Introduction
We know that other churchgoers often say, "That's biblical," when they argue about their private interpretations or denominational traditions. This becomes a problem when multiple people each claim to have "biblical" ideas that all contradict each other. However, this dilemma is hardly unique to congregants, but church leaders routinely engage in it too. This article defines what makes an idea "biblical" instead of "systematic" regarding hermeneutics, the study of scriptural interpretation.
In the Old Testament, Joseph son of Jacob asked, "Do not interpretations belong to God?" (Gen. 40:8). Likewise, in the New Testament, Simon Peter warned, "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things" (2 Pet. 1:20). Nowadays, instead of trusting the Bible as we claim to doctrinally, we ask ignorant questions such as, "How do you know that you are right?" The point of reading scripture is to know what the authors intended to tell us, their readers. For example, John son of Zebedee wrote, "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (20:31). If we ignore John's reason, the logical conclusion is that we may not have eternal life! Therefore, biblical theology deals with the Bible's literary themes and instructions. In contrast, systematic theology deals with topics that may or may not coincide. Let us further explore these methodological differences and the strengths and weaknesses of each.
Biblical Theology
Biblical theology is the "theology of the Bible," focusing on the actual writers and their relationship with God as he works through history and culture to inspire them. Biblical theologians methodically interpret scripture with a blend of historical context, cultural background, inductive study, and descriptive teaching. This means "speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where it remains silent." Paul of Tarsus gave a similar warning when he wrote, "'Do not go beyond what is written.' Then you will not be puffed up" (1 Cor. 4:6). For example, a biblical-theological reading of Paul's letters considers what he intended by the word "justification" in his first-century world rather than the prescriptive doctrines of systematic theologians later in church history (see "Salvation: The Romans Road").
Biblical theologians prioritize the historical-grammatical method. Instead of arranging scriptural lessons by topic with questions such as, "What does the Bible say about going to church?" they study them in their original format. For example, a biblical theologian knows that Jesus' teaching, "For where two or three are gathered in my name, I'm there with them" (Matt. 18:20), relates to this rabbinical lesson from the Mishnah: "But when two sit together and there are words of Torah spoken between them, the Divine Presence [Hebrew: Shechinah; H7931] rests with them" (Pirkei Avot 3:3). This contrasts with the usual systematic approach by many pastors who read it as, "When Christians read the Bible together, they're having church."
The method of biblical theology is inductive reasoning, which means researching and formulating thought to know what the author meant to say. Please consider this a conversation with someone, knowing we must be good listeners and ask unbiased questions to preserve the relationship and maintain good communication. Biblical theologians see the authors as real men rather than the sum of their ideas. Finally, they strive to be descriptive by restating Bible themes using the actual words of the writers.
Systematic Theology
According to Merriam-Webster, systematic theology is "a branch of theology concerned with summarizing the doctrinal traditions of a religion (such as Christianity), especially to relate the traditions convincingly to the religion's present-day setting." Simply put, the main goal of a systematic theologian is to justify a denominational or otherwise sectarian doctrine by reading it into the Bible. However, if we only read biblical theology, we would have no tools to apply the gospel now. Theologians systematize the Bible to unite all the verses on a given topic to make a unified doctrine. The problem is, when we take verses from their literary or historical context in ways the authors never intended, we can make the Bible say anything.
Furthermore, systematic theologians often ignore or twist verses, and even whole passages, that do not fit their doctrines. For example, Paul's lesson in Romans 9 and 10 features themes of God's sovereignty and human free will. Yet, most church leaders teach their people to emphasize one. The ancient readers of Paul's letters did not see a contradiction between predestination and free will like we often do today (see "God's Will & Our Free Choices").
Systematic theology is helpful for recent questions the Bible may not answer directly or for ones that seem to give conflicting ideas. For example, the early church needed to reconcile how Jesus could be God incarnate while teaching monotheism. So, they systematized the Trinity as doctrine (see "Trinity: Jewish & Gentile Views"). While the early church leaders read scripture, they gathered all the verses on God's intrapersonal relationships between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. After this, they had to apply logic to form a coherent system to teach all Christians. However, we must be careful not to make rash statements like, "The Bible says that God is a Trinity," when the authors never made such a claim. This faulty thinking led the Catholic Church to pressure Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus (1466–1536) to add the Johannine Comma to 1 John 5:7-8 ("For there are three that testify: the testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement") in the 1522 Novum instrumentum omne, the first edition of the Textus Receptus ("Received Text"). Because the scriptures do not overtly say that God is triune, some church leaders added these verses to the text. Likewise, the "Jehovah's Witnesses" rewrote John 1:1 (" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God") in their defective New World Translation (NWT) to teach against the Trinity. Old and New Testaments forbid us from adding or taking out words from the Bible (see Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19; cf. Matt. 5:18). While systematic theology has its uses, it should always complement biblical theology and never contradict it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the challenge of discerning what constitutes a "biblical" idea amidst the plethora of interpretations within religious discourse is a pressing one, not only among congregants but also within the leadership of churches. As stated in scripture, interpretation ultimately belongs to God, and no prophecy comes from the prophet's own understanding. However, in contemporary contexts, there is a tendency to question the certainty of interpretations rather than to delve into the intended message of scripture itself. The essence of biblical theology lies in grasping the authors' intentions, such as John's purpose in writing his gospel, which is to foster belief in Jesus as the Messiah and to offer eternal life through faith. Failure to heed such intentions could result in spiritual consequences. Hence, biblical and systematic theology are distinguished in their respective approaches to scriptural interpretation and thematic exploration. By further examining these methodological disparities and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, we can strive towards a more profound understanding of scripture and its implications for our lives.
Prayer
Blessed are you, LORD our God, King of the universe; in your wise providence, you appoint leaders for your church's mission. Offer grace to us, your servants, to whom responsibility is now given: so empower us with the truth of sound doctrine, and endue us with the holiness of life, that we may faithfully serve before you to the glory of your great name, and the benefit of your holy church; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.
Bibliography
Alexander, T. Desmond, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity Diversity of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000.
Augustine, Jeff. "What Is the Difference between Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology?" Back to College (blog). Lakewood: Colorado Christian Univ. March 2021. https://www.ccu.edu/blogs/cags/2021/03/biblical-theology-vs-systematic-theology.
The Book of Common Prayer. Huntington Beach, CA: Anglican Liturgy Press, 2019. pp. 516–17. http://bcp2019.anglicanchurch.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/BCP2019.pdf.
Köstenberger, Andreas. "What is Biblical Theology?" For the Church (blog). Kansas City: Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. December 17, 2019. https://ftc.co/resource-library/blog-entries/what-is-biblical-theology.
Levine, Joseph M. "Erasmus and the Problem of the Johannine Comma." Journal of the History of Ideas 58, no. 4 (Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1997): 573–96. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3653961.
MacCulloch, Diarmaid. Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. New York: Penguin, 2011.
Poythress, Vern. "The Relationship between Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology." Between Two Worlds Evangelical History (blog). Columbia, MO: The Gospel Coalition. July 2010. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/the-relationship-between-systematic-theology-and-biblical-theology.
van Miert, Dirk, Henk Nellen, Piet Steenbakkers, and Jetze Touber, eds. "Scriptural Authority and Biblical Criticism in the Dutch Golden Age." Oxford Univ. Press, 2017.
Wright, N. T. Interpreting Scripture: Essays on the Bible and Hermeneutics. Collected Essays of N. T. Wright. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2020.
Comments