SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

Second Article
JOHN MURRAY
S
YSTEMATIC theology is to be distinguished from the
discipline that has come to be known as biblical theology.
This does not mean that the latter is more biblical. It is
true that systematic theology deals with the data of general
revelation insofar as these data bear upon theology, and
general revelation does not come within the province of bib-
lical theology. But, since the principal source of revelation is
Holy Scripture, systematic theology must be concerned to be
biblical not one whit less than biblical theology. The difference
is merely one of method.
Biblical theology deals with the data of special revelation
from the standpoint of its history; systematic theology deals
with the same in its totality as a finished product. The method
of systematic theology is logical, that of biblical theology is
historical. The definition of Geerhardus Vos puts this differ-
ence in focus. " Biblical Theology is that branch of Exegetical
Theology which deals with the process of the self-revelation
of God deposited in the Bible."
1
The pivotal term in this
definition is the word "process" as applied to God's special
self-revelation. Or, as Vos says later, when taking account of
the objections to the term "biblical theology", the name
"History of Special Revelation" is to be preferred.
2
It cannot be denied that special revelation had a history.
God did not reveal himself to man in one great and all-
embracive disclosure. Since we are mainly concerned with
the revelation that post-dates the fall of man and also to a
great extent with redemptive revelation, it is apparent that
this revelation began with the protevangelium to our first
parents, was expanded more and more through successive
1
Biblical Theology. Old and New Testaments, Grand Rapids, 1948, p. 13.
8
Ibid., p. 23; cf. also G. F. Oehler: Theology of the Old Testament, E.T.,
Edinburgh, 1874, Vol. I, pp. 7, 8, 20, 22.
33
34 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
generations and ages, and accumulated progressively until it
reached its climax in the coming and accomplishments of the
Son of God in the fulness of the time, the consummation of
the ages. Our perspective is not biblical if we do not reckon
with this history and with the process and progression which
it involves. And our study of special revelation would not
only be too restricted but it would also be dishonouring to
God if it did not follow the lines of the plan which he himself
pursued in giving us this revelation.
It is necessary to appreciate the terms of the definition of
biblical theology. No phase of biblical studies enlists more
interest or receives more attention at the present time than
biblical theology. There is a reaction against what has been
considered to be the religious and theological barrenness of
the product that had been so largely devoted to literary and
historical criticism, and this applies particularly to Old Testa-
ment studies. In the words of Gerhard von Rad, "It is not so
very long ago that a theology of the Old Testament could
learn very little beyond questions of date and of this and
that in matters of form from those introductory studies which
were working mainly on the lines of literary criticism".
3
But
in the last twenty or thirty years there has been a marked
change in "the surprising convergence indeed the mutual
intersection which has come about . . . between introductory
studies and Biblical Theology".
4
Or, to state the climate in
the words of G. Ernest Wright, "one of the most important
tasks of the Church today is to lay hold upon a Biblically
centred theology. To do so means that we must first take
the faith of Israel seriously and by use of the scholarly tools
at our disposal seek to understand the theology of the Old
Testament. But, secondly, as Christians we must press toward
a Biblical theology, in which both Testaments are held to-
gether in an organic manner."
3
And the realization of the
3 Old Testament Theology, E.T., New York, 1962, Vol. I, p. v. Walther
Eichrodt is more emphatic and says: "It is high time that the tyranny of
historicism in OT studies was broken and the proper approach to our
task re-discovered" (Theology of the Old Testament, E.T., Philadelphia,
1901, Vol. I, p. 31).
* von Rad: idem.
s God Who Acts. Biblical Theology as Recital, London, 1952, pp. 29 f.
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY II 35
fact that biblical faith is something "radically different from
all other faiths of mankind", he says, "leads most Biblical
scholars today to believe that far more unity exists in the
Bible than was conceived fifty years ago. They are thus
confident that a Biblical theology is possible which is some-
thing other than the history of the Bible's religious evolution."
6
It is not the purpose of this article to review the history of
the distinctive discipline known as biblical theology from the
work of Johann Philipp Gabler to the present time. But it is
necessary to point out the radical divergences that exist be-
tween the viewpoint reflected in the definition by Vos, given
above, and some of the representative exponents of biblical
theology in the last two decades.
1. The most significant works in biblical theology at the
present time are based on the assumptions of the literary and
historical criticism which rejects the Bible's own representa-
tions. That is to say, the Bible is not regarded as providing
us with "the actual historical course of events". There is,
therefore, a reconstruction of biblical history in accordance
with what are conceived to be the insights which scholarly
research has afforded us. With respect to the framework, the
period of the patriarchs, the oppression in Egypt, the Exodus
f
the Revelation at Sinai, the Wandering in the Wilderness, the
Conquest, for example, von Rad says, this was "not deter-
mined by the actual historical course of events, since that had
long passed out of memory; its basis was rather a preconceived
theological picture of the saving history already long estab-
lished in the form of a cultic confession" and thus "even the
sequence of the main events conforms already to a canonical
schema of a cultic nature".
7
This position means the rejection
of the truly historical character of the Old Testament. In
this resides the basic divergence by which the work concerned
has forfeited its right to be called theology of the Old Testa-
ment. The alleged history which provides the framework for
this Old Testament "theology" is a reconstructed history of
which the Old Testament itself knows nothing. Even if this
Ibid., p. 35.
7 Op. cit., pp. 4 f. Cf. also Sigmund Mowinckel: The Old Testament as
Word of God, E.T., New York, 1959, pp. 13, 15.
36 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
viewpoint speaks of revelation and revelatory acts, the pro-
gressive revelation posited is not the process portrayed for us
in the Old Testament. Biblical theology properly conceived
and unfolded must follow the lines delineated for us in the
Scriptures. To the extent to which these lines are abandoned
or reconstructed to that extent the theology ceases to be the
biblical theology.
2. Representatives of the biblical theology being criticized
show a radical divergence in respect of the unity which is
indispensable to a proper view of revelation. In Sigmund
Mowinckel's esteem, for example, "the Old Testament is not
a homogeneous entity", "between 'the Law' and 'the Prophets'
there is a huge cleft, an essential difference" so that the Old
Testament "bears the clear marks of a diverse human history
with many cross-current lines".
8
There is indeed the diversity
and multiformity which accumulating divine self-disclosure
involves. All of this belongs to the term "process". But to
confuse diversity with heterogeneity is to relinquish the basic
premise of biblical theology.
3. The almost exclusive emphasis upon revelatory deeds
betokens a distinct deflection from the biblical witness. Again
Mowinckel is representative. "This idea of God as the God of
history, and of history as the place of revelation, also clearly
shows what the Bible means by revelation. It is not communi-
cation of knowledge, theoretical truths from and about God.
Yes, it is too, but only secondarily and derivatively. Primarily
and essentially revelation is deed-, it is God's work of creating
anew and of creating the future that is his revelation."
9
"As
has been mentioned already, for the Old Testament, God's
word is not utterances, not verbal expressions of ideas, con-
cepts, and thoughts, but deed."
10
With a total thrust that is
more congenial G. Ernest Wright is perhaps the most pro-
nounced advocate of this thesis. "Biblical theology is the
confessional recital of the redemptive acts of God in a particular
history, because history is the chief medium of revelation."
11
"Biblical theology is first and foremost a theology of recital.""
8
Ibid., pp. 16, 17, 19. Cf. also von Rad: op. cit., pp. 6, 7, 8, 16.
9 Op. cit., p. 39. " Ibid., p. 42.
Op. cit., p. 13.
12
Ibid., p. 28; cf. also pp. 38, 55, 59.
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY II 37
It is to be appreciated that Wright does not overlook the
fact that God reveals himself in words.
13
Furthermore, many
of the insights and emphases in Wright's eloquent monograph
are not only worthy of endorsement but are to be highly
prized as contributions to Old Testament study.
It is not to be disputed that acts are central in God's re-
demptive accomplishment and that the cardinal message of
the gospel is the proclamation of what God has done. Be-
lieving confession in both Testaments reflects these features.
But the type of concentration upon acts as the media of
revelation, exemplified in the biblical theology of the present,
is subject to criticism for three reasons in particular, (a) Deeds
are of themselves mute for us unless they are accompanied
by word revelation respecting their significance.
14
This prin-
ciple applies in a great variety of respects. If the acts are
God*s acts, they can only be understood for what they are in
the context of knowledge respecting God, respecting his rela-
tion to the world in which the acts occur, and his relation to
those who are the beneficiaries of these redemptive deeds. In
a word, the interpretation of their meaning involves a concept
of God derived from other revelatory data. Further, if they
are acts of grace, the grace must be related to needs which
make this grace relevant. Thus there are implications in-
volved in the term "deeds" which presuppose an understanding
which the deeds themselves do not impart and the same applies
to the confession respecting these deeds, (b) The concentra-
tion upon deeds is prejudicial to what occupies so large a
place in the Scripture, namely, the verbal communication of
truth respecting God and his will for man.
15
It is apparent
* Cf. ibid., pp. 23, 83, 103.
x
* It is not that G. Ernest Wright, for example, is oblivious of this fact.
"By means of human agents", he says, "God provides each event with an
accompanying Word of interpretation, so that the latter is an integral
part of the former" (ibid., p. 84). "To confess God is to tell a story and
then to expound its meaning" (ibid., p. 85). It is that Wright and the
other scholars concerned lay such emphasis upon revelation as consisting
in "acts" and on theology as recital that verbal communication is not
accorded its place and as a result the concept of revelation is distorted.
Cf. the succeeding footnote.
x
* James Barr, writing from a different theological standpoint from that
of the present writer, has effectively drawn attention to this same feature
38 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
that the reconstruction of Old Testament history adopted by
the biblical theology in question goes hand in hand with the
rejection of the authenticity of the Old Testament witness to
this verbal communication. And the way in which biblical
theology is distorted is due to a large extent to the suppression
of this feature of the Old Testament itself. Again, this biblical
theology is not a transcript of the Old Testament but of
hypotheses which are alien to its representations, (c) The
suppression of the revelatory word tends to discard or at
least overlook the place which the communication of truth
occupies in redemptive accomplishment. Redemption is the
redemption of men in the whole compass of personality and
in the whole realm of their relationships. Indispensable, there-
fore, is the enlightenment of the mind. How can redemption
be effective in the whole range of personal life without the
correction which truth conveyed imparts and the enlighten-
ment which truth sheds abroad in heart and mind? The Bible
in both Testaments is true to this need. It is true to this re-
quirement because it is realistic, and the emphasis upon deeds
to the suppression or neglect of verbal communication has
come by a discount of the Bible's realism, a fallacy into which
even orthodox apologetic has sometimes fallen whe^i it says
that Jesus came not to preach the gospel but that there might
be a gospel to preach. Jesus came to do both.
4. The biblical theology representative of recent decades,
in reconstructing biblical history, has deprived biblical the-
of the biblical representation. In The Princeton Seminary Bulletin for
May 1963 under the title, "Revelation through History in the Old Testa-
ment and in Modern Theology" he sets forth some of the most cogent
considerations in criticism of the viewpoint under consideration. Barr
does not deny revelation through historical divine action but "that it
can be the principal organizing conceptual bracket which we use to view
the material as a whole and to identify the common and essential features
within its variety" (p. 8). With respect to the Exodus events and the
texts bearing upon them these texts, he says, "far from representing the
divine acts as the basis of all knowledge of God and all communication
with him, they represent God as communicating freely with men, and
particularly with Moses, before, during and after these events" (p. 7).
Thus there are, he contends, other axes than that of "acts" and the one
he has particularly in mind is that of "direct verbal communication be-
tween God and particular men on particular occasions" (p. 11).
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY II 39
ology of its foundations. Apart from the truncated and re-
vised version of Mosaic and post-Mosaic history, of the Sinai
transactions, of the wilderness journeys, of the conquest of
Canaan, and of the events closely interrelated, it is character-
istic to question, if not to deny, the authenticity of the pa-
triarchal history as set forth in Genesis. Th. C. Vriezen, for
example, "takes the historical line to begin with Moses, not
because", as he himself affirms, "he denies the possibility of a
pre-Mosaic revelation to Abraham, but because, in his opinion,
a scholarly historical approach is possible to a certain extent
with respect to Moses but not with respect to Abraham".
l6
And Walther Eichrodt, who rightly attaches primacy to the
covenant relationship, does not go back farther than Mosaic
times to find this covenant concept.
17
The covenantal in-
stitution is basic to any construction of redemptive history
and revelation. The Exodus cannot be biblically interpreted
unless it is recognized to be in fulfilment of the patriarchal
covenant {cf. Exod. 2:24, 25; 3:6-17). The Sinai tic covenant
must be understood as an appendage to and extension of the
Abrahamic {cf. Gal. 3:17-22). And the coming of Christ is
in pursuance of the same {cf. Luke 1:72, 73). Christ is the
seed in whom all the families of the earth are blessed {cf.
Gen. 22:18; Acts 3:25; Gal. 3:8, 9, 16). It should be apparent
how indispensable to biblical theology is the covenant con-
cept and how far removed from the biblical data our theology
must be if it is not oriented to the successive unfoldings of
covenant grace and relationship. But the main interest of our
present discussion is that the covenant history with which
the Bible furnishes us is bereft of its foundation unless we
go back to the origin of this history in the covenants made
with Abraham (Gen. 15:8-21; 17:1-21). The theology which
can dispense with this central feature of patriarchal history
is not biblical theology.
18
16
An Outline of Old Testament Theology, E.T., Oxford, 1958, p. 16, n. 1;
cf. p. 30.
17
Op. cit., p. 36. Wright makes summary mention of "the call of the
Patriarchal fathers" (op. cit., p. 76) as central in confessional recital, but
the Abrahamic covenant does not give direction to his presentation of
this recital.
18
The significance of the Noahic covenants, pre-diluvian and post-
40 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
When biblical theology is conceived of as dealing with "the
process of the self-revelation of God deposited in the Bible",
it must be understood that this specialized study of the Bible,
so far from being inimical to the interests of systematic the-
ology is indispensable to the systematic theology that is faith-
ful to the Bible. In some cases the present-day interest in
biblical theology springs from or at least is related to an
antipathy to systematics or, as it is sometimes called, dog-
matics. The latter is charged with being abstract and philo-
sophical and, therefore, devoid of the dynamic realism and
force which ought to characterize any reproduction of the
Bible's witness. This charge is not to be dismissed as without
any ground or warrant. Systematic theologies have too often
betrayed a cold formalism that has been prejudicial to their
proper aim and have not for that reason and to that extent
promoted encounter with the living Word of the living God.
But two observations require to be made with reference to
this charge and to the corresponding admission. First, there
are certain phases of the truth with which systematic theology
must deal and certain polemics which it must conduct that
call for the type of treatment which to many people seems
cold and formal. The painstaking analysis and exacting re-
search which the pursuit of a faithful dogmatics requires must
not be abandoned because some people have no interest in
or patience with such studies. This would mean that areas of
investigation necessary to the wide range of the theologian's
mandate would be abandoned to the enemy. We must appre-
ciate how diversified are the tasks and interests that come
within the orbit of systematic theology. A biblical scholar's
product may have to be sometimes as dry as dust. But dust
has its place, especially when it is gold dust. Second, the
charge, insofar as it is warranted, is not the fault of systematic
theology but of the theologian or of the milieu of which his
product is the reflection. Systematic theology by its nature
must have its logical divisions.
19
Not all theologies have the
diluvian, is not to be depreciated. They furnish us with the covenantal
concept basic to all subsequent covenantal disclosures. But in terms of
redemptive revelation we are bereft of the foundation of all subsequent
disclosure if we fail to take full account of the Abrahamic covenants.

9 It is of interest that two recent noteworthy titles: Ludwig Khler:

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY II 41
same sequence or the same structural schematism. But if
we think of theology, anthropology, and soteriology, it is
difficult to comprehend how any one sensitive to the governing
message of Scripture can take exception to the exhibition of
this message under such subdivisions as these exemplify. It is
true, as Calvin reminded us at the beginning of his Institutio,
that we cannot think properly of ourselves without thinking
of God and we cannot think properly of God without also
thinking of ourselves. But theology is teaching, exposition,
communication, and it so happens that we cannot say every-
thing all at once nor can we think of everything that needs
to be thought of God and of ourselves all at once. The ob-
servation all-important for the present is that there is nothing
inherent in a logical mode of treatment that hinders, far less
prevents, sustained confrontation with the living Word of the
living God. Systematic structure is the application to the
totality of revelation of the same method as the science of
homiletics applies to the exposition of particular passages of
Scripture.
Biblical theology is indispensable to systematic theology.
This proposition requires clarification. The main source of
revelation is the Bible. Hence exposition of the Scripture is
basic to systematic theology. Its task is not simply the
exposition of particular passages. That is the task of exegesis.
Systematics must coordinate the teaching of particular pas-
sages and systematize this teaching under the appropriate
topics. There is thus a synthesis that belongs to systematics
that does not belong to exegesis as such.
20
But to the extent
to which systematic theology synthesizes the teaching of
Scripture, and this is its main purpose, it is apparent how
Old Testament Theology, E.T., Philadelphia, 1957; Millar Burrows: An
Outline of Biblical Theology adopt the method of topical presentation. It
may not be legitimate to question the right of a scholar to choose his own
title. But Burrows' work is not "biblical theology" in the generally ac-
cepted use of the title. It is rather a systematic theology. And Ludwig
Khler does not follow the historico-genetic method of delineation.
20
The principle known as the analogy of Scripture is indispensable to
exegesis for "the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scrip-
ture itself". But the analogy of Scripture is not to be equated with the
synthesis which is the specific task of systematic theology.
42 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
dependent it is upon the science of exegesis. It cannot co-
ordinate and relate the teaching of particular passages with-
out knowing what that teaching is. So exegesis is basic to its
objective. This needs to be emphasized. Systematic theology
has gravely suffered, indeed has deserted its vocation, when
it has been divorced from meticulous attention to biblical
exegesis. This is one reason why the charge mentioned above
has so much to yield support to the indictment. Systematics
becomes lifeless and fails in its mandate just to the extent to
which it has become detached from exegesis. And the guar-
antee against a stereotyped dogmatics is that systematic
theology be constantly enriched, deepened, and expanded by
the treasures increasingly drawn from the Word of God.
Exegesis keeps systematics not only in direct contact with
the Word but it ever imparts to systematics the power which
is derived from that Word. The Word is living and powerful.
What then of biblical theology? What function does it per-
form in this process? Biblical theology recognizes that special
revelation did not come from God in one mass at one particular
time. Special revelation came by process. It came pro-
gressively in history throughout ages and generations. Man-
kind has never lacked special revelation. Man's life had been
regulated from the outset by specially revealed ordinances
and commandments. When our first parents had fallen from
their original integrity, special revelation with redemptive
import supervened upon their sin and misery to inspire faith
and regulate life in the new context which their sin had
created. Thus began the process of redemptive revelation to
the progressive unfolding of which the Bible bears witness.
This process was not, however, one of uniform progression.
The Bible does not provide us with a complete history of
special revelation {cf. John 20:30, 31; 21:25). But we must
believe that the pattern found in the Scripture reflects the
pattern followed in the history of revelation as a whole. This
pattern which Scripture discloses shows that special revelation
and the redemptive accomplishments correlative with it have
their marked epochs. It is undeniable that the flood and
the institutions related thereto, the Abrahamic revelations, the
Exodus from Egypt, the Davidic period, the coming of Christ
mark outstanding epochs in the history of revelation. The
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY II
43
science concerned with the history of special revelation must
take account of this epochal character and it would be an
artificial biblical theology that did not adhere to the lines
which this epochal feature prescribes. Redemption, as Geer-
hardus Vos observes, "does not proceed with uniform motion,
but rather is 'epochal* in its onward stride. We can observe
that where great epoch-making redemptive acts accumulate,
there the movement of revelation is correspondingly acceler-
ated and its volume increased."
21
The divisions which biblical
theology recognizes and in terms of which it conducts its
study are not, therefore, arbitrary but are demanded by the
characteristics of redemptive and revelation history. The
Bible is itself conscious of the distinct periods into which the
history of revelation falls. Although there could be more
detailed subdivision within certain periods, it could not be
contested that the Bible itself marks off the distinguishing
character and momentous significance of the creation of man,
the fall of man, the flood, the call of Abraham, the Exodus,
the advent of Christ. Hence the periods, the creation to the
fall, the fall to the flood, the flood to the call of Abraham,
the call of Abraham to the Exodus, and the Exodus to Christ
22
are so well-defined that this structure must be adhered to in
the discipline, biblical theology.
If biblical theology deals with the history of revelation it
must follow the progression which this history dictates. This
is to say it must study the data of revelation given in each
period in terms of the stage to which God's self-revelation
progressed at that particular time. To be concrete, we may
not import into one period the data of revelation which belong
to a later period. When we do this we violate the conditions
which define the distinctiveness of this study.
23
And not only
31
Op. cit., p. 16.
32
The period from the Exodus to Christ would obviously require sub-
division. But there is also good reason for recognizing a unity corresponding
to that of the other periods. The New Testament era is, of course, the
consummatory era in this structure. Redemption and revelation will be
resumed at Christ's second coming. But the new revelatory acts associated
with the second advent do not come within the province of biblical theology.
2
3 There are several questions that arise in connection with this principle.
It is not the purpose of this article to discuss these. Suffice it to say that
44 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
so. We do violence to revelation itself because the history of
revelation and the progressiveness which characterized it be-
long to the activity of God by which revelation has come to us,
and the error is not merely a violation of the science of biblical
theology but a distortion of the history which must ever be
borne in mind and prized as that apart from which redemptive
revelation does not exist.
This is a subject worthy of considerable expansion. But,
in relation to our present interest, it is this principle that
bears directly upon exegesis. Exegesis is the interpretation
of particular passages. This is just to say the interpretation of
particular revelatory data. But these revelatory data occur
within a particular period of revelation and the principle which
guides biblical theology must also be applied in exegesis.
Thus biblical theology is regulative of exegesis.
Systematic theology is tied to exegesis. It coordinates and
synthesizes the whole witness of Scripture on the various
topics with which it deals. But systematic theology will fail
of its task to the extent to which it discards its rootage in
biblical theology as properly conceived and developed. It
might seem that an undue limitation is placed upon systematic
theology by requiring that the exegesis with which it is so
intimately concerned should be regulated by the principle of
the abuses must be avoided. We are not prevented thereby from using
the data of later periods of revelation in determining the precise import
and purport of earlier data, their import and purport, however, in the
precise context in which they were given. And we are certainly not to
overlook the witness borne by the New Testament, for example, to the
intent and scope of Old Testament data. We may not accede to the
tendency so common to underestimate the richness of Old Testament
revelation, the vigour of the faith of Old Testament saints, or the relevance
of its institutions.
We should also keep in view the distinction that must be maintained in
certain instances between the revelation given in particular periods and
the inscripturation of that revelation. This is specially important in the
pre-Mosaic periods. It is inscripturation that provides us with the data
and assures us of their authenticity. Furthermore, inscripturation is a
mode of revelation and so with inscripturation there are revelatory data
that belong only to the inscripturation itself. Inscripturation does not
merely provide us with a record of revelations previously given by other
modes; Scripture is itself revelation.
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY II
45
biblical theology. And it might seem to be contrary to the
canon so important to both exegesis and systematics, namely,
the analogy of Scripture. These appearances do not correspond
to reality. The fact is that only when systematic theology is
rooted in biblical theology does it exemplify its true function
and achieve its purpose. Two respects in which this is illus-
trated may be mentioned.
1. Systematic theology deals with special revelation as a
finished product incorporated for us in Holy Scripture. But
special revelation in its totality is never properly conceived
of apart from the history by which it became a finished product.
As we think of, study, appreciate, appropriate, and apply the
revelation put in our possession by inscripturation, we do not
properly engage in any of these exercises except as the pano-
rama of God's movements in history comes within our vision
or at least forms the background of our thought. In other
words, redemptive and revelatory history conditions our
thought at every point or stage of our study of Scripture
revelation. Therefore, what is the special interest of biblical
theology is never divorced from our thought when we study
any part of Scripture and seek to bring its treasures of truth
to bear upon the synthesis which systematic theology aims to
accomplish. Furthermore, the tendency to abstraction which
ever lurks for systematic theology is hereby counteracted.
The various data are interpreted not only in their scriptural
context but also in their historical context and therefore, as
Vos says, "in the milieu of the historical life of a people"
24
be-
cause God has caused his revelation to be given in that milieu.
2. Perhaps the greatest enrichment of systematic theology,
when it is oriented to biblical theology, is the perspective
that is gained for the unity and continuity of special revela-
tion. Orthodox systematic theology rests on the premise of
the unity of Scripture, the consent of all its parts. It is this
unity that makes valid the hermeneutical principle, the
analogy of Scripture. A systematic theology that is faithful
to this attribute of Scripture and seeks earnestly to apply it
cannot totally fail of its function. But when systematic
a
< Op. cit., p. 17.
46 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
theology is consciously undertaken with the claims and re-
sults of biblical theology in view, then the perspective gained
is more than that merely of unity. It is the unity of a growing
organism that attains its fruition in the New Testament and
in the everlasting covenant ratified and sealed by the blood
of Christ. Revelation is seen to be an organism and the dis-
crete parts, or preferably phases, are perceived to be not
sporadic, unrelated, and disjointed oracles, far less hetero-
geneous and contradictory elements, but the multiform aspects
of God's intervention and self-disclosure, organically knit
together and compacted, expressive not only of his marvellous
grace but of the order which supreme wisdom designed. Thus
the various passages drawn from the whole compass of Scrip-
ture and woven into the texture of systematic theology are
not cited as mere proof texts or wrested from the scriptural
and historical context to which they belong but, understood
in a way appropriate to the place they occupy in this unfolding
process, are applied with that particular relevance to the
topic under consideration. Texts will not thus be forced to
bear a meaning they do not possess nor forced into a service
they cannot perform. But in the locus to which they belong
and by the import they do possess they will contribute to the
sum-total of revelatory evidence by which biblical doctrine is
established. We may never forget that systematic theology
is the arrangement under appropriate divisions of the total
witness of revelation to the truth respecting God and his
relations to us men and to the world. Since the Bible is the
principal source of revelation and since the Bible is the Word
of God, systematics is the discipline which more than any
other aims to confront us men with God's own witness so
that in its totality it may make that impact upon our hearts
and mihds by which we shall be conformed to his image in
knowledge, righteousness, and holiness of the truth.
Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.