barth so difficult for evangelicals.
I rehearse this history and bring up the Geshichte/Historie distinction to make this point: Theological Interpretation of Scripture seems to be happy to operate in the realm of Geschichte while being agnostic on Historie. That is, adherents of Theological Interpretation of Scripture don’t necessarily affirm that what they are interpreting in scripture actually happened in history. Biblical theology, however, does not remain agnostic to Historie. In fact, I would argue that any biblical theology worth its salt operates at the intersection of Geschichte and Historie (here I’m following loosely the argument laid out by Michael Horton in Covenant and Eschatology).[10] What I mean is that good biblical theology combines the material aspects of history with the immaterial or spiritual aspects—or rather, good biblical theology unites of Historie and Geschichte under God’s unfolding plan for his creation in relationship to himself.
10. Michael S. Horton, Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 106.
If the above account is accepted, we see two progenitors of two different disciplines at the beginning of the twentieth century: Geerhardus Vos and Karl Barth. Vos described his brand of biblical theology as the “History of Special Revelation,” a biblical theology that studies the intersection of special revelation and history, which is seen ultimately in the incarnation of the eternal Word, Jesus. Barth, on the other hand, was content to be agnostic of Historie—the material, organic, development of revelation in this space and time—and instead focused on the presence of the Word with the believer in interpretation, reading the miraculous in the context of Geschichte, not Historie. In this way, I would submit that Theological Interpretation of Scripture operates downstream of Karl Barth, and biblical theology operates downstream of Geerhardus Vos (and the Reformers and the biblical authors and also the Holy Spirit).
Antioch vs. Alexandria.
As noted above, one of the tenets of Theological Interpretation of Scripture is a recovery of pre-critical exegesis. In practice, this often means the preference of allegorical, moral, and anagogical readings of Scripture over against the grammatical-historical (or literal). For most biblical theology interpreters, though, because of the historical component of the discipline, the grammatical-historical (or literal) reading is preferred, with occasional recourse to typological (what some call typological-allegorical) readings. Here is another noted difference between biblical theology and Theological Interpretation of Scripture in the issue of hermeneutics.
In many ways, this dispute can be traced back to Alexandria and Antioch. Although any sharp distinction between these schools is challenged by some, many historians conclude that the Alexandrian School, as exemplified by Origen, produced more allegorical readings of Scripture, while the Antioch School, as exemplified by Chrysostom, produced more “historical/literal” readings. Regardless of whether or not two “schools” existed in Antioch and Alexandria, any honest reader of these two figures will notice a difference in their interpretations. When reading Origen, one begins to wonder if his reading could ever be duplicated by another looking at the same text. But when reading Chrysostom, one can easily follow his exegetical moves. Interestingly, Origen is often held up as the poster-child for Theological Interpretation of Scripture exegesis, while Irenaeus and Chrysostom are more often cited by biblical theology proponents.
Looking at the fourfold sense of the medieval (and sometimes Patristic) hermeneutic, we can categorize the Theological Interpretation of Scripture and biblical theology methods. For the most part, Theological Interpretation of Scripture tends to use the entire fourfold scheme: literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical. However, Theological Interpretation of Scripture often favors the latter three over the first. Biblical theology, on the other hand, tends to use only the first two: literal and typological-allegorical, and even then, the scheme is modified. By using the term typological-allegorical, often termed merely typological, biblical theology practitioners are referring to historical correspondence (and some would argue typological escalation) between figures and events in an earlier and later text. So, the first Adam has a typological correspondence to Christ as the last Adam. The difference between biblical theology’s typology and Theological Interpretation of Scripture’s allegory is textual warrant. Allegory, by definition, uses an external grid for interpretation, while typology uses textual cues to establish textual connections.
This major difference can be explained by looking at predominant influences in the Theological Interpretation of Scripture camp. As mentioned above, Karl Barth can be described as a forerunner to Theological Interpretation of Scripture. For Barth, the “literal” sense of Scripture has less to do with “history” and everything to do with “the Spirit,” which can be equated to the moral and anagogical senses of reading. In addition to Barth, you will more readily find the bibliographies of the Theological Interpretation of Scripture movement referencing postmodern hermeneutical theorists like Hans-Georg Gadamer, Umberto Eco, Paul Ricoeur, and even Stanley Fish and Jacques Derrida.
Gadamer’s idea that the meaning of a text is not tied to authorial intent, but is rather determined by how the text has been understood through history (Wirkungsgeschichte)—this idea can also explain the ressourcement/retrieval tenet of Theological Interpretation of Scripture. Ricoeur and Eco, both postmodern literary theorists, emphasize the contexts of the interpreter and the interpretation when examining a text’s meaning, which aligns with Theological Interpretation of Scripture’s affinity for the allegorical sense (because it does not necessarily need to be tied to logic of the text).[11]
11. It is interesting, then, to see the Yale School of interpretation (prominent in the late 1960s to the 1990s with leaders such as George Lindbeck, Hans Frei, Brevard Childs) and its emphasis on literary readings—which align more with the “literal” reading of the fourfold sense of Scripture—in Theological Interpretation of Scripture bibliographies as well. The Yale School and their literary emphases just as often shows up in biblical theology bibliographies. Perhaps this is one of the reasons Theological Interpretation of Scripture is so difficult to define: there are many diverse tributaries.
Authorial Intent
These two differences above explain the diverging approaches of biblical theology and Theological Interpretation of Scripture to authorial intent. Theological Interpretation of Scripture methods, especially in the hands of a non-evangelical interpreter, can come to textual meaning regardless of whether or not the attributed author existed. That is, the majority of the “readings” of the Theological Interpretation of Scripture movement would be no different if the entire Bible was written in the second century by one man. This is strikingly different from biblical theology, which takes into consideration at which point along Scripture’s progressive unfolding each particular book was written. Because of this, many in the Theological Interpretation of Scripture movement have rejected the search for authorial intent, opting instead for a more postmodern hermeneutical approach, such as Gadamer’s idea that or Eco’s reader-response hermeneutic. Instead, in the biblical theology camp, while the term “authorial intent” might not always be used, what the author meant and how the text was understood at the time it was written is always of prime importance. Because of this, one is more likely to find E. D. Hirsch (who would argue for a more authorially objective interpretation) in the bibliography of a biblical theology project than Stanley Fish (who would argue for a more subjective and postmodern approach).
Evangelical Prospects
Evangelical interpreters can and do operate in both Theological Interpretation of Scripture and biblical theology circles. But here are a few cautions:
First, the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy (1978) affirms biblical authorial attribution as part of what is divinely inspired when it occurs in the text. That is, when the Bible says Moses wrote a book, the evangelical interpreter believes Moses wrote that book, and it should make a difference in one’s interpretation. Theological Interpretation of Scripture’s agnosticism toward authors and the history the text bears witness to must concern and be addressed by evangelicals. In his 1894 inaugural address at Princeton, Geerhardus Vos, referring to the text of Scripture and the events recorded therein, said: “Without God’s acts the words would be empty, without his words the acts would be blind.”[12] I think the Theological Interpretation of Scripture movement, with its ahistorical approach, is in danger of interpreting empty words.
12. Geerhardus Vos, “The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline,” Inauguration of the Rev. Geerhardus Vos as Professor of Biblical Theology (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Theological Seminary, 1894), 15.
Second, on the flip side, evangelical practitioners of biblical theology need to be willing to hear the critique from Theological Interpretation of Scripture that our interpretations must and always will be theological. That is, the Enlightenment project of the pure, unadorned, tabula rasa of a mind is impossible. We must be honest about our presuppositions. But this should be encouraging to the evangelical, for our presuppositions are these: the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and the Reformers got it right in their commitment to Sola Scriptura. Just as important, though, evangelical Theological Interpretation of Scripture practitioners need to be careful not to assign their “theologies” a status above the Scripture.
Third, evangelicals need to recognize that there was a reason why Luther and Calvin rejected the fourfold sense. Apart from a grammatical-historical reading that is sensitive to its literary context—the canon—whereby the authorial intentions of the author are quested for and respected, there is no guard against relativity, and thus no guard against subjectivity and the loss of truth. Douglas J. Moo makes this point when he notes that for the apostle Paul, there was a right way and a wrong way to read the prophets, otherwise there would have been no debate in the synagogues. Likewise, the Reformers realized that there was a right way and a wrong way to read Paul, and this important point led to the recovery of the gospel for the Church. If our methods do not allow us to say why a reading is right and why a reading is wrong, then we can no longer guard against wolves who distort the Word as Paul said would happen in Acts 20:29.
Therefore, let the evangelical interpreter plunder the Egyptians, as it were, and take the best that is offered from Theological Interpretation of Scripture—even from non-evangelical interpreters. But let’s do this remembering that if Christ did not rise from the dead, then our faith is futile and we are still in our sins (1 Cor. 15:17). So let us at the end of the day recognize that the unfolding story of the Bible, along with all of its glorious theology, is grounded in actual space-time history. And by doing this, we will be found faithful to the Lord Jesus and his Word in all of our biblical theology.
