Inauguration of the Rev. Geerhardus Vos as professor of Biblical theology

i"^^"

^m

ifi^y*'.

I. .V . i

-/ i^^i<^r>-^'

y-fc^ ^

^xlncj^ton ^hcoXoQiCiil Jgumiitavg.

INAUGURATION

OF THE

REV. GEERHARDUS VOS. PH.D., D.D..

PROFESSOR

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY.

NEW YORK:

ANSON D. F. RANDOLPH
& COMPANY.

(incorporated)

182 FIFTH AVENUE.

1894.

PREFATORY NOTE.

The Rev. Geerhardus Vos, Ph.D., D.D., was elected
Professor of Biblical Theology in Princeton Theological
Seminary at the spring meeting of the Board of Directors,
1893, and assumed the duties of the chair provisionally from
September, 1893. His formal induction into the chair took
place on Tuesday, May 8, 1894, at 12 o'clock, in the First
Presbyterian Church of Princeton. The order of exercises
on this occasion was as follows :

Hymn.

Prayer, by the Hon. James A. Beaver, LL.D.

Administration of the Pledge to the New Professor, by the
Rev. William C. Cattell, D.D., LL.D., First Vice-President
of the Board of Directors.

The Charge, by the Rev. Abraham Gosman, D.D., Pastor of the
Church at Lawrenceville, N. J.

The Inaugural Address, by Professor Vos.

Hymn.

Benediction, by the Rev. Dr. James McCosh, ex-President of the
College of New Jersey.

The Charge and Inaugural Address are here published by order of
the Board of Directors.

THE CHARGE.

THE REV. ABRAHAM GOSMAN, D.D.

CHARGE.

My Dear Brother:

The Theology taught in this institution has, as we beHeve,
been Biblical from the beginning of its history, in the sense
not only that its teachings have been in accordance with the
Bible, but that they have been drawn from the Bible as their
ultimate source. It may be fairly claimed that it has always
sought to honor the infallible Word of God, and has recog-
nized the truth that from its teachings, when once clearly
ascertained, there is no appeal.

Neither is it true that Biblical Theology even in its techni-
cal sense, i. c, as that branch of theological science which
regards and treats the doctrinal and ethical contents of the
Bible in their historical surroundings and development, is new
in the curriculum of study prescribed here. We have had
illustrious teachers here in this very line. Those of us who
were permitted to sit at the feet of that splendid scholar and
teacher, Dr. Joseph Addison Alexander, will readily recall
how he opened to us the contents of the books of the Old
Testament, in their historical connections and surroundings.
We were like those who feel the quickening breath of the
morning, and see the eastern horizon flashing with the light
of the coming day. We walked for a time along the old
paths, but as in a new world which we were to explore, and
in which the richest mines should repay our search. Nor can
those who fell under the influence of that other great teacher,
Dr. Caspar Wistar Hodge, whom God gave to us and has so
recently taken away, and whose successor, in some sense, so
far as Biblical Theology is concerned, you are, fail to recog-
nize how he led you along the pathway you are still seeking
to tread, and called to your more leisurely notice the pros-
pects and the outlooks which greeted you at every step, as he
opened to you the Scriptures.

viii Charge.

It is not, therefore, a new branch of Biblical science which
you are called to teach. And yet it is comparatively new, in
the definiteness of the field assigned it, in the closely limited
relations it sustains to the other branches of Biblical science,
in the history of its growth and progress, in the methods it
pursues, in the fruits which have been already gathered, and
in the well-grounded hopes of richer fruits in the future. It
is a field which will amply repay the most assiduous culture,
and upon which a man may enter with glowing hopes, and,
with the blessing of God, come back from his toil bringing his
sheaves with him.

Biblical Theology stands in close relations both to Exegeti-
cal and Systematic Theology, and yet has its own well-defined
bounds. It presupposes Exegetical Theology ; it furnishes the
material for Systematic Theology. If Systematic Theology is,
as we may conceive it to be, the finished building, harmonious
in its proportions, symmetrical and beautiful ; then Exegetical
Theology may be regarded as the quarry from which the
material is taken ; and Biblical Theology, as putting the granite
blocks into form, not polished and graven, but shaped and
fitted for the place they are to fill, as the structure grows in its
vastness and beauty. It seeks the saving facts and truths as
they lie in the Word, and are embedded, and to some extent
expressed, in the history of the people of God. God's meth-
ods are always historical and genetic, and it conforms to Kis
methods. It views these words and facts in their historical
relations and their progressive development. It aims not
merely to arrive at the ideas and facts as they appear in par-
ticular authors and in the books justly ascribed to them, and as
they may be modified in their form by time, culture, in-
fluences friendly or hostile ; but to set forth these facts and
truths thus ascertained in their relation to the other books in
which they may appear in clearer light, — to trace their progress
and unfolding from the germ to the ripened fruit. As the
stream of sacred history runs parallel with that of revelation,
it borders closely upon Historical Theology. But the two
conceptions are distinct.

Charge. ix

Biblical Theology serves also important purposes in its
evidential bearings and force. It throws light upon passages
which may have appeared doubtful to mere exegetical and
critical study, but viewed in the light of the results which
Biblical Theology has attained, and as lying directly along
the line of the gradual unfolding of the truth, it becomes ap-
parent at once that they belong to the divine Word. They
fall fitly into the time and place in which they occur; they are
indispensable to the full revelation of the truth. To leave
them out would make a break in the process which could not
be remedied. In the line of the Messianic teaching, e.g.,
which runs through the Old Testament Scriptures, there are
passages which fair and honest criticism even leaves in doubt,
if not as to their genuineness, yet as to their interpretation,
but which, seen in the light of the final results of Biblical
Theology, fall into their true place in the historical develop-
ment of the Messianic promise and are found to be essential to
its completeness. We not only see at once that they con-
stitute a part of the records of Revelation, but know their im-
port and interpretation. This evidential bearing of his work
ought to have great weight with the teacher of Biblical
Theology. For while a strictly scientific definition of Biblical
Theology may exclude all exegetical investigation and relegate
it entirely to its own branch, practically the two branches run
into one another. The student of Biblical Theology must
know whether the results of exegesis are such as to justify
him in accepting them. He must test the ground upon which
he stands. He cannot take with any satisfaction or certainty
the books of the Bible as trustworthy or authoritative without
an investigation of his own. And since the saving facts and
truths of revelation are interwoven with the sacred history, well-
nigh inseparable from it, he must know that the records of
this history are absolutely genuine and accurate. While
they are diversified in form, according to their human authors
and surroundings, they bear their divine stamp. For these
human authors were men chosen by God, brought into the
world, placed in their peculiar conditions, endowed with their

X Charge.

peculiar qualifications, mental and spiritual, trained by special
experiences, providential and gracious, quickened and guided
in their writings so that the whole result should be as God
would have it — the inspired Word of God. In ascertaining, or
rather in verifying this result, he may well use the fruits and
issues of his own special science, in solving the doubts which
criticism has left or created. Nor would this be reasoning in
a circle, as if he first reached the result by the aid of doubtful
passages and his interpretation of them, and then used this
result as confirming their absolute correctness or inerrancy
and the interpretation he has given them. For the result
here, as with every essential doctrine of the Sacred Scripture,
does not depend upon specific passages merely, but upon the
general drift and teaching of the Word of God.

But assuming now, that Biblical Theology deals with the in-
spired and infallible records of Revelation as exegetically
ascertained, seeks to reproduce the doctrinal and ethical con-
tents of the Bible in their historical relations, aims to ascertain
what are the teachings of the inspired Word in their diversified
forms and historical order and in their continuous develop-
ment, how must we study its sources? It is often said, that
we must come to the Bible as we come to other books claim-
ing our attention ; that if God has revealed Himself and re-
vealed His will in saving words, using human agents to com-
municate them, these words must be interpreted according to
the laws which govern all human languages ; that we must
apply the same principles of construction here as elsewhere.
This is all true, and must be insisted upon, if we would be fair
and honest in our investigation. There is no other method by
which we can reach valid and satisfactory results. But if, when
it is said that we must come to the study of the Bible as we come
to the study of other books, it is meant that we arc to forget
that the Bible has its life and history' ; what it has done for the
individual, for society, for the State, for the progress of civil-
ization ; that all that is lovely and of good report has found its
roots and life in this book ; that it has in all ages been the
fruitful source of good, and of good only, — if that is what is

Charge, xi

meant, then it is both unreasonable and absurd. It is absurd
to suppose that we can, at will, divest ourselves of those in-
fluences which are entwined with every thread and fibre of
our being, which are so intimately associated with our most
sacred experience, and to which we owe largely the position
we now occupy and the very power to make any intelligent
investigation. And it is unreasonable, if it were not absurd.
The Bible has its place and brings its own history. It carries
upon its face and in its whole spirit its real nature. It points
the student to what it has done, and what must therefore be
its vital truth and force, as it submits itself to his investiga-
tion. No interest of truth or goodness can be secured by
blotting out its history. No man will gain a truer knowledge
of its contents by shutting out the light and heat which it
gives. A man may investigate the sun, the laws of its motion,
its peculiar structure, its relation to other suns and systems ;
but what would he know of the sun if he should disregard
the fact that it has been pouring out with the utmost lavish-
ness its flood of light and heat from the beginning, and is
still pouring them out with undiminished fullness and splendor,
or if he should insist upon beginning his investigation with a
denial that it shines at all? Other bodies are not luminous,
therefore the sun cannot be. Other books are not from God,
therefore the Bible must be a human book, and we must deal
with it as such. But the Bible comes to us as both human
and divine. It claims recognition for what it has done, and
demands investigation under these conditions. As the Apostle
concentrates, condenses into one single word, " therefore," his
splendid exhibition of the Gospel, in his letter to the Romans,
as it takes the sinner from his guilt and pollution up into
fellowship with Christ in His purity and glory, all issuing from
the eternal and electing purpose of God; and then with
all his fervor and love presses the whole argument upon his
readers, "I beseech you therefore'"', so the Bible comes to us
with its past history and work, as it has illumined the dark-
ness, relieved the suffering, broken the bonds of the oppressed,
lifted men into fellowship with Christ, enriched them with

xii ^ Charge.

deathless hopes, and says, as it opens wide its doors to all
honest search and scrutiny, " therefore " let your investiga-
tion be thorough, but with a full recognition of the facts and
all that they imply.

This will in no way restrict your freedom. The Bible
seeks no concealment. It rather demands investigation, and
its friends have no reason to fear the issue. The word of God
makes free, and requires freedom. Just as the believer, when
he comes to Christ and takes His will as the law of his life, is
under bonds to Christ and is made the Lord's freeman, so the
man who bows his reason, as he bows his will, to the authority
of the divine word, is loosed from all other bonds. He is free
to prosecute his researches in all legitimate methods. No
human authority can restrict his liberty. And this institution
has never sought and does not now seek to lessen the freedom
of investigation. It welcomes light from every quarter, while
it honors the Word and insists that there is no appeal from its
decisions. Traditional interpretations are to be treated in all
the new light which has been thrown upon them in the large
advance of modern science. And Christian scholars must
keep abreast with that advance. There is scarcely any science,
material, philosophic, ethical, or political, which does not in
some way contribute to the better understanding of the Word,
and the whole wide field lies open to you to ascertain what
the individual authors of the books of the Bible, all writing as
they were moved by the Holy Ghost, and all writing under
the influence of their personal characteristics and surround-
ings, moving freely in the history of the periods at which they
lived, reveal to us of God and our relations to Him. You
cannot reach the best results without taking freely the widest
scope in your studies. Traditions are, of course, entitled to
their legitimate weight. The fact that they have been long
held does not necessarily imply, as it is sometimes apparently
thought, that they are to be ignored or rejected. Human prog-
ress along the various lines it has produced is not destructive
of the past. It conserves and garners with the utmost care all
that it has gained, while it refuses to be limited or restrained

Charge. xiii

i>

by it. Traditional interpretations of the Word, if they are
misleading or obscure, or hinder the progress of the truth,
should be freely laid aside. There is no waste when mere ob-
structions are removed. But it should ever be remembered
that it is a serious thing to break up cherished convictions, to
distress believing souls with needless doubts and apprehen-
sions, to wrest from them the forms of truth which to them
are instinct with the truth itself, and give them nothing to put
in their place which will stand the test of either science or
experience. We must insist upon the distinction between the
inspired Word, which is changeless and errorless, and the hu-
man interpretations of it, which are varied and may be wide
of the truth. You will, doubtless, feel how grave and serious
your line of study is, which brings you into the closest con-
tact with the most sacred beliefs of the human heart and of
the ages. They are things which must be treated with the
greatest care. But we lay no restrictions upon you, but fidelity
to the truth and to God. What we wish in your chair, and
in every other chair in this Seminary, is just that you may find
what God teaches, what He has revealed to us in His Word of
Himself and of His will for our salvation. Give us this and
we shall be satisfied.

The highest freedom we can conceive of is that which is
found in the angels who do His commandments. There are
no bonds in their service, no craven fears as they veil their
faces and bow in awe before the splendors of His throne.
This is the freedom for which we pray : " Thy will be done on
earth as it is in heaven." This freedom and reverence not
only co-exist, but measure each other. The most profound
reverence and the most perfect freedom are essential to the
successful study of the Word. It is the Word of God, and
therefore to be handled with the greatest reverence ; it is the
Word of God spoken by inspired men, in varied surroundings
and with varying degrees of completeness, and therefore to be
treated with entire freedom. And there is no attitude of the
human spirit which so opens it to the pure light of truth,
which so clears away the films which have clouded its vision,

x\v Charge.

which brings it so near the very source of truth, as this
reverential boldness, or this free and filial reverence. A man
may be learned in the Scriptures and in all kindred studies ;
but if he is flippant, self-conceited, boastful and arrogant, we
may be sure that he has no profound views of God, and is an
unsafe guide to truth. It is the man who lies in the deepest
humility and forgetfulness of self whose eye God opens and
makes him a teacher of men.

You will need a broad and generous culture, a wide ac-
quaintance with all kindred branches, to avail yourself of the
light which may aid you in the solution of difficulties, or in
setting forth the truth in its fullness. This is emphatically
true now when so much is done to bring before us the actual
life, or the vivid picture of the life of men, in the periods
covered by the Bible, — the condition of men in their every-
day life, their physical, mental, moral, and religious progress,
their position with reference to the arts and civilization, the
ties which bound them together, the walls which separated
them ; when, more particularly, the two great world powers
with which the people of God came into the closest historical
relations, are revealing to us, in their stone-libraries and rec-
ords, their inner life, their policies and arts, their prowess in
arms, their victories and defeats, the rise and fall of dynasties,
their religious faith and worship, and the great racial move-
ments which underlie them. All this gives an interesting and
important line of study. It is a side line indeed, but it
throws light upon the main line along which your studies
must run.

You are here, my dear brother, primarily to aid in fitting
young men for the ministry of Christ, but you are here also, —
and I desire to impress it upon you now, — you are here also for
the vindication of the truth, for the more complete and orderly
unfolding of it, as it lies in the Word, and for the confirmation
of the faith of God's people. While recognizing fully that
your regular work will tax your time and strength, and that
we have no right to demand anything more, I still venture to
urge upon you the claims of these wider interests. At the

Charge. xv

proper time give the Church the ripe fruit of your studies
through the press. Use your class-room first, but use your
pen also.

In behalf of the Directors of this Seminary I welcome you
heartily to this chair, and pray that God may crown you with
His richest blessing.

THE IDEA OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY AS A

SCIENCE AND AS A THEOLOGICAL

DISCIPLINE.

INAUGURAL ADDRESS

BT

THE REV. GEERHARDUS VOS, Ph.D., D.D.

INAUGURAL ADDRESS.

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Board of
Directors :

It is with no little hesitation that I enter upon the
work to which you have called me and to-day more
formally introduced me. In reaching the conclusion that
it was my duty to accept the call with which you had
honored me, I was keenly alive to the incongruity of
my name being associated in the remotest manner with
the names of those illustrious men through whom God
has glorified Himself in this institution. Some of those
at whose feet I used to sit while a student here, are
fallen asleep ; a smaller number remain until now.
The memory of the former as well as the presence of the
latter make me realize my weakness even more pro-
foundly than the inherent difficulty of the duties I
shall have to discharge. While, however, on the one
hand, there is something in these associations that might
well fill me with misgivings at this moment, I shall not
endeavor to conceal that on the other hand they are to
me a source of inspiration. In view of my own insuffi-
ciency I rejoice all the more in having behind and around
me this cloud of witnesses. I am thoroughly convinced
that in no other place or environment could the sacred
influences of the past be brought to bear upon me with
a purer and mightier impulse to strengthen and inspire
me than here. The pledge to which I have just sub-

4 The Idea of Biblical Theology

scribed is itself a symbol of this continuity between the
past and the future ; and I feel that it will act upon me^
not merely by outward restraint, but with an inwardly
constraining power, being a privilege as well as an obli-
gation.

Although not a new study, yet Biblical Theology is.
a new chair, in this Seminary ; and this fact has deter-
mined the choice of the subject on which I purpose to
address you. Under ordinary circumstances, the treat-
ment of some special subject of investigation would
have been more appropriate, and perhaps more interest-
ing to you, than a discussion of general principles. But
Biblical Theology being a recent arrival in the Semi-
nary curriculum and having been entrusted to my special
care and keeping, I consider it my duty to introduce ta
you this branch of theological science, and to describe,
in general terms at least, its nature and the manner in
which I hope to teach it.

This is all the more necessary because of the wide
divergence of opinion in various quarters concerning
the standing of this newest accession to the circle of
sacred studies. Some have lauded her to the skies as.
the ideal of scientific theology, in such extravagant
terms as to reflect seriously upon the character of her
sisters of greater age and longer standing. Others
look upon the new-comer with suspicion, or even openly
dispute her right to a place in the theological family.
We certainly owe it to her and to ourselves to form a
well-grounded and intelligent judgment on this question.
I hope that what I shall say will in some degree shed
light on the points at issue, and enable you to judge
impartially and in accordance with the facts of the
case.

As a Scte7ice a?id as a Theological Discipline. 5

THE IDEA OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY AS A SCIENCE AND
AS A THEOLOGICAL DISCIPLINE.

Every discussion of what is to be understood by
Biblical Theology ought to proceed from a clear under-
standing of what Theology is in general. Etymology,
in many cases a safer guide than a priori constructions,
tells us that Theology is kiiowledge co7icerning God, and
this primitive definition is fully supported by encyclo-
paedic principles. Only when making Theology knowl-
edge concerning God do we have the right to call it a
separate science. Sciences are not formed at haphazard,
but according to an objective principle of division. As
in general science is bound by its object and must let
itself be shaped by reality ; so likewise the classification
of sciences, the relation of the various members in the
body of universal knowledge, has to follow the great
lines by which God has mapped out the immense field
of the universe. The title of a certain amount of
knowledge to be called a separate science depends on its
reference to such a separate and specific object as is
marked off by these God-drawn lines of distinction.
We speak of a science of Biology, because God has
made the phenomena of life distinct from those of inor-
ganic being. Now, from this point of view we must
say that no science has a clearer title to separate exist-
ence than Theology. Between God as the Creator and
all other things as created the distinction is absolute.
There is not another such gulf within the universe.
God, as distinct from the creature, is the only legitimate
object of Theology.

It will be seen, however, on a moment's reflection,
that Theology is not merely distinguished from the other

6 The Idea of Biblical Theology

sciences by its object, but that it also sustains an alto-
gether unique relation to this object, for which no strict
analogy can be found elsewhere. In all the other
sciences man is the one who of himself takes the first
step in approaching the objective world, in subjecting it
to his scrutiny, in compelling it to submit to his experi-
ments— in a word, man is the one who proceeds actively
to make nature reveal her facts and her laws. In The-
ology this relation between the subject and object is
reversed. Here it is God who takes the first step to
approach man for the purpose of disclosing His nature,
nay, who creates man in order that He may have a finite
mind able to receive the knowledge of His infinite per-
fections. In Theology the object, far from being
passive, by the act of creation first posits the subject
over against itself, and then as the living God proceeds
to impart to this subject that to which of itself it would
have no access. For "the things of God none know-
eth, save the Spirit of God." Strictly speaking, there-
fore, we should say that not God in and for Himself,
but God in so far as He has revealed Himself, is the
object of Theology.

Though applying to Theology in the abstract and un-
der all circumstances, this unique character has been
emphasized by the entrance of sin into the human race.
In his sinful condition, while retaining some knowledge
of God, man for all pure and adequate information in
divine things is absolutely dependent on that new self-
disclosure of God which we call supernatural revela-
tion. By the new birth and the illumination of the
mind darkened through sin, a new subject is created.
By the objective self-manifestation of God as the Re-
deemer, a new order of things is called into being. And

As a Science and as a Theological Discipline. 7

by the depositing of the truth concerning this new or-
der of things in the Holy Scriptures, the human mind is
enabled to obtain that new knowledge which is but the
reflection in the regenerate consciousness of an object-
ive world of divine acts and words.

This being so, it follows immediately that the begin-
ning of all our Theology consists in the appropriation
of that supernatural process by which God has made
Himself the object of our knowledge. We are not left
to our own choice here, as to where we shall begin our
theological study. The very nature of Theology re-
quires us to begin with those branches which relate to
the revelation-basis of our science. Our attitude from
the outset must be a dependent and receptive one. To
let the image of God's self-revelation in the Scriptures
mirror itself as fully and clearly as possible in his mind,
is the first and most important duty of every theologian.
And it is in accordance with this principle that, in the
development of scientific theology through the ages, a
group of studies have gradually been separated from the
rest and begun to form a smaller organism among them-
selves, inasmuch as the receptive attitude of the theo-
logical consciousness toward the source of revelation
was the common idea underlying and controlling them.
This group is usually designated by the name of Exe-
getical Theology. Its formation was not a matter
of mere accident, nor the result of definite agreement
among theologians; the immanent law of the develop-
ment of the science, as rooted in its origin, has brought
it about in a natural manner.

In classifications of this kind general terms are apt to
acquire more or less indefinite meanings. They tend to
become formulas used for the purpose of indicating

8 The Idea of Biblical Theology

that certain studies belong together from a practical
point of view or according to a methodological princi-
ple. In many cases it would be fanciful to seek any
other than a practical justification for grouping certain
branches together. So it is clear on the surface that
much is subsumed under the department of Exegetical
Theology, which bears only a very remote and indirect
relation to its central idea. There are subservient and
preparatory studies lying in the periphery and but loosely
connected with the organic centre. Nevertheless, if
Exegetical Theology is to be more than a conglomer-
ate of heterogeneous studies, having no other than a
practical unity, we must expect that at its highest point
of development it will appear to embody one of the nec-
essary forms of the essential idea of all Theology, and
will unfold itself as kjiowledge concerning God in the
strict sense of the term. The science in which this act-
ually happens will be the heart of the organism of Exe-
getical Theology.

Exegetical Theology deals with God under the aspect
of Revealer of Himself and Author of the Scriptures.
It is naturally divided into two parts, of which the one
treats of the formation of the Scriptures, the other of
the actual revelation of God lying back of this process.
We further observe that the formation of the Scriptures
serves no other purpose than to perpetuate and trans-
mit the record of God's self-disclosure to the human
race as a whole. Compared with revelation proper, the
formation of the Scriptures appears as a means to an end.
Bibliology with all its adjuncts, therefore, is not the cen-
tre of Exegetical Theology, but is logically subordinated
to the other division, which treats of revelation proper.
Or, formulating it from the human point of view, all

As a Science and as a Theological Discipline. g

our investigations as to the origin of tiie Scriptures,
their collection into a Canon, their original text, as well
as the exegetical researches by which the contents of
the Biblical writings are inductively ascertained, ulti-
mately serve the one purpose of teaching us what God
has revealed concerning Himself. None of these
studies find their aim in themselves, but all have their
value determined and their place assigned by the one
central study to which they are leading up and in which
they find their culminating point. This central study
that gives most adequate and natural expression to the
idea of Exegetical Theology is Biblical Theology.

In general, then, Biblical Theology is that part of
Exegetical Theology which deals with the revelation of
God. It makes use of all the results that have been
obtained by all the preceding studies in this depart-
ment. Still, we must endeavor to determine more pre-
cisely in what sense this general definition is to be un-
derstood. For it might be said of Systematic Theol-
ogy, nay of the whole of Theology, with equal truth,
that it deals with supernatural revelation. The specific
character of Biblical Theology lies in this, that it dis-
cusses both the form and contents of revelation from
the point of view of the revealing activity of God Him-
self. In other words, it deals with revelation in the act-
ive sense, as an act of God, and tries to understand and
trace and describe this act, so far as this is possible to
man and does not elude our finite observation. In
Biblical Theology both the form and contents of revela-
tion are considered as parts and products of a divine
work. In Systematic Theology these same contents
of revelation appear, but not under the aspect of the
stages of a divine work ; rather as the material for a

lO The Idea of Biblical Theology

human work of classifying and systematizing according
to logical principles. Biblical Theology applies no
other method of grouping and arranging these con-
tents than is given in the divine economy of revelation
itself.

From this it follows that, in order to obtain a more
definite conception of Biblical Theology, we must try
to gather the general features of God's revealing work.
Here, as in other cases, the organism of a science can
be conceived and described only by anticipating its re-
sults. The following statements, accordingly, are not
to be considered in the light of an «/rz'<?r/ construction,
but simply formulate what the study of Biblical Theol-
ogy itself has taught us.

The first feature characteristic of supernatural revela-
tion is its historical progress. God has not communi-
cated to us the knowledge of the truth as it appears in
the calm light of eternity to his own timeless vision.
He has not given it in the form of abstract propositions
logically correlated and systematized. The simple fact
that it is the task of Systematic Theology to reproduce
revealed truth in such form, shows that it does not pos-
sess this form from the beginning. The self-revelation
of God is a work covering ages, proceeding in a
sequence of revealing words and acts, appearing in a
long perspective of time. The truth comes in the form
of growing truth, not truth at rest. No doubt the ex-
planation of this fact is partly to besought in the finite-
ness of the human understanding. Even that part of
the knowledge of God which has been rev^ealed to us
is so overwhelmingly great and so far transcends our
human capacities, is such a flood of light, that it had, as
it were, gradually to be let in upon us, ray after ray, and

As a Science and as a Theological Discipline. 1 1

not the full radiancy at once. By imparting the ele-
ments of the knowledge of Himself in a divinely-
arranged sequence God has pointed out to us the way
in which we might gradually grasp and truly know
Him. This becomes still more evident, if we remember
that this revelation is intended for all ages and nations
and classes and conditions of men, and therefore must
adapt itself to the most various characters and tempera-
ments by which it is to be assimilated.

We feel, however, that this explanation, however
plausible in itself, is but a partial one, and can never
completely satisfy. The deeper ground for the historic
character of revelation cannot lie in the limitations of
the human subject, but must be sought in the nature of
revelation itself. Revelation is not an isolated act of
God, existing without connection with all the other
divine acts of supernatural character. It constitutes a
part of that great process of the new creation through
which the present universe as an organic whole shall be
redeemed from the consequences of sin and restored to
its ideal state, which it had originally in the intention of
God. Now, this new creation, in the objective, univer-
sal sense, is not something completed by a single act all
at once, but is a history with its own law of organic
development. It could not be otherwise, inasmuch as
at every point it proceeds on the basis of and in contact
with the natural development of this world and of the
human race, and, the latter being in the form of history,
the former muse necessarily assume that form likewise.
It is simply owing to our habit of unduly separating
revelation from this comprehensive background of the
total redeeming work of God, that we fail to appreciate
its historic, progressive nature. We conceive of it as a

1 2 The Idea of Biblical Theology

series of communications of abstract truth forming a
body by itself, and are at a loss to see why this truth
should be parcelled out to man little by little and not
given in its completeness at once. As soon as we real-
ize that revelation is at almost every point interwoven
with and conditioned by the redeeming activity of God
in its wider sense, and together with the latter con-
nected with the natural development of the present
world, its historic character becomes perfectly intelligible
and ceases to cause surprise.

In this great redeeming process two stages are to be
distinguished. First come those acts of God which
have a universal and objective significance, being aimed
at the production of an organic centre for the new order
of things. After this has been accomplished, there fol-
lows a second stage during which this objective redemp-
tion is subjectively applied to individuals. In both the
stages the supernatural element is present, though in
the former, owing to its objective character, it appears
more distinctly than in the latter. The whole series of
redeeming acts, culminating in the incarnation and
atoning work of the Mediator and the pouring out of
the Holy Spirit, bears the signature of the miraculous
on its very face. But the supernatural, though not ob-
jectively controllable, is none the less present during
the later stage in each case where an individual soul is
regenerated. Revelation as such, however, is not co-
extensive with this whole process in both its stages.
Its history is limited to the former half, that is, it
accompanies in its progress the gradual unfolding of
the central and objective salvation of God, and no
sooner is the latter accomplished tlian revelation also
has run its course and its voice ceases to speak. The

As a Science ajid as a Theological DiscipliJie. 13

reason for this is obvious. The revelation of God
being not subjective and individual in its nature, but
objective and addressed to the human race as a whole,
it is but natural that this revelation should be embedded
in the channels of the great objective history of redemp-
tion and extend no further than this. In point of fact,
we see that, when the finished salvation worked out
among Israel is stripped of its particularistic form to
extend to all nations, at the same moment the com-
pleted ox?^Q\t?> of God are given to the human race as a
whole to be henceforth subjectively studied and appro-
priated. It is as unreasonable to expect revelations
after the close of the Apostolic age as it would be to
think that the great saving facts of that period can be
indefinitely increased and repeated.

Even this, however, is not sufficient to show the his-
toric character of revelation in its full extent. Up to
this point we have only seen how the disclosure of truth
in general follows the course of the history of redemp-
tion. We now must add that in not a few cases revela-
tion is ideyitified with history. Besides making use of
words, God has also employed acts to reveal great
principles of truth. It is not so much the prophetic
visions or miracles in the narrower sense that we think
of in this connection. We refer more specially to those
great, supernatural, history-making acts of which we
have examples in the redemption of the covenant-
people from Egypt, or in the crucifixion and resurrec-
tion of Christ. In these cases the history itself forms a
part of revelation. There is a self-disclosure of God in
such acts. They would speak even if left to speak
for themselves. Forming part of history, these reveal-
ing acts necessarily assume historical relations among

14 The Idea of Biblical Theology

themselves, and succeed one another according to a
well-defined principle of historical sequence. Further-
more, we observe that this system of revelation-acts is
not interpolated into the larger system of biblical his-
tory after a fanciful and mechanical fashion. The rela-
tion between the two systems is vital and organic.
These miraculous interferences of God to which we
ascribe a revealing character, furnish the great joints
and ligaments by which the whole framework of sacred
history is held together, and its entire structure deter-
mined. God's saving deeds mark the critical epochs of
history, and as such, have continued to shape its course
for centuries after their occurrence.

Of course we should never forget that, wherever reve-
lation and the redemptive acts of God coincide, the lat-
ter frequently have an ulterior purpose extending be-
yond the sphere of revelation. The crucifixion and
resurrection of Christ were acts not exclusively intended
to reveal something to man, but primarily intended to
serve some definite purpose in reference to God. In so
far as they satisfied the divine justice it would be inac-
curate to view them under the aspect of revelation
primarily or exclusively. Nevertheless, the revealing
element is essential even in their case, the two ends of
satisfaction and of revelation being combined into one.
And in the second place, we must remember that the
revealing acts of God never appear separated from His
verbal communications of truth. Word and act always
accompany each other, and in their interdependence
strikingly illustrate our former statement, to the effect
that revelation is organically connected with the intro-
duction of a new order of things into this sinful world.
Revelation is the light of this new world which God has

As a Scie7ice and as a Theological Discipline. 15

called into being. The light needs the reality and the
reality needs the light to produce the vision of the
beautiful creation of His grace. To apply the Kantian
phraseology to a higher subject, without God's acts the
words would be empty, without His words the acts
would be blind.

A second ground for the historic character of revela-
tion may be found in its eminently practical aspect.
The knowledge of God communicated by it is nowhere
for a purely intellectual purpose. From beginning to
end it is a knowledge intended to enter into the actual
life of man, to be worked out by him in all its practical
bearings. The Shemitic, and in particular the Biblical,
conception of knowledge is distinguished from the
Greek, more intellectualistic idea, by the prominence of
this practical element. To know, in the Shemitic sense,
is to have the consciousness of the reality and the prop-
erties of something interwoven with one's life through
the closest intercourse and communion attainable. Now
in this manner God has interwoven the supernaturally
communicated knowledge of Himself with the historic
life of the chosen race, so as to secure for it a practical
form from the beginning. Revelation is connected
throughout with the fate of Israel. Its disclosures arise
from the necessities of that nation, and are adjusted to
its capacities. It is such a living historical thing that it
has shaped the very life of this nation into the midst of
which it descended. The importance of this aspect of
revelation has found its clearest expression in the idea
of the covenant as the form of God's progressive self-
communication to Israel. God has not revealed Him-
self in a school, but in the covenant ; and the covenant
as a communion of life is all-comprehensive, embracing

i6 The Idea of Biblical Theology

all the conditions and interests of those contracting it.
There is a knowledge and an imparting of knowledge
here, but in a most practical way and not merely by
theoretical instruction.

If in the foregoing we have correctly described the
most general character of revelation, we may enlarge
our definition of Biblical Theology by saying that it is
that part of Exegetical Theology which deals with the
revelation of God in its historic continuity. We must
now advance beyond this and inquire more particularly
in what. specific type of history God has chosen to em-
body His revelation. The idea of historic development is
not sufficiently definite of itself to explain the manner
in which divine truth has been progressively revealed.
It is not until we ascribe to this progress an organic
character that the full significance of the historic princi-
ple springs into view.

The truth of revelation, if it is to retain its divine and
absolute character at all, must be perfect from the begin-
ning. Biblical Theology deals with it as a product of a
supernatural divine activity, and is therefore bound by
its own principle to maintain the perfection of revealed
truth in all its stages. When, nevertheless, Biblical
Theology also undertakes to show how the truth has been
gradually set forth in greater fullness and clearness, these
two facts can be reconciled in no other way than by
assuming that the advance in revelation resembles the
organic process, through which out of the perfect germ
the perfect plant and flower and fruit are successively
produced.

Although the knowledge of God has received material
increase through the ages, this increase nowhere shows
the features of external accretion, but throughout appears

As a Scie7ice and as a Theological Discipline. 1 7

as an internal expansion, an organic unfolding from with-
in. The elements of truth, far from being mechanically
added one to the other in lifeless succession, are seen to
grow out of each other, each richer and fuller disclosure
of the knowledge of God having been prepared for by
what preceded, and being in its turn preparatory for
what follows. That this is actually so, follows from the
soteriological purpose which revelation in the first in-
stance is intended to serve. At all times, from the very
first to the last, revealed truth has been kept in close con-
tact with the wants and emergencies of the living gener-
ation. And these human needs, notwithstanding all
variations of outward circumstance, being essentially the
same in all periods, it follows that the heart of divine
truth, that by which men live, must have been present
from the outset, and that each subsequent increase con-
sisted in the unfolding of what was germinally contained
in the beginning of revelation. The Gospel of Paradise
is such a germ in which the Gospel of Paul is potenti-
ally present ; and the Gospel of Abraham, of Moses, of
David, of Isaiah and Jeremiah, are all expansions of
this original message of salvation, each pointing forward
to the next stage of growth, and bringing the Gospel-
idea one step nearer to its full realization. In this Gos-
pel of Paradise we already discern the essential features
of a covenant-relation, though the formal notion of a
covenant does not attach to it. And in the covenant-
promises given to Abraham these very features reappear,
assume greater distinctness, and are seen to grow to-
gether, to crystallize as it were, into the formal covenant.
From this time onward the expansive character of the
covenant-idea shows itself. The covenant of Abraham
contains the promise of the Sinaitic covenant ; the lat-

1 8 The Idea of Biblical Theology

ter again, from its very nature, gives rise to prophecy ;
and prophecy guards the covenant of Sinai from assum-
ing a fixed, unalterable form, the prophetic word being
a creative word under the influence of which the spirit-
ual, universal germs of the covenant are quickened and
a new, higher order of things is organically developed
from the Mosaic theocracy, that new covenant of which
Jeremiah spoke, and which our Saviour brought to light
by the shedding of His blood. So dispensation grows
out of dispensation, and the newest is but the fully ex-
panded flower of the oldest.

The same principle may also be established more
objectively, if we consider the specific manner in which
God realizes the renewal of this sinful kosmos in accord-
ance with His original purpose. This renewal is not
brought about by mechanically changing one part after
the other. God's method is much rather that of creating
within the organism of the present world the centre of
the world of redemption, and then organically building
up the new order of things around this centre. Hence
from the beginning all redeeming acts of God aim at the
creation and introduction of this new organic principle,
which is none other than Christ. All Old Testament re-
demption is but the saving activity of God workingtoward
the realization of this goal, the great supernatural prelude
to the Incarnation and the Atonement. And Christ
having appeared as the head of the new humanity and
having accomplished His atoning work, the further re-
newal of the kosmos is effected through an organic
extension of His power in ever widening circles. In
this sense the Apostle speaks of the fashioning anew of
the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed
to the body of the glory of Christ, saying that this will

As a Science mid as a Theological Discipline, 1 9

happen ''according to the working whereby He is able to
subject even all things unto Hiinself (Phil. iii. 21). If,
then, this supernatural process of transformation pro-
ceeds on organic principles, and if, as we have shown,
revelation is but the light accompanying it in its course,
the reflection of its divine realities in the sphere of
knowledge, we cannot escape from the conclusion that
revelation itself must exhibit a similar organic progress.
In point of fact, we find that the actual working of Old
Testament redemption toward the coming of Christ in
the flesh, and the advance of revealed knowledge con-
cerning Christ, keep equal pace everywhere. The vari-
ous stages in the g-radual concentration of Messianic
prophecy, as when the human nature of our Saviour is
successively designated as the seed of the woman, the
seed of Abraham, the seed of Judah, the seed of David,
His fifrure assuminc: more distinct features at each narrow-
ing of the circle — what are they but disclosures of the
divine counsel corresponding in each case to new reali-
ties and new conditions created by His redeeming power?
And as in the history of redemption there are critical
stages in which the great acts of God as it were accumu-
late, so we find that at such junctures the process of reve-
lation is correspondingly accelerated, and that a few
years show, perhaps, more rapid growth and greater ex-
pansion than centuries that lie between. For, although
the development of the root may be slow and the stem
and leaves may grow almost imperceptibly, there comes
a time when the bud emerges in a day and the flower
expands in an hour to our wondering sight.* Such

* Cf r. "The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament," by
Thomas Dehany Bernard, p. 44.

20 The Idea of Biblical Theology

epochs of quickened revelation were the times of Abra-
ham, of Moses, of David, .and especially the days of the
Son of Man.

This progress, moreover, increases in rapidity the
nearer revelation approaches to its final goal. What
rich developments, what wealth of blossoming and fruit-
age are compressed within the narrow limits of that
period — no more than one lifetime — that is covered by
the New Testament ! In this, indeed, we have the most
striking proof of the organic nature of the progress of
revelation. Every organic development serves to em-
body an idea ; and as soon as this idea has found full and
adequate expression, the organism receives the stamp of
perfection and develops no further. Because the New
Testament times brought the final realization of the
divine counsel of redemption as to its objective and cen-
tral facts, therefore New Testament revelation brought
the full-grown Word of God, in which the new-born
world, which is complete in Christ, mirrors itself. In
this final stage of revelation the deepest depths of
eternity are opened up to the eye of Apostle and Seer.
Hence, the frequent recurrence of the expression, "be-
fore the foundation of the world." We feel at every
point that the last veil is drawn aside and that we stand
face to face with the disclosure of the great mystery
which was hidden in the divine purpose through the
ages. All salvation, all truth in regard to man, has its
eternal foundation in the Triune God Himself, It is
this Triune God who here reveals Himself as the ever-
lasting reality, from whom all truth proceeds, whom all
truth reflects, be it the little streamlet of Paradise or
the broad river of the New Testament losing itself again
in the ocean of eternity. After this nothing higher can

As a Scie7ice and as a Theological Discipline. 2 1

•come. All the separate lines along which through the
ages revelation was carried, have converged and met at
a single point. The seed of the woman and the Angel
of Jehovah are become one in the Incarnate Word. And
as Christ is glorified once for all, so from the crowning
glory and perfection of His revelation in the New
Testament nothing can be taken away ; nor can any-
thing be added thereunto.

There is one more feature of the organic character of
revelation which I must briefly allude to. Historic
progress is not the only means used by God to disclose
the full contents of His eternal Word. Side by side
with it, we witness a striking multiformity of teaching
-employed for the same purpose. All along the historic
stem of revelation, branches are seen to shoot forth,
frequently more than one at a time, each of which helps
to realize the complete idea of the truth for its own
part and after its own peculiar manner. The legal, .the
prophetic, the poetic elements in the Old Testament
are clearly-distinct types of revelation, and in the New
Testament we have something corresponding to these
in the Gospels, the Epistles, the Apocalypse. Further,
within the limits of these great divisions there are
numerous minor variations, closely associated with the
peculiarities of individual character. Isaiah and Jere-
miah are distinct, and so are John and Paul. And
this differentiation rather increases than decreases
with the progress of sacred history. It is greater
in the New Testament than in the Old. The
laying of the historic basis for Israel's covenant-
life has been recorded by one author, Moses ; the
historic basis of the New Testament dispensation we
know from the fourfold version of the Gospels. The

2 2 The Idea of Biblical Theology

remainder of the New Testament writings are in the
form of letters, in which naturally the personal element
predominates. The more fully the light shone upon
the realization of the whole counsel of God and dis-
closed its wide extent, the more necessary it became ta
expound it in all its bearings, to view it at different
angles, thus to bring out what Paul calls the much-
variegatcd, the manifold, wisdom of God. For, God
bavins: chosen to reveal the truth through human in-
struments, it follows that these instruments must be
both numerous and of varied adaptation to the common
end. Individual coloring, therefore, and a peculiar
manner of representation are not only not detrimental
to a full statement of the truth, but directly subservient
to it. God's method of revelation includes the very
shaping and chiselling of individualities for His own ob-
jective ends. To put it concretely : we must not con-
ceive of it as if God found Paul " ready-made," as it
v^rere, and in using Paul as an organ of revelation, had
to put up with the fact that the dialectic mind of Paul
reflected the truth in a dialectic, dogmatic form to the
detriment of the truth. The facts are these : the truth
having inherently, besides other aspects, a dialectic and
dogmatic side, and God intending to give this side full
expression, chose Paul from the womb, moulded his
character, and gave him such a training that the truth
revealed through him necessarily bore the dogmatic and
dialectic impress of His mind. The divine objectivity
and the human individuality here do not collide, nor
exclude each other, because the man Paul, with his
whole character, his gifts, and his training, is subsumed
under the divine plan. The human is but the glass
through which the divine light is reflected, and all the

As a Science a?id as a Theological Discipline. 23

sides and angles into whicli the glass has been cut serve
no other purpose than to distribute to us the truth in all
the riches of its prismatic colors.

In some cases growth in the organism of revelation is
closely dependent on this variety in the type of teach-
ing. There are instances in which two or more forms
of the one truth have been brought to light simultane-
ously, each of which exercised a deepening and enlarg-
ing influence upon the others. The Gospel of John
contains revelations contemporaneous with those of the
Synoptists, so that chronologically we can distribute its
material over the pages of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Nevertheless, taken as a whole and in its unity, the
Gospel of John represents a fuller and wider self-reve-
lation of Christ than the Synoptists ; and not only so,
but it also represents a type of revelation which pre-
supposes the facts and teachings of the other Gospels,
and is, in point of order, subsequent to them. The
same thing might be said of Isaiah in its relation
to Micah. So the variety itself contributes to the prog-
ress of revelation. Even in these cases of contemporane-
ous development along distinct lines and in independent
directions, there is a mysterious force at work, which
makes " the several parts grow out of and into each
other with mutual support, so that the whole body is
fitly joined together and compacted by that which every
joint supplies, according to the effectual working in the
measure of every part."

We may now perhaps attempt to frame a complete
definition of our science. The preceding remarks have
shown that the divine work of revelation did not pro-
ceed contrary to all law, but after a well-defmed organic
principle. Wherever there is a group of facts sufli-

24 The Idea of Biblical Theology

ciently distinct from their environment, and determined
by some law of orderly sequence, we are justified in
making these facts the object of scientific discussion.
Far from there being in the conception of Biblical
Theology anything at variance with the idea of Theol-
ogy as based on the revealed knowledge of God, we
have found that the latter even directly postulates the
former. Biblical Theology, rightly defined, is nothing
else than the exhibition of the orgastic progress of super-
natural revelation in its historic continuity and multi-
formity.

It must be admitted, however, that not everything
passing under the name of Biblical Theology satisfies
the requirements of this definition. From the end of
the preceding century, when our science first appears
as distinct from Dogmatic Theology, until now, she
has stood under the spell of un-Biblical principles.
Her very birth took place under an evil star. It was
the spirit of Rationalism which first led to distin-
guishing in the contents of the Scriptures between what
was purely human, individual, local, temporal — in a
word, conditioned by the subjectivity of the writers —
and what was eternally valid, divine truth. The latter,
of course, was identified with the teachings of the shallow
Rationalism of that period. Thus Biblical Theology,
which can only rest on the basis of revelation, began with
a denial of this basis ; and a science, whose task it is
to set forth the historic principles of revelation, was
trained up in a school notorious for its lack of historic
sense. For to this type of Rationalism history, as such,
is the realm of the contingent, the relative, the arbi-
trary, whilst only the deliverances of pure reason possess
the predicate of absoluteness and universal validity. In

As a Science and as a Theological Discipline. 25

this Biblical Theology of Rationalism, therefore, the his-
torical principle merely served to eliminate or neutral-
ize the revelation-principle. And since that time all
the philosophical tendencies that have influenced Theol-
ogy in general have also left their impress upon Biblical
Theology in particular. It is not necessary for our
present purpose to trace the various lines and currents
of this complicated history ; the less so since there can
be no doubt but that they are rapidly merging into the
great stream of Evolutionistic Philosophy, which, what-
ever truth there may be in its application to certain
groups of phenomena, yet, as a generaf^fneory of the
universe, is the most direct antithesis to the fundamental
principles of revelation and Christianity.

That the influence of this philosophy, as it expresses
and in turn moulds the spirit of the age, is perceptible
in the field of Theology everywhere, no careful observer
of recent events will deny. But Biblical Theology is, per-
haps, more than any other branch of theological study
affected by it, because its principle of historic progress in
revelation seems to present certain analogies with the
evolutionary scheme, and to offer exceptional opportuni-
ties for applying the latter, without departing too far from
the real contents of Scripture. This analogy, of course,
is merely formal, and from a material point of view there
is a world-wide dilTerence between that philosophy of
history which the Bible itself outlines, and which alone
Biblical Theology, if it wishes to remain Biblical, has a
right to adopt, and, on the other hand, the so-called
facts of the Bible pressed into the evolutionary formu-
las. It is especially in two respects that the principles
of this philosophy have worked a radical departure from
the right treatment of our science as it is prescribed by

26 The Idea of Biblical Theology

both the supernatural character of Christianity and the
nature of Theology. In the first place, evolution is
bent upon showing that the process of development is
everywhere from the lower and imperfect to the higher
and relatively more perfect forms, from impure begin-
nings through a gradual purification to some ideal end.
So in regard to the knowledge of God, whose growth
we observe in the Biblical writings, evolution cannot
rest until it shall have traced its gradual advance from
sensual, physical conceptions to ethical and spiritual
ideas, from Animism and Polytheism to Monolatry and
Monotheism. But this of necessity rules out the reve-
lation-factor from Biblical Theology. Revelation as an
act of God, theistically conceived of, can in no wise be
associated with anything imperfect or impure or below
the standard of absolute truth. However much Chris-
tian people may blind themselves to the fact, the out-
come will show, as it does already show, that the prin-
ciples of supernatural redemption and natural evolution
are mutually exclusive. Hence, even now, those who
accept the evolutionary construction of Biblical history,
either openly and without reserve renounce the idea of
supernatural revelation, or strip it of its objectivity sa
as to make it less antagonistic to that of natural devel-
opment. In the same degree, however, that the latter
is done, revelation loses its distinctively theistic charac-
ter and begins to assume more and more the features of
a Pantheistic process, that is, it ceases to be revelation
in the commonly accepted sense of the term.

In the second place, the philosophy of evolution has
corrupted Theology by introducing its leaven of meta-
physical Agnosticism. Inasmuch as only the phenom-
enal world can become an object of knowledge to us

As a Science and as a Theological Discipline. 27

and not the mysterious reality hidden behind the phe-
nomena, and inasmuch as Theology in the old, tradi-
tional sense pretended to deal with such metaphysical
realities as God and heaven and immortality, it follows
that Theology must either be entirely abolished, or must
submit to such a reconstruction as will enable her to re-
tain a place among the phenomenalistic sciences. The
former would be the more consistent and scientific, but
the latter is usually preferred ; because it is difficult at
one stroke to set aside a thing so firmly rooted in the
past. Theology, therefore, is now defined as the science
of religion, and that, too, in the sense chiefly of a phe-
nomenology of religion, in which by far the greater part
of the investigation is devoted to the superficial exter-
nal side of religion, and the heart of the matter receives
scant treatment. Applied to Biblical Theology, this
principle involves that no longer the historic progress
of the supernatural revelation of God, but the de-
velopment of the religion recorded in the Biblical
writings, shall become the object of our science. The-
ology having become the science of religion, Biblical
Theology must needs become the history of one, be it
the greatest, of all religions, the history of the religion
of Israel and of primitive Christianity.

How far this evil has penetrated may be inferred from
the fact that there is scarcely a book on Biblical Theology
in existence in which this conception of the object of our
science is not met with, and in which it does not very
largely determine the point of view. It has even viti-
ated so excellent a work in many respects as Oehler's
Old Testament Theology. Of course, there are many
degrees in the thoroughness with which this subjectiviz-
ing principle is carried through and applied. Between

28 The Idea of Biblical Theology

those who are just beginning to descend the ladder and
those who have reached its lowest step, there is a very
appreciable difference.

First, there are those who think that, though God has
supernaturally revealed Himself in words and acts, never-
theless this revelation pure and simple, cannot be for us
an object of scientific discussion, except in so far as it
has blended with and produced its effect upon the religi-
ous consciousness of the people to whom it was given ;
and that, consequently, we must posit as the object of
Biblical Theology the religion of the Bible, and can hope
at the utmost to reason back from this religion as the re-
sult, to revelation as the cause that has produced it. To
this we would answer, that there is no reason to make
Biblical Theology, so conceived, a separate science. The
investigation of the religion of Israel as a subjective phe
nomenon, together with the objective factors called in
to explain it, belongs nowhere else than in the depart-
ment of Biblical History. Furthermore, we believe
that the Bible itself has recorded for us the interaction
of the objective and the subjective factors in sacred his-
tory in such a manner that their joint product is no-
where made the central thought of its teaching, but
much rather we are invited everywhere to fix our gaze
on the objective self-revelation of God, and only in the
second place to observe the subjective reflex of this
divine activity in the religious consciousness of the
people.

Others are more reserved in their recognition of the
supernatural. They would confine the revelation of
God to acts, and derive all the doctrinal contents of the
Bible from the source of human reflection upon these
divine acts. In this manner a compromise is obtained,

As a Science and as a Theological Discipline. 29

whereby both the objectivity of revelation and the sub-
jective development of Biblical teaching can be af-
firmed. This view is unsatisfactory, because it loses
sight of the analogy between divine revelation and the
ordinary way in which man communicates his thoughts.
To man, made in the image of God, speech is the high-
est instrument of revealing Himself, and it would be
strange if God in His self-disclosure entirely dispensed
with the use of this instrument. Nor does this view
leave any place for prophecy. The prophetic word is
frequently a divine word preceding the divine act. Al-
though, as we have seen, the progress of revelation is
clearly conditioned by the actual realization of God's
plan of redemption, yet this by no means implies that
the saving deeds of God always necessarily go before,
and the revelations which cast light on them always
follow. In many cases the revealing word comes as an
anticipation of the approaching events, as a flash of
lightning preceding the thunder of God's judgments.
As Amos strikingly expresses it : " Surely the Lord God
will do nothing, but He revealeth His secret unto His
servants the prophets " (iii. 7).

The supernatural factor, however, is reduced to still
smaller proportions and entirely deprived of its objec-
tivity by a third group of writers on Biblical Theology.
According to these, supernatural revelation does not in-
volve the communication of divine thoughts to man in
any direct manner either by words or by actions. Rev-
elation consists in this, that the Divine Spirit, by an un-
conscious process, stirs the depths of man's heart so as
to cause the springing up therein afterward of certain
religious thoughts and feelings, which are as truly hu-
man as they are a revelation of God, and are, therefore,

30 The Idea of Biblical Theology

only relatively true. It is owing to the influence of the
Ritschlian or Neo-Kantian school of Theology that
this view has gained new prevalence of late. The peo-
ple of Israel are held to have possessed a creative relig-
ious genius, just as the Greek nation was endowed with
a creative genius in the sphere of art. And, although
the productions of this genius are ascribed to the im-
pulse of the Divine Spirit, yet this Spirit and His work-
ing are represented in such a manner that their distinc-
tion from the natural processes of the human mind be-
comes a mere assumption, exercising no influence
whatever on the interpretation of the phenomenal side
of Israel's religion. Writers of this class deal as freely
Vv'ith the facts and teachings of the Bible as the most
extreme anti-supranaturalists. But with their evolution-
istic treatment of the phenomena they combine the hy-
pothesis of this mystical influence of the Spirit, which
they are pleased to call revelation. It is needless to say
that revelation of this kind must remain forever inac-
cessible to objective proof or verification. Whatever
can pretend to be scientific in this theory lacks all rap-
port with the idea of the Supernatural, and whatever
there lingers in it of diluted Supernaturalism lacks all
scientific character.

I have endeavored to sketch with a few strokes
those principles and tendencies by which the study
of Biblical Theology is almost exclusively controlled at
the present time, because they seem to me to indicate
the points which ought to receive special emphasis in
the construction of our science on a truly Scriptural
and theological basis. The first of these is the objective
character of revelatioi. Biblical Theology must insist
upon claiming for its object not the thoughts and re-

As a Science and as a Theological Discipli7ie. 3 1

flections and speculations of man, but the oracles of
God. Whosoever weakens or subjectivizes this funda-
mental idea of revelation, strikes a blow at the very
heart of Theology and Supernatural Christianity, nay,
of Theism itself. Every type of Biblical Theology
bent upon ignoring or minimizing this supreme, cen-
tral idea, is a most dangerous product. It is an indis-
putable fact that all modern views of revelation which
are deficient in recognizing its objective character, fit
far better into a Pantheistic than into a Theistic theory
of the universe. If God be the unconscious background
of the world, it is altogether natural that His truth and
lio-ht should in a mysterious manner loom up from the
unexplorable regions that underlie human conscious-
ness, that in His very act of revealing Himself He
should be conditioned and entangled and obstructed by
man. If, on the other hand, God be conscious and
personal, the inference is that in His self-disclosure He
will assert and maintain His personality, so as to place
His divine thoughts before us with the stamp of divin-
itv upon them, in a truly objective manner. By mak-
ins" revelation, both as to its form and contents, a spe-
cial object of study, Biblical Theology may be expected
to contribute something toward upholding this import-
ant conception in its true objectivity, toward more
sharply defining it and guarding it from confusion with
all heterogeneous ideas.

The second point to be emphasized in our treatment
of Biblical Theology is that the historical character of
the truth is not in any way antithetical to, but through-
out subordinated to, its revealed character. Scriptural
truth is not absolute, notwithstanding its historic set-
ting ; but the historic setting has been employed by God

o-

The Idea of Biblical Theology

for the very purpose of revealing the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth. It is not the duty of
Biblical Theology to seek first the historic features of
the Scriptural ideas, and to think that the absolute char-
acter of the truth as revealed of God is something sec-
ondary to be added thereunto. The reality of revela-
tion should be the supreme factor by which the historic
factor is kept under control. With the greatest variety
of historical aspects, there can, nevertheless, be no incon-
sistencies or contradictions in the Word of God. The
student of Biblical Theology is not to hunt for little
systems in the Bible that shall be mutually exclusive,
or to boast of his skill in detecting such as a mark of
high scholarship. What has been remarked above, in
regard to the place of individuality in the plan of rev-
elation, may be applied with equal justice to the historic
phases through which the progressive delivery of the
truth has passed. God has done for the historic un-
folding of His word as a whole what He has done for
the reproduction of its specific types and aspects through
the forming and training of individuals. As He knew
Jeremiah and Paul from the womb, so He knew Israel
and prepared Israel for its task. The history of this
nation is not a common history ; it is sacred history in the
highest sense of having been specially designed by God
to become the human receptacle for the truth from above.
In the third place. Biblical Theology should plant
itself squarely upon the truthfulness of the Scriptures
as a whole. Revelation proper announces and records
the saving deeds of God, but a mere announcement and
record is not sufficient to furnish a complete history of
redemption, to produce a living image of the new order
of things as it is gradually called into existence. No

As a Science and as a Theological Discipline, 33

true history can be made by a mere chronicling of
events. Only by placing the bare record of the facts
in the light of the principles which shape them, and the
inner nexus which holds them together, is the work of
the chronicler transformed into history. For this rea-
son God has not given us His own interpretation of the
great realities of redemption in the form of a chronicle,
but in the form of the historical organism of the inspired
Scriptures. The direct revelations of God form by far
the smaller part of the contents of the Bible. These
are but the scattered diamonds woven into the garment
of the truth. This garment itself is identical with the
Scriptural contents as a whole. And as a whole it has
been prepared by the hand of God. The Bible contains,
besides the simple record of direct revelations, the further
interpretation of these immediate disclosures of God by
inspired prophets and apostles. Above all, it contains,
if I may so call it, a divine philosophy of the history of
redemption and of revelation in general outlines. And
whosoever is convinced in his heart of the inspiration of
the Holy Scriptures and reads his Bible as the Word of
God, cannot, as a student of Biblical Theology, allow
himself to reject this divine philosophy and substitute
for it another of his own making. Our Theology will
be Biblical in the full sense, only when it not merely
derives its material from the Bible, but also accepts at
the hands of the Bible the order in which this material
is to be grouped and located. I for one am not
ashamed to say that the teachings of Paul concerning
the historic organism of the Old Testament economy
possess for me greater authority than the reconstructions
of the same by modern scholars, however great their
learning and critical acumen.

34 The Idea of Biblical Theology

Finally, in designating our science 2S Biblical Theology y
we should not fail to enter a protest against the wrong
inferences that may be easily drawn from the use of this
name. The name retains somewhat of the flavor of the
Rationalism which first adopted it. It almost unavoid-
ably creates an impression as if in the Bible we had the
beginning of the process that later gave us the works of
Origen, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and Cal-
vin. Hence some do not hesitate to define Biblical
Theology as the History of Dogmatics for Biblical
times. To us this sounds as strange and illogical as if
one should compare the stars of the firmament and their
history with the work and history of astronomy. As
the heavens contain the material for astronomy and the
crust of the earth for geology, so the mighty creation of
the Word of God furnishes the material for Theology in
this scientific sense, but is no Theology. It is something
infinitely higher than Theology, a world of spiritual
realities, into which all true theologians are led by the
Spirit of the living God. Only if we take the term
Theology in its more primitive and simple meaning, as
the practical, historic knowledge of God imparted by
revelation and deposited in the Bible, can we justify the
use of the now commonly accepted name of our science.
As for the scientific elaboration of this God-given ma-
terial, this must be held to lie beyond the Biblical pe-
riod. It could only spring up after revelation and the
formation of the Scriptures had been completed. The
utmost that can be conceded would be that in the
Apostolic teaching of the New Testament the first signs
of the beginning of this process are discernible. But even
that which the Apostles teach is in no sense primarily to
be viewed under the aspect of Theology. It is the in-

As a Science and as a Theological Discipline. 35

spired Word of God before all other things. No the-
ologian would dare to say of his work what Paul said to
the Galatians : " But though we or an angel from heaven
should preach unto you any gospel other than that which
we preached unto you, let him be anathema" (i. 8).*

In the foregoing I have endeavored to describe to
you the nature and functions of Biblical Theology as a
member in the organism of our scientific knowledge of
God. I have not forgotten, however, that you have
called me to teach this science for the eminently prac-
tical purpose of training young men for the ministry of
the Gospel. Consequently, I shall not have acquitted
myself of my task on this occasion unless you will per-
mit me to point out briefly what are the advantages to
be expected from the pursuit of this study in a more
practical way.

First of all, Biblical Theology exhibits to the student
of the Word the organic structure of the truth therein
contained, and its organic growth as the result of reve-
lation. It shows to him that in the Bible there is an
organization finer, more complicated, more exquisite
than even the texture of muscles and nerves and brain
in the human body ; that its various parts are interwoven
and correlated in the most subtle manner, each sensitive
to the impressions received from all the others, perfect
in itself, and yet dependent upon the rest, while in them

* In view of the Rationalistic associations connected with the name
Biblical Theology, and in view of its being actually used for the propa-
gation of erroneous views, the name History of Revelation would per-
haps be better adapted to express the true nature of our science. This
name has been lately adopted by Nosgen in his Geschichte der Neutesta-
mentlichen Offenbarung.

o

6 1 he Idea of Biblical Theology

and through them all throbs as a unifying principle the
Spirit of God's living truth. If anything, then this is
adapted to convince the student that what the Bible
places before him is not the chance product of the
several human minds that have been engaged in its
composition, but the workmanship of none other than
God Himself. The organic structure of the truth and
the organic development of revelation as portrayed in the
Bible bear exactly the same relation to Supernaturalism
that the argument from design in nature bears to Theism.
Both arguments proceed on precisely analogous lines.
If the history of revelation actually is the organic his-
tory, full of evidences of design, which the Bible makes
it out to be, then it must have been shaped in an alto-
gether unique fashion by the revealing activity of God.

In the second place. Biblical Theology is suited to
furnish a most effective antidote to the destructive
critical views now prevailing. These modern theories,
however much may be asserted to the contrary, disor-
ganize the Scriptures. Their chief danger lies, not in
affirmations concerning matters of minor importance,
concerning errors in historical details, but in the most
radical claims upsetting the inner organization of the
whole body of truth. We have seen that the course of
revelation is most closely identified with the history
described in the Bible. Of this history of the Bible,
this framework on which the whole structure of revela-
tion rests, the newest criticism asserts that it is falsified
and unhistorical for the greater part. All the historical
writings of the Old Testament in their present state are
tendency-writings. Even where they embody older
and more reliable documents, the Deuteronomic and
Levitical paste, applied to them in and after the exile.

As a Science and as a Theological Discipline, 2>7

has obliterated the historic reality. Now, if it were
known anaong believing Christians to what an extent
these theories disorganize the Bible, their chief spell
would be broken ; and many would repudiate with horror
what they now tolerate or view with indifference. There
is no other way of showing this than by placing over
against the critical theories the organic history of revela-
tion, as the Bible itself constructs it. As soon as this is
done, everybody will be able to see at a glance that the
two are mutually subversive. This very thing Biblical
Theology endeavors to do. It thus meets the critical
assaults, not in a negative way by defending point after
point of the citadel, whereby no total effect is produced
and the critics are always permitted to reply that they
attack merely the outworks, not the central position of
the faith ; but in the most positive manner, by setting
forth what the principle of revelation involves according
to the Bible, and how one part of it stands or falls
together with all the others. The student of Biblical
Theology has the satisfaction of knowing that his treat-
ment of Biblical matters is not prescribed for him ex-
clusively by the tactics of his enemies, and that, while
most effectually defending the truth, he at the same
time is building the temple of divine knowledge on the
positive foundation of the faith.

In the third place, I should mention as a desirable
fruit of the study of Biblical Theology, the new life and
freshness which it gives to the old truth, showing it in
all its historic vividness and reality with the dew of the
morning of revelation upon its opening leaves. It is
certainly not without significance that God has embod-
ied the contents of revelation, not in a dogmatic system,
but in a book of history, the parallel to which in dra-

T,S The Idea of Biblical Theology

matic interest and simple eloquence is nowhere to be
found. It is this that makes the Scriptures speak and
appeal to and touch the hearts and lead the minds of
men captive to the truth everywhere. No one will be
able to handle the Word of God more effectually than he
to whom the treasure-chambers of its historic meaning
have been opened up. It is this that brings the divine
truth so near to us, makes it as it were bone of our bone
and flesh of our flesh, that humanizes it in the same sense
that the highest revelation in Christ was rendered most
human by the incarnation. To this historical character
of revelation we owe the fullness and variety which
enable the Scriptures to mete out new treasures to all
ages without becoming exhausted or even fully ex-
plored. A Biblical Theology imbued with the devout
spirit of humble faith in the revealed Word of God, will
enrich the student with all this wealth of living truth,
making him in the highest sense a householder, bringing
forth out of his treasures things new and old.

Fourthly, Biblical Theology is of the greatest im-
portance and value for the study of Systematic Theology.
It were useless to deny that it has been often cultivated
in a spirit more or less hostile to the work in which
Systematic Theology is engaged. The very ndimt Bibli-^
cal Theology is frequently vaunted so as to imply a pro-
test against the alleged un- Biblical character of Dog-
matics. I desire to state most emphatically here, that
there is nothing in the nature and aims of Biblical The-
ology to justify such an implication. For anything pre-
tending to supplant Dogmatics there is no place in the
circle of Christian Theology. All attempts to show that
the doctrines developed and formulated by the Church
have no real foundation in the Bible, stand themselves

As a Science a7id as a Theological Discipline. 39

without the pale of Theology, inasmuch as they imply
that Christianity is a purely natural phenomenon, and
that the Church has now for nineteen centuries been
chasing her own shadow. Dogmatic Theology is, when
rightly cultivated, as truly a Biblical and as truly an in-
ductive science as its younger sister. And the latter
needs a constructive principle for arranging her facts as
well as the former. The only difference is, that in the
one case this constructive principle is systematic and
logical, whereas in the other case it is purely historical.
In other words, Systematic Theology endeavors to con-
struct a circle. Biblical Theology seeks to reproduce a
line. I do not mean by the use of this figure, that
within Biblical Theology there is no grouping of facts
at all. The line of which T speak does not represent a
monotonous recital of revelation, and does not resemble
a string, even though it be conceived of as a string of
pearls. The line of revelation is like the stem of those
trees that grow in rings. Each successive ring has
grown out of the preceding one. But out of the sap
and vigor that is in this stem there springs a crown with
branches and leaves and flowers and fruit. Such is the
true relation between Biblical and Systematic Theology.
Dogmatics is the crown which grows out of all the work
that Biblical Theology can accomplish. And taught in
this spirit of Christian willingness to serve, our science
cannot fail to benefit Systematic Theology in more than
one respect. It will proclaim the fact, too often forgot-
ten and denied in our days, that true religion cannot
dispense with a solid basis of objective knowledge of the
truth. There is no better means of silencing the super-
cilious cant that right believing is of small importance
in the matter of religion, than by showing what infinite

40 The Idea of Biblical Theology.

care our Father in heaven has taken to reveal unto us,
in the utmost perfection, the knowledge of what He is
and does for our salvation. Biblical Theology will also
demonstrate that the fundamental doctrines of our faith
do not rest, as many would fain believe, on an arbitrary
exposition of some isolated proof-texts. It will not so
much prove these doctrines, as it will do what is far bet-
ter than proof — make them grow out organically before
our eyes from the stem of revelation. Finally, it will
contribute to keep Systematic Theology in living con-
tact with that soil of divine realities from which it must
draw all its strength and power to develop beyond what
it has already attained.

Let us not forget, however, that as of all theology, so
of Biblical Theology, the highest aim cannot lie in man,
or in anything that serves the creature. Its most ex-
cellent practical use is surely this, that it grants us a new
vision of the glory of Him who has made all things to
the praise of His own wonderful name. As the Uncre-
ated, the Unchangeable, Eternal God, He lives above
the sphere of history. He is the Being and never the
Becoming One. And, no doubt, when once this veil of
time shall be drawn aside, when we shall see face to
face, then also the necessity for viewing His knowledge
in the glass of history will cease. But since on our
behalf and for our salvation He has condescended to
work and speak in the form of time, and thus to
make His works and His speech partake of that pecul-
iar glory that attaches to all organic growth, let us
also seek to know Him as the One that is, that was,
and that is to come, in order that no note may be lack-
ing in that psalm of praise to be sung by the Church
into which all our Theology must issue.

4^.\ m