James K. Mead's History Of Biblical Theology: Issues, And Themes
In “History of Biblical Theology,” chapter 2 of Biblical Theology: Issues, Methods, and Themes, James K. Mead provides the historical context to the development of biblical theology. The problem Mead highlights is that each era (non-critical or critical or post-critical) has its own issue and challenges in biblical theology, drawing attention for new methods to the Bible and its view on it. He also maintains that challenges of one era sometimes are repeated in the next era.
In order to address this problem, Mead employs seven questions arranged chronologically as the outline of his chapter, and the main point of each outline will be given in the report below. The questions are:
1. What kind of biblical theology existed before the discipline of that name arose?
2. Under what circumstances did the discipline of biblical theology develop?
3. Why did the division in the treatment of the testaments occur?
4. What intellectual movements influenced the methods of nineteenth- century biblical theology?
5. What is the difference between the history of religions and biblical theology?
6. Why is the middle of the twentieth century thought of as a great age of biblical theology?
7. What new …show more content…
developments arose in the closing decades of the twentieth century?
Mead takes us to the eighteenth century where J. P. Gabler is given accreditation in formulating the term biblical theology in March 30, 1787 (Mead 25) and in defining “biblical theology over against the more systematic or dogmatic expressions of theology” (Mead 26). According to Mead, this is the beginning of the division in the treatment of the testaments which is further deepens in the nineteenth century though it is not the intention of Gabler. The nineteenth century saw a growing higher criticism and victory in the twentieth century. Scholars start to use critical methods of interpretation of the Bible. Though in the first half of the nineteenth century, “the vast number of European Christians continued to hold a very high view of biblical inspiration and authority” (Mead 34), Mead mentions that “by the latter third of the nineteenth century, biblical scholarship’s embrace of the historical method was coming into full bloom” (34). Then the late nineteenth century sees a shift from biblical theology to history of religions (Mead 35) where the uniqueness of biblical faith is pushed aside. In the middle of the twentieth century, that there is a recovery in ascertaining the theological message of the Bible (Mead 39). The Biblical Theology Movement came into being post-World War II which emphasize themes like “the unity of the whole Bible, God’s revelation in history through his mighty acts, and the distinctiveness of biblical revelation” (Mead 47). By the end of the twentieth century, Mead mentions that there were new developments in structure, hermeneutics, history, context and perspective for biblical theology. These bring to the recovery of the critical theology. Mead concludes the chapter by pointing us to the concern of his chapter–the presence of diversity in issues, methods and themes in the history of biblical theology, and that the present different circumstances, views and the “ongoing confluence of different currents” (Mead 59) call for exploring the issues, new approaches to the Bible and its perspective.
With the different issues facing the Church today, Mead’s “History of Biblical Theology” is a helpful insight to prepare us for the need to identify issues, right methods in order to understand biblical theology for today.
In his “The Primacy of Scripture,” Donald G. Bloesch deals with the problem of authority of Scripture. He addresses this problem by establishing four things. First, the divine authority of the Scripture has the elements of both human and divine. Bloesch states that Scripture has “dual authorship” and “in its entirety the very Word of God and the very word of man” (52). Secondly, Bloesch affirms the infallibility and inerrancy of the Scripture, adding that the message is infallible and inerrant, but there is room for error in the recording of data in the worldview of the writers. So, therefore the truth of the Bible can be understood only as the Spirit makes it known through revelation. Thirdly, Bloesch states that the Bible is “a witness to divine revelation” (70), which as he calls it as a task of hermeneutics. Bloesch mentions here the four stages in a hermeneutical task–an open heart and a searching mind, to examine the text critically by using literary and historical criticism, the use of theological exegesis, and to relate the text to the cultural situation. The fourth method Bloesch employs is bringing out the misconceptions in modern evangelicalism where the divinity of the Bible is increasingly popular and the “humanity of the Bible is virtually denied” (74).
So, by mentioning the above four approaches, Bloesch establishes that the Bible, with the aspects of divinity and humanity, is the Word of God which points to the living God as found in Jesus Christ who is the final and absolute authority and remains a “thoroughly sound and relevant standard and guide” (78) for all the ages.
Bloesch’s article is helpful in that it enables us to understand the connection of the Scripture with Christology and how the authority of the Scripture is derived through that. It also helps the critics to comprehend the meaning of the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible as it has both the divine and human element.
In “The Hermeneutical Circle of Christian Community: Biblical, Theological, and Practical Dimensions of the Unity of Scripture,” Charles J. Scalise identifies that Christian communities face confusions when they try to understand Scripture theologically because of the diverse interpretations on the unity of Scripture. Scalise believes that interdisciplinary scholarship may offer correctives in the interpretation of Scripture and its implication. Scalise points out three interfaces: Scripture-theology, theology-practice, and the praxis-Scripture and the key aspects of the problem of the unity of Scripture pose from these interfaces.
From Scripture and theology interface, Scalise takes the example of the influence of Irenaeus’s ‘one right reading’ of Scripture and Origen’s ‘one right method’ in approaching the problem of unity of Scripture and how these views cause static understanding of Christian theology as fixed propositions. Scalise points out in theology-practice interface that the problem often comes from the fact that the Scripture is viewed as a resource book for pastoral theology and its value is measured from its applicability for healing and transformation of a person or community. He asserts that in this interface, the Scripture’s usefulness overshadows the problem of the unity of Scripture with theology. And in the praxis-Scripture interface, Scalise states that the connection of Scripture with ordinary life issues of Christian communities is often addressed and that people use Scripture as proof-text to support their pre-supposed positions on ethical issues and maintain eisegesis than exegesis.
Scalise, thus, proposes that the unity of Scripture can be construed by the hermeneutical circle of Christian community by employing a modified canonical hermeneutic of biblical interpretation and a blended diversity of theological models of ministry (221). A modified hermeneutic of biblical interpretation is a modified form of a canonical approach, which involves balanced exegesis in the continuing hermeneutical context of the Christian canon, and also involves holding meaning and method together. Scalise suggests this blended diversity of theological models to be employed by ministers and their congregations in Christian community. Scalise proposes that a modified canonical hermeneutics offers a way to move beyond proof-texting and encourages communal reading of the Bible that will prevent subjective reading of Scripture. This modified hermeneutic also calls for a broaden vision for local communities and reconnect the history of interpretation as a means of theological renewal. The role of the Holy Spirit in biblical interpretation is emphasized in this model. The Spirit gives insights of the Scripture and makes us ready to receive the Scripture. Then, the Spirit gives the unity of Scripture as a gift to the Christian communities. So, according to Scalise, applying a modified version of canonical hermeneutics and a blended diversity of the three interfaces will hold the theology and practice together with the unity of Scripture.
Scalise seems to offer a balance approach to theological interpretation by integrating the Bible, theology and practice for the unity of Scripture.
In his “Interpreting Scripture in Northeast India,” A.K. Lama, a biblical scholar from Arunchal Pradesh, states that in the churches today, there is weak and irrelevant interpretation of the word of God. He points out that there is a lack of biblical scholars who are good at language and exegesis in the Northeast India (27). According to Lama, the Bible thus becomes only “a reference book” for many (27). He says that this is partly because the pastors do not have training nor there are good training centres in the Northeast or even if pastors get training from seminary, it is possible that the curriculum on hermeneutics and homiletics are not relevant.
Lama mentions different issues facing the Northeast India. He states that corruption, extortion, drug addiction, kidnapping, killing, etc...are rampant in the Northeast India in spite of the fact that the states are predominantly Christian states. In order to address these, Lama asserts that good exegesis and contextual sensitivity are important otherwise only exegesis without contextual sensitivity will be “as risky as stepping on a live cobra” (29). He points out that “finding the right text, interpreting it correctly, and then preaching it from the pulpit with biblical wisdom is the need of the hour” (32). He maintains that the text which will directly speak to the problems will help in addressing issues facing the region today. He further mentions that correct interpretation of the Bible and sound counsel will help solve issues individuals and the region is going through.
Lama writes that a prophetic pulpit (29) and sapiential pulpit are needed (32) in the region. By prophetic pulpit, he points to a courageous and wise preaching of God’s word (29). By sapiential pulpit he means a pulpit which is “endowed with divine wisdom,” a pulpit from where “the richness of divine wisdom in the Bible” is presented, and a pulpit which “allow the Holy Spirit to speak in his own terms,” and a pulpit from which people will be “presented the whole counsel of God” (32).
Therefore, Lama proposes that “the interpretation of Scripture requires virtues rather than merely skills” (34).
He explains this by following what Kevin Vanhoozer calls “Hermeneutics of humility” (34). Hermeneutics of humility is not about revelling at one’s own interpretative skills, or imposing interpretative theories on texts and the meanings. Rather, hermeneutics of humility helps us to “gain understanding–of God, texts, others, and ourselves–if we are willing to put ourselves second and our interpretative theories to the test of the text” (34). This leads to finding corrective for a weak and irrelevant pulpit. According to Lama, it is “a prophetic message that sapiently sets forth the whole counsel of God” (34). Interpreting Scripture in Northeast India needs to reflect
that.
Lama’s point in this article is appropriate for the Northeast churches. The need for proper exegesis and taking readers’ context is highly commendable in the Northeast and even outside the region. This calls for steady study of God’s word and the world.
In order to address this problem, Mead employs seven questions arranged chronologically as the outline of his chapter, and the main point of each outline will be given in the report below. The questions are:
1. What kind of biblical theology existed before the discipline of that name arose?
2. Under what circumstances did the discipline of biblical theology develop?
3. Why did the division in the treatment of the testaments occur?
4. What intellectual movements influenced the methods of nineteenth- century biblical theology?
5. What is the difference between the history of religions and biblical theology?
6. Why is the middle of the twentieth century thought of as a great age of biblical theology?
7. What new …show more content…
developments arose in the closing decades of the twentieth century?
Mead takes us to the eighteenth century where J. P. Gabler is given accreditation in formulating the term biblical theology in March 30, 1787 (Mead 25) and in defining “biblical theology over against the more systematic or dogmatic expressions of theology” (Mead 26). According to Mead, this is the beginning of the division in the treatment of the testaments which is further deepens in the nineteenth century though it is not the intention of Gabler. The nineteenth century saw a growing higher criticism and victory in the twentieth century. Scholars start to use critical methods of interpretation of the Bible. Though in the first half of the nineteenth century, “the vast number of European Christians continued to hold a very high view of biblical inspiration and authority” (Mead 34), Mead mentions that “by the latter third of the nineteenth century, biblical scholarship’s embrace of the historical method was coming into full bloom” (34). Then the late nineteenth century sees a shift from biblical theology to history of religions (Mead 35) where the uniqueness of biblical faith is pushed aside. In the middle of the twentieth century, that there is a recovery in ascertaining the theological message of the Bible (Mead 39). The Biblical Theology Movement came into being post-World War II which emphasize themes like “the unity of the whole Bible, God’s revelation in history through his mighty acts, and the distinctiveness of biblical revelation” (Mead 47). By the end of the twentieth century, Mead mentions that there were new developments in structure, hermeneutics, history, context and perspective for biblical theology. These bring to the recovery of the critical theology. Mead concludes the chapter by pointing us to the concern of his chapter–the presence of diversity in issues, methods and themes in the history of biblical theology, and that the present different circumstances, views and the “ongoing confluence of different currents” (Mead 59) call for exploring the issues, new approaches to the Bible and its perspective.
With the different issues facing the Church today, Mead’s “History of Biblical Theology” is a helpful insight to prepare us for the need to identify issues, right methods in order to understand biblical theology for today.
In his “The Primacy of Scripture,” Donald G. Bloesch deals with the problem of authority of Scripture. He addresses this problem by establishing four things. First, the divine authority of the Scripture has the elements of both human and divine. Bloesch states that Scripture has “dual authorship” and “in its entirety the very Word of God and the very word of man” (52). Secondly, Bloesch affirms the infallibility and inerrancy of the Scripture, adding that the message is infallible and inerrant, but there is room for error in the recording of data in the worldview of the writers. So, therefore the truth of the Bible can be understood only as the Spirit makes it known through revelation. Thirdly, Bloesch states that the Bible is “a witness to divine revelation” (70), which as he calls it as a task of hermeneutics. Bloesch mentions here the four stages in a hermeneutical task–an open heart and a searching mind, to examine the text critically by using literary and historical criticism, the use of theological exegesis, and to relate the text to the cultural situation. The fourth method Bloesch employs is bringing out the misconceptions in modern evangelicalism where the divinity of the Bible is increasingly popular and the “humanity of the Bible is virtually denied” (74).
So, by mentioning the above four approaches, Bloesch establishes that the Bible, with the aspects of divinity and humanity, is the Word of God which points to the living God as found in Jesus Christ who is the final and absolute authority and remains a “thoroughly sound and relevant standard and guide” (78) for all the ages.
Bloesch’s article is helpful in that it enables us to understand the connection of the Scripture with Christology and how the authority of the Scripture is derived through that. It also helps the critics to comprehend the meaning of the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible as it has both the divine and human element.
In “The Hermeneutical Circle of Christian Community: Biblical, Theological, and Practical Dimensions of the Unity of Scripture,” Charles J. Scalise identifies that Christian communities face confusions when they try to understand Scripture theologically because of the diverse interpretations on the unity of Scripture. Scalise believes that interdisciplinary scholarship may offer correctives in the interpretation of Scripture and its implication. Scalise points out three interfaces: Scripture-theology, theology-practice, and the praxis-Scripture and the key aspects of the problem of the unity of Scripture pose from these interfaces.
From Scripture and theology interface, Scalise takes the example of the influence of Irenaeus’s ‘one right reading’ of Scripture and Origen’s ‘one right method’ in approaching the problem of unity of Scripture and how these views cause static understanding of Christian theology as fixed propositions. Scalise points out in theology-practice interface that the problem often comes from the fact that the Scripture is viewed as a resource book for pastoral theology and its value is measured from its applicability for healing and transformation of a person or community. He asserts that in this interface, the Scripture’s usefulness overshadows the problem of the unity of Scripture with theology. And in the praxis-Scripture interface, Scalise states that the connection of Scripture with ordinary life issues of Christian communities is often addressed and that people use Scripture as proof-text to support their pre-supposed positions on ethical issues and maintain eisegesis than exegesis.
Scalise, thus, proposes that the unity of Scripture can be construed by the hermeneutical circle of Christian community by employing a modified canonical hermeneutic of biblical interpretation and a blended diversity of theological models of ministry (221). A modified hermeneutic of biblical interpretation is a modified form of a canonical approach, which involves balanced exegesis in the continuing hermeneutical context of the Christian canon, and also involves holding meaning and method together. Scalise suggests this blended diversity of theological models to be employed by ministers and their congregations in Christian community. Scalise proposes that a modified canonical hermeneutics offers a way to move beyond proof-texting and encourages communal reading of the Bible that will prevent subjective reading of Scripture. This modified hermeneutic also calls for a broaden vision for local communities and reconnect the history of interpretation as a means of theological renewal. The role of the Holy Spirit in biblical interpretation is emphasized in this model. The Spirit gives insights of the Scripture and makes us ready to receive the Scripture. Then, the Spirit gives the unity of Scripture as a gift to the Christian communities. So, according to Scalise, applying a modified version of canonical hermeneutics and a blended diversity of the three interfaces will hold the theology and practice together with the unity of Scripture.
Scalise seems to offer a balance approach to theological interpretation by integrating the Bible, theology and practice for the unity of Scripture.
In his “Interpreting Scripture in Northeast India,” A.K. Lama, a biblical scholar from Arunchal Pradesh, states that in the churches today, there is weak and irrelevant interpretation of the word of God. He points out that there is a lack of biblical scholars who are good at language and exegesis in the Northeast India (27). According to Lama, the Bible thus becomes only “a reference book” for many (27). He says that this is partly because the pastors do not have training nor there are good training centres in the Northeast or even if pastors get training from seminary, it is possible that the curriculum on hermeneutics and homiletics are not relevant.
Lama mentions different issues facing the Northeast India. He states that corruption, extortion, drug addiction, kidnapping, killing, etc...are rampant in the Northeast India in spite of the fact that the states are predominantly Christian states. In order to address these, Lama asserts that good exegesis and contextual sensitivity are important otherwise only exegesis without contextual sensitivity will be “as risky as stepping on a live cobra” (29). He points out that “finding the right text, interpreting it correctly, and then preaching it from the pulpit with biblical wisdom is the need of the hour” (32). He maintains that the text which will directly speak to the problems will help in addressing issues facing the region today. He further mentions that correct interpretation of the Bible and sound counsel will help solve issues individuals and the region is going through.
Lama writes that a prophetic pulpit (29) and sapiential pulpit are needed (32) in the region. By prophetic pulpit, he points to a courageous and wise preaching of God’s word (29). By sapiential pulpit he means a pulpit which is “endowed with divine wisdom,” a pulpit from where “the richness of divine wisdom in the Bible” is presented, and a pulpit which “allow the Holy Spirit to speak in his own terms,” and a pulpit from which people will be “presented the whole counsel of God” (32).
Therefore, Lama proposes that “the interpretation of Scripture requires virtues rather than merely skills” (34).
He explains this by following what Kevin Vanhoozer calls “Hermeneutics of humility” (34). Hermeneutics of humility is not about revelling at one’s own interpretative skills, or imposing interpretative theories on texts and the meanings. Rather, hermeneutics of humility helps us to “gain understanding–of God, texts, others, and ourselves–if we are willing to put ourselves second and our interpretative theories to the test of the text” (34). This leads to finding corrective for a weak and irrelevant pulpit. According to Lama, it is “a prophetic message that sapiently sets forth the whole counsel of God” (34). Interpreting Scripture in Northeast India needs to reflect
that.
Lama’s point in this article is appropriate for the Northeast churches. The need for proper exegesis and taking readers’ context is highly commendable in the Northeast and even outside the region. This calls for steady study of God’s word and the world.