Vol. 12 · No.

4 Winter 2008

The Southern Baptist

Journal of Theology
Editor-in-Chief: R. Albert Mohler, Jr. Exploring Biblical Theology
Executive Editor: Russell D. Moore

Editor: Stephen J. Wellum

2 Editorial: Stephen J. Wellum
Editorial: “Biblical Theology”—Reflections on its Importance

Book Review Editor: Chad Owen Brand

Associate Editor: Christopher W. Cowan

4 Graeme Goldsworthy
Lecture 1: The Necessity and Viability of Biblical Theology

20 Graeme Goldsworthy
Assistant Editor: Brian Vickers

Advisory Board: Timothy K. Beougher Lecture 2: Biblical Theology in the Seminary and
John B. Polhill Bible College

36
Chuck Lawless
Peter J. Gentry Graeme Goldsworthy
Esther H. Crookshank Lecture 3: Biblical Theology in the Local Church and
Mark A. Seifrid the Home

52
Randy Stinson
James M. Hamilton
Design: Jared Hallal
Was Joseph a Type of the Messiah? Tracing the Typological
Typographer: John Rogers Identification between Joseph, David, and Jesus

78
Editorial Office & Subscription Services:
SBTS Box 832
Robert W. Yarbrough
2825 Lexington Rd. The Practice and Promise of Biblical Theology:
Louisville, KY 40280 A Response to Hamilton and Goldsworthy

88
(800) 626-5525, x4413
Mark A. Seifrid
Editorial E-Mail: journaloffice@sbts.edu Story-Lines of Scripture and Footsteps in the Sea

Yearly subscription costs for four issues: $25, individual inside the U. S.; $50,
individual outside the U. S.; $40, institutional inside the U. S.; $65, institutional
outside the U. S. Opinions expressed in The Southern Baptist Journal of Theol-
ogy are solely the responsibility of the authors and are not necessarily those
of the editors, members of the Advisory Board, or The Forum. We encourage
the submission of letters, suggestions and articles by our readers. Any article
submissions should conform to the Journal of Biblical Literature stylistic guidelines.
This periodical is indexed in Religion Index One: Periodicals, the Index to Book
Reviews in Religions, Religion Indexes: Ten Year Subset on CD-ROM, and the
ATLA Religion Database on CD-ROM, published by the American Theological
Library Association, 250 S. Wacker Dr., 16th Flr., Chicago, IL 60606, E-mail:
atla@atla.com, WWW: http://atla.com/.
THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY is published quarterly by
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2825 Lexington Road, Louisville,
KY 40280. Winter 2008. Vol. 12, No. 4. Copyright ©2008 The Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary. ISSN 1520-7307. Second Class postage paid at
Louisville, KY. Postmaster: Send address changes to: SBTS Box 832,
2825 Lexington Road, Louisville, KY 40280.
 Editorial: “Biblical Theology”—
Reflections on its Importance
Stephen J. Wellum is Professor
of Christian Theology at The South-
ern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Dr. Wellum received his Ph.D. degree
in theology from Trinity Evangelical
Divinity School and has also taught
­theology at the Associated Canadian
Theological Schools and Northwest
Baptist Theological College and Semi-
nary in Canada. He has contributed to
several publications and a collection
of essays on theology and worldview
issues.
2
The topic of “biblical theology” is not a
new one to our SBJT readers, nor is it a
new topic to our seminary community.
In fact, just two volumes ago (vol. 10.2,
Summer 2006), we addressed various
aspects of the discipline such as the
relation between biblical theology and
hermeneutics and the preacher's task of
proclaiming the whole counsel of God,
as well as seeking to demonstrate biblical
theology’s value by showing how it spe-
cifically is used in our reading and appli-
cation of Scripture. Why, then, return to
the theme again? The most straightfor-
ward answer is that we believe the subject
of biblical theology and its actual use
in the seminary, church, and home is
vitally important for the life and health
of God’s people.
It is no doubt the case that every gener-
ation must affirm anew a correct doctrine
of Scripture. From the halls of church
history, we learn the sad yet important
lesson that once people move away from
a high view of Scripture—namely, that
Scripture is nothing less than God’s Word
written, fully authoritative in all that it
addresses and completely reliable in all
that it affirms—it does not take long for
God’s people to be weakened in their
understanding of the gospel and less
effective in their kingdom service. How-
ever, we also learn that it is not enough for
the church merely to affirm a high view
of Scripture in order to preserve God’s
people from error. In reality, the most
pressing need is a commitment both to
Stephen J. Wellum
affirm Scripture as God’s Word, coupled
with a burning desire to study, under-
stand, and apply Scripture, by God’s
grace, to our daily lives for God’s glory.
Sadly, today, among many evangelicals,
we witness the diminishing of Scripture’s
authority both in terms of its doctrinal
affirmation and its actual use in our
churches and our individual lives. Even
among conservative evangelicals and
Southern Baptists who gladly embrace
a high view of Scripture, there is far too
much biblical illiteracy which, in the end,
leaves us with a failure to understand
and apply rightly the “whole counsel of
God” to every aspect of our lives. One of
the reasons we believe biblical theology
is so important for the church is because
we are convinced that it can practically
help us remedy our biblical illiteracy by
equipping God’s people to think in terms
of a “whole-Bible” theology.
After all, in the simplest of terms, “bib-
lical theology” is the discipline that seeks
to read specific texts (i.e., exegesis) in light
of the entire canonical context of Scrip-
ture. Convinced that God has graciously
revealed himself to us progressively in
history ultimately centered in our Lord
Jesus Christ (see Heb 1:1-3; Col 1:15-20),
and convinced that Scripture is God’s
Word and thus exhibits a unity amongst
all of its diversity, biblical theology seeks
to examine the unfolding nature of God’s
redemptive plan culminating in Christ.
As such, biblical theology provides the
basis for understanding how texts in any
portion of Scripture relate to the entire
biblical teaching with the goal of learning
better how to read and apply Scripture
correctly, to proclaim “the whole counsel
of God” (Acts 20:27), and to “think God’s
thoughts after him.” In short, biblical the-
ology is utterly essential in enabling the
church to know our glorious Triune God
better by knowing his Word better. With-
out it, we will often fail to understand
the “big picture” of Scripture and God’s
redemptive plan, with the implication
that the glory of Christ and the centrality
of the gospel will be undercut. In the end,
we are convinced that the less we teach,
preach, and apply a “whole-Bible” view-
point, the less we will think theologically
in the church, because to think theologi-
cally is ultimately to think in terms of the
entire canon of Scripture.
It is for this reason (and many more)
that we are returning to the subject mat-
ter of biblical theology. In this issue of
SBJT, the bulk of the journal is devoted
to the three wide-ranging lectures on
biblical theology delivered by Graeme
Goldsworthy at Southern Seminary,
March 18-20, 2008. Delivering the Gheens
Lectures, Dr. Goldsworthy unpacked
the biblical and theological grounding
for the discipline as well as its impor-
tance in the seminary curriculum, the
church, and the home. Dr. Goldsworthy
is certainly qualified to address such an
important subject given his expertise in
the field and his many faithful years of
serving the church in producing books
and materials that have enabled God’s
people to read and apply Scripture in
such a way that they understand better
how all of the Scripture finds its mean-
ing and center in our Lord Jesus Christ.
In addition to the Goldsworthy lectures,
we are also publishing a contribution by
James Hamilton, now associate professor
of biblical theology at Southern Seminary,
who illustrates how one person in the
field is actually going about the task of
doing biblical theology. In his article, Dr.
Hamilton makes a case for Joseph being
a type of Christ through a careful read-
ing of how the Joseph narrative is uti-
lized by the book of Samuel and applied
to David and then applied to Christ in
the New Testament. These four lectures
together allow the reader to see what
biblical theology is, why it is necessary
and important, and also how it is being
practiced today by evangelicals commit-
ted to the full authority of Scripture.
However, slightly different from
previous editions of SBJT, instead of
including our SBJT Forum, I asked two
well-known evangelicals broadly work-
ing in the field of biblical theology to
reflect on the importance, practice, and
promise of biblical theology, especially
in light of the specific presentations of
Goldsworthy and Hamilton. I wanted
them to reflect upon what they believed
were the strengths and weaknesses of
the discipline of biblical theology and the
presentations included in this journal. As
with any discipline, it is always wise to
listen to thoughtful reflections by those
working in the field, and that is why we
have included the responses of Robert
Yarbrough and Mark Seifrid.
It is my prayer that this edition of SBJT
will serve as “iron to sharpen iron.” May
it lead us to know our great God better
through his Word and ever be equipped
to handle rightly the Word of truth, for
the glory of God and the good of the
church.
3
 Lecture 1: The Necessity and Viability
of Biblical Theology1
Graeme Goldsworthy is a minister
of the Anglican Church of Australia and
has served in churches in Sydney and
Brisbane. He is a graduate of the Uni-
versities of Sydney, London, and Cam-
bridge, and earned his Ph.D. at Union
Theological Seminary in Richmond,
Virginia. He lectured at Moore Theologi-
cal College, Sydney, in Old Testament,
Biblical Theology, and Hermeneutics.
Now retired, Dr. Goldsworthy continues
as a visiting lecturer at Moore College
to teach a fourth-year B.D. course in
Evangelical Hermeneutics. He is the au-
thor of many books, including Preaching
the Whole Bible As Christian Scripture
(Eerdmans, 2000), According to Plan:
The Unfolding Revelation of God in the
Bible (InterVarsity, 2002), and Gospel-
Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations
and Principles of Evangelical Biblical
Interpretation (InterVarsity, 2007).
4
Biblical Theology and the Doctrine
of Scripture
I have never really considered myself
to be an academic. During my working
life, I have spent more years in full-time
pastoral ministry than I have in full-time
theological teaching. I mention this only
to emphasize that my passion for the
discipline of biblical theology was not
only driven by the academy, but also by
the perceived pastoral need for ordinary
Christians in churches to be better able
to understand the Bible. What, then, is
required for people to understand the
Bible as God’s one word about the one
way of salvation?
When a person is converted from
unbelief to faith in Jesus Christ as Sav-
ior and Lord, a number of changes take
place. They are not all instantaneous and
complete since some involve a process
of growth and maturing. These include
what Paul refers to in Rom 12:1-2 as the
renewal of the mind. This is an aspect of
sanctification in which the transformation
process goes on throughout life. Part of
becoming more Christ-like is learning
to think “Christianly” about all things
including Scripture. The way a new
convert begins the process of develop-
ing a doctrine of Scripture cannot be
stereotyped, for a lot depends on the
circumstances and the Christian context
in which conversion takes place. Not-
withstanding the variety of experiences
to which any group of Christians would
testify, the common feature is that sooner
Graeme Goldsworthy
or later, in one way or another, a personal
faith in Christ will lead to some kind of
personally held doctrine of Scripture. The
view of the Bible that has been caught or
taught will form the basis for a develop-
ing understanding of, first, the authority
and, second, the content of Scripture. A
third area is, in my opinion, often left
unformed, stunted, and embryonic. This
is the understanding of the relationship of
the parts to the whole, the perceptions of
structure and, above all, the notion of the
centrality of the gospel to the whole Bible.
While recognizing that there are many
ways in which biblical Christianity can be
compromised, even in the most ardently
evangelical church, I want to view the
matter before us primarily as it should
affect Christians in a church that honors
the Bible as the inspired word of God and
as our supreme authority in all matters of
doctrine and Christian living.
Conversion to Christ, then, must affect
the way people view the Bible. They
may have come out of militant atheism,
unreflective agnosticism, self-centered
postmodernism, or just plain ignorance of
all things Christian. But conversion will
mean that the word through which Christ
is made known will take on a growing
coherence and authority. Regrettably, it
is true to say that in many evangelical
congregations, while the authority of the
Bible is usually asserted or implied, the
coherence of the canon, its inner unity, is
left largely to chance.
What, then, are the driving forces for
doing biblical theology, and when did the
discipline emerge? Craig Bartholomew,
commenting on the frequently-made
claim that Johann Philipp Gabler started
it all with his inaugural address at Alt-
dorf in 1787, says, “But biblical theology,
in the sense of the search for the inner
unity of the Bible, goes back to the church
fathers.”2 That is undeniable, but from
where did the church fathers get this
sense of inner unity? Obviously they
were responding to the gospel and the
apostolic testimony that they perceived
in the Scriptures themselves. I suggest
that the emergence of biblical theology
is a feature of the dynamic of revelation
within Scripture itself, and becomes evi-
dent the moment the prophetic word in
Israel begins to link previous prophetic
words and events into a coherent pattern
of salvation history. This happens in the
way the prophets, beginning with Moses,
speak a “thus says Yahweh” word into
the contemporary events and link it with
what has preceded it. A case in point is
the unfolding of the significance of the
covenant with Abraham as it governs
subsequent events. The events of Genesis
12-50 cannot be properly understood
apart from the initial promises to Abra-
ham and their frequent reiteration. The
narrative of Exodus is in the same way
taken up under this covenant. The whole
course of salvation history in the Old
Testament from Moses onwards is an
expansion of the words in Exod 2:23-25:
During those many days the king of
Egypt died, and the people of Israel
groaned because of their slavery
and cried out for help. Their cry for
rescue from slavery came up to God.
And God heard their groaning,
and God remembered his covenant
with Abraham, with Isaac, and
with Jacob. God saw the people of
Israel—and God knew.
All the subsequent events of the Penta-
teuch are the outworking of the Abra-
hamic covenant. So also is the narrative
of events in the Former Prophets. The
covenant is seen as the formal vehicle for
conveying the reality of God’s redemptive
rule over his people. The joint themes of
kingdom and covenant that are estab-
lished with Abraham reach back to the
beginning of creation and God’s dealing
with mankind. These themes are subse-
quently developed as the foundations of
the matrix of revelation in the Bible.
This process of progressive revelation
continues throughout the Old Testament
in a way that demands our investigation
of the nature of the unity of the canonical
Scriptures. The rich diversity of literary
type or genre in no way undermines the
overall unity that is discernible. It is clear,
however, that the tensions between prom-
ise and fulfillment that so characterize the
Old Testament are never resolved in the
Hebrew Scriptures themselves. These ten-
sions are found in the history of Israel as it
goes from Egyptian captivity to its zenith
under David and Solomon, and in the
subsequent decline leading to captivity
in Babylon. The restoration under Cyrus
fails to deliver the expected kingdom, and
we are forced to look beyond for the ful-
fillment of the kingdom promised by the
prophets. The New Testament takes up
the challenge by asserting that the person
and work of Jesus of Nazareth constitute
the fulfillment and resolution.
The process of theologizing goes on
throughout the Old Testament texts.
This simply means that the individual
texts, the books or corpora, are essen-
tially books about God and his word-
interpreted deeds. It is this recognition
that God is the central character of the
Bible that makes biblical theology viable.
5
 Theological reflection and discourse is
everywhere. God is speaking, command-
ing, promising, judging, and revealing
his plan and purpose. In the passage of
time, various prophetic speakers and
writers reflect on the past, and speak the
word of God for the future. The people
of the Bible respond to God in different
ways ranging from a deep conviction of
faith to rebellious unbelief. Sinfulness
and unbelief require us to make a distinc-
tion between the religion of Israel and
the theology of the Old Testament. This
distinction was obliterated in the history-
of-religions approach that overshadowed
Old Testament theology in the nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries.
When we come to the Latter Prophets,
it is clear that they understand the his-
tory of Israel as history under judgment
because of unbelief. Their three-fold
message of indictment, judgment, and
hope of restoration is as varied as their
historical and social contexts. But one
thing they have in common is the recog-
nition that the Day of the Lord, the great
day of restoration and final salvation, is
shaped by and will recapitulate the his-
torical experience of Israel from Abraham
to David, Zion, and the temple. Thus,
while Israel’s history is history under
judgment, it is also the pattern-making
medium for God’s redemptive word and
actions. For the pre-exilic prophets, the
perspective is largely that the future
restoration from exile will be the moment
of fulfillment. But the restoration proves
to be a disappointment, and it is the role
of the post-exilic prophets to project
the hope of Israel to a future coming of
the Lord, a hope that remains unfulfilled
at the end of the Old Testament period.
This prophetic sense of the continuity
and of the dynamic of salvation history
6
is maintained in the New Testament.
The consequence of all this is that our
doctrine of Scripture, to be robust and
maturing, needs to involve more than an
abstract concept of authority and inspira-
tion. It needs shape, and it is the gospel
of our Lord Jesus Christ that gives it that
shape by providing the center on which
all Scripture converges. In this regard,
hermeneutics intersects with dogmatics,
and both intersect with biblical theology.
We cannot really have any useful concept
of the authority of the Bible unless we
have some notion of what the authorita-
tive word is telling us. Consistent Chris-
tian theism asserts that the person and
work of Jesus of Nazareth provide the
reference points for the development
of hermeneutics, and the derivation of
dogmatics. As the word of God must be
self-authenticating, so it must be self-
interpreting. Authority and interpreta-
tion both come from within Scripture.
This is the only way it can be if we accept
the biblical perspective on the matter.
God’s fullest and final word is the Word
incarnate, Jesus Christ. Consequently,
while the interpretation of each Testa-
ment needs the other, the primary focus
is that the New Testament must interpret
the Old and not vice versa.
We can summarize the biblical per-
spective in this way: God creates all
things by his word and speaks to the
pinnacle of creation, the human pair,
in words that are intended to be under-
stood and obeyed. The twin word-events
of creation and address establish God’s
word as the medium of his action and
communication. The rebellion of Adam
and Eve is a rejection of the word of God
and its self-authenticating authority and
meaning. The fall is a moral revolt that
demands judgment. Any redress must be
both revealing and redeeming. Scripture
is the Spirit-inspired word that accurately
preserves for us the whole process of
God’s redemptive word active in human
history. The doctrine of Scripture as the
written word of God must focus on both
authority and structure. The doctrine of
the authority of the Bible demands the
task of biblical theology, which is to seek
to understand both the structure and the
content of Scripture. But, because, as Paul
states it, “The natural man does not accept
the things of the Spirit of God, for they are
folly to him, and he is not able to under-
stand them because they are spiritually
discerned” (1 Cor 2:14), there is the need
for regeneration and the inner testimony
of the Holy Spirit if one is to grasp both
the authority and meaning of Scripture.
The Role of the Gospel in Biblical
Theology
First, in order to understand the place
of the gospel in biblical theology, tentative
definitions of both gospel and biblical theol-
ogy are called for. One way to define the
gospel is in the terms Paul uses in Rom
1:1-4. Here he states four crucial things
about the gospel.
Romans 1:1 reads, “Paul, a servant
of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle,
set apart for the gospel of God.” The
first point is probably self-evident: it is
God’s gospel. However, the epistle to the
Romans implies that this gospel is God’s
solution to his own problem of how to
justify the ungodly.
In the second verse, it is the gospel
“which he promised beforehand through
his prophets in the holy Scriptures.” It is
the gospel of the Old Testament prophets
and cannot be regarded as replacing or
discarding the Old Testament antecedents
to the coming of Jesus. It means that Jesus
is the fulfillment of prophecy, and this
fact alone makes biblical theology neces-
sary. Then, in verse three, it is the gospel
concerning his Son, who was descended
from David according to the flesh.” It
concerns the Son of God whose lineage
goes back to the theologically significant
figure of David. We may infer from this
that, though there can be no gospel with-
out the Father or the Holy Spirit, its focus
is on the incarnate Son. This Davidic
lineage also points to the structure of
biblical theology in redemptive covenant
and kingdom history.
Finally, in verse four, the Son “was
declared to be the Son of God in power
according to the Spirit of holiness by his
resurrection from the dead.” The defin-
ing moment is the resurrection which, of
course, implies the death of Jesus which,
in turn, implies the life of Jesus. The res-
urrection fulfils the promises concerning
the rule of the son of David. The gospel,
then, is God’s message of the person and
work of Jesus, testified to by the Old Tes-
tament, and coming to its climax in the
exaltation of Jesus.
The definition of biblical theology is
harder to achieve. I can only give it to
you as I understand it. Biblical theology
is the study of how every text in the Bible
relates to every other text in the Bible. It
is the study of the matrix of divine rev-
elation. At the heart of the gospel is the
person of Jesus Christ; he is the word of
God come in the flesh. The nature of the
gospel is such that it demands that it be at
the center of the biblical message. Biblical
theology is, then, the study of how every
text in the Bible relates to Jesus and his
gospel. Thus we start with Christ so that
we may end with Christ. Biblical theology
is Christological, for its subject matter
is the Scriptures as God’s testimony to
7
 Christ. It is therefore, from start to finish,
a study of Christ.
How biblical theology is actually done
will depend a great deal on our dogmatic
presuppositions about the nature of Scrip-
ture. If we do not have confidence in the
Bible as the inspired word of God, we will
treat it as a collection of human docu-
ments. Liberalism killed biblical theology
because it could not allow for the unity of
Scripture as reflecting the one purpose of
its one Author.
I must hasten to add that my saying
that biblical theology is a study of Christ
is not Christomonism. Jesus, as the one
mediator between God and man (1 Tim
2:5), makes the Father known. Union with
Christ makes us sons who are able by the
Spirit to cry “Abba, Father.” (Gal 4:6)
Biblical theology is much more than
simply relating the events of the story in
chronological order, even if accompanied
by theological comment in the process. It
needs to be analytical of the theological
dynamics within the big story. What is
the nature of the progress of revelation?
Is it a gradual dawning of the light, or is
it a series of discreet steps? What is the
relationship between the two Testaments?
In biblical theology there needs to be the
kind of theological reflection that would
help us to see the great recurring themes,
both in their unity and their diversity.
We observe the way in which the proph-
ets deliberately recapitulate the earlier
history of redemption in their eschato-
logical projections. We seek to analyze
the dynamics of prophetic fulfillment
and typology.
Biblical theology is, to quote my own
teacher Donald Robinson, the study of the
Bible in its own terms.3 As I understand
it, biblical theology involves first of all the
close reading or exegesis of the parts in
8
order to understand the theological per-
spectives contained. These must then be
synthesized into an understanding of the
unity of the theology of the whole canon.
The wider synthesis will then affect our
understanding of the significance of the
parts. But, why should we have any con-
fidence that such a task can be realized?
Such confidence can only come from
the gospel itself. The writers of the four
Gospels point the way by their handling
of distinct aspects of the relationship of
the person and ministry of Jesus to the
Old Testament Scriptures. This theolo-
gizing of the evangelists, that is integral
to their historiography, leaves us in no
doubt about the conviction of Jesus and
his apostles as to the unity of the biblical
message with its center in the person of
Jesus.
When we take the New Testament
documents on their own terms, we find
that everywhere the theologizing of the
Old Testament is continuing, but now
done in the light of the fullest revelation
of God given to us in Jesus. But I think
that all too few evangelicals actually
reflect on the relationship of the person
of Christ and his gospel, as they perceive
it, to their convictions about the Bible.
I refer here especially to a sense of the
inner dynamic and unity of Scripture
that makes it possible to speak of the
whole as containing a single story. The
early Christian apologists had to deal
with this unity while opposing two main
enemies. On the one hand, the Gnostics,
such as Marcion, in order to preserve
their docetic view of Christ, wanted to
sever all connection with the Old Testa-
ment. On the other hand, the majority of
Jews wanted to sever all connection with
apostolic Christianity. Both Gnostics and
non-Christian Jews solved the problem of
the theological relationship of Jesus to the
Old Testament by complete separation.
The Christian way of dealing with both
challenges would eventually be formu-
lated in terms of unity and distinction in
the relationship of the two Testaments.
Some scholars have queried the pos-
sibility of doing biblical theology at all.
Others have found a gospel-centred
approach to biblical theology unaccept-
able. This is because the primary pre-
suppositional stance of Christian theism
is disputed. For example, James Barr
comments,
Biblical theology has had its enthu-
siasts, who cannot understand why
anyone would question its valid-
ity as a subject; it has also had its
opponents, some of whom consider
it to be impracticable as an area
of research, or unacceptable as an
academic subject, or useless to the
religious community, or all three
of these.4
The evangelical biblical theologian
works from a hermeneutic of confi-
dent enquiry, while the sceptic usually
reflects an Enlightenment attitude of
suspicion. Between these two poles of a
hermeneutic of faith and a hermeneutic
of radical suspicion, lie a whole variety
of approaches to the doing of theology
either as a formal discipline or as an
intuitive exercise in building some kind
of personal worldview. The problem
in defining biblical theology lies in the
nature of this spectrum. Some reject
even the desirability of attempting any
kind of “theology” which implies such
questionable dimensions as a God who
speaks, and a canon of Scripture that is
uniquely tied to the revelation of God or
privileged by divine inspiration. Biblical
theology is then reduced to the history
of religious ideas. Others embrace the
challenge with enthusiasm but qualify it
with principles and procedures that are
independent of the Scriptural witness.
Still others, and notably Christian theists,
assert a hermeneutical spiral that builds
its presuppositional base upon the bibli-
cal scenario.
This latter approach provides a start-
ing point that is something like the
following: Faith in the Jesus of the bibli-
cally presented gospel drives us to the
acceptance that the biblical record overall
is faithful and true. Jesus is Lord and this
is his word. From this it is a short step
to acceptance of the biblical claims to
present the word of the living God who
addresses us. The prophetic formula,
“Thus says the Lord” is but one aspect of
this truth claim to be God’s word. Thus,
the conviction of faith together with an
inductive approach to individual biblical
texts provide a dogmatic basis for the
deductive return to the same texts and to
the whole range of canonical Scripture.
It may seem logical to think of the
inductive, exegetical task as a purely
objective and foundational exercise upon
the results of which theology is based.
But, few, I think, would argue today
for the notion of such an objective and
presupposition-less exercise. Exegesis is a
theological task that makes most sense if
understood as engaged by rational beings
that are created in the image of a rational
God whose chosen medium of expression
is his rational word. Exegesis pursued on
the basis of the kind of humanistic ratio-
nalism that ignores the basis of our ratio-
nality in a rational God, but rather finds
it in an irrational appeal to time and blind
chance is, to the theistic mindset at least,
absurd and self-defeating. As Gerhard
Hasel states, “Biblical theology employs
the theological-historical method which
takes full account of God’s self-revelation
9
 embodied in Scripture in all it dimen-
sions of reality.”5 He points out that even
von Rad recognised that the historical-
critical method cannot do justice to the
Old Testament scriptures’ claim to truth.6
The bottom line of this is that it does
indeed make sense to pursue an under-
standing of the Bible “in its own terms”
(as Donald Robinson, phrased it). Many
of the objections to this are born of the
hermeneutics of suspicion, while others
are the result of the practical difficulties
in dealing with such a large and diverse
collection of books. Notwithstanding the
early struggles to define the Christian
canon, at the heart of the church’s accep-
tance of the Bible, as uniquely the word
of God, is the self-authenticating word
of Jesus. Jesus himself provides the basis
for our recognition of the canon when,
for example, he declares, “My sheep hear
my voice. I know them, and they follow
me.” (John 10:27). Unlike Rome, which
says that the church rules the canonical
process, we believe that the canonical
process stems from the authority of Jesus
and itself rules the church. Furthermore,
it was Jesus who made the connection
between the Old Testament and himself
in a way that establishes the nature of the
unity of the Bible.
Jesus’ imprimatur on the Hebrew
canon, itself a manifestly diverse collec-
tion of books, is the essential basis for the
Christian theist’s confidence that some
kind of unity within the diversity of the
Bible can be recognised. Once again a
dogmatic presupposition begins to form
which helps in the task of describing the
relationship of the parts to the whole;
of the diversity to the unity, and of the
discontinuity to the continuity within
the Bible. Faith in Jesus as the starting
point for serious, believing, study of the
10
Bible soon involves us in the question of
Christology (what it means for Jesus of
Nazareth to be the Christ) and the ques-
tion of theology (what it means for Jesus
to be the Word come in the flesh, to be
the incarnation of the second Person of
the Trinity). The Christian doctrine of the
Trinity and the Christology of the two
natures of Christ are closely related since
both are integral to the gospel message.
Both involve us in the recognition that
unity and distinction exist together in
God as the relationship of Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit; and in Jesus as true God
and true man yet one person. As some
Christian apologists and theologians have
asserted, the way God is and the way Jesus
is show that both unity and diversity are
equally ultimate, and that it is characteris-
tic of non-Christian thought and of heresy
to express relationships as either unity or
diversity. Unity without distinction leads
to fusion (for example, in the Trinitarian
heresy of modalism); distinction without
unity leads to separation (for example, in
the Trinitarian heresies of tritheism and
Arianism). This is not to deny that there
are valid either-or distinctions: such as
heaven or hell, light or darkness, good
or evil.
In approaching the Bible, then, we may
state a Christian theistic approach as tak-
ing its start from the gospel. In doing so it
becomes involved in a hermeneutic spiral,
which includes dogmatic presupposi-
tions about God and the Bible and which
tests those presuppositions by the text
of the Bible itself. The unity of the Bible
lies not only in the coherence of its nar-
rative structure, but also in the fact that
the whole of it constitutes a testimony to
Christ and the salvation he brings. The
unity of the Bible is thus a corollary of
faith in Jesus Christ rather than some-
thing initially established on empirical
grounds. The authority of the Bible lies
not only in the fact of inspiration, but
also in every text’s inspired relationship
to Christ who is the very truth and Word
of God incarnate.
Thus, the Bible as the word of God and
Jesus as the Word of God do not consti-
tute two different words that somehow
compete. There is a unity between them,
in that our only knowledge of the Word
incarnate is through the word inscriptur-
ate as it conveys its truth and authority
through the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
Yet this unity is not fusion for there are
also important distinctions. Jesus is not a
book that we have here with us. He is not
here; he is risen, and he makes himself
present by his word and Spirit. He is God
who came in the flesh, and he remains the
God-Man in his exaltation. Furthermore,
the Bible is not God, and Christians do
not worship it.
Unity in the Bible, then, is seen in the
claims of Jesus including those in Luke
24:25-27 and 44-45 that the three parts of
the Hebrew canon are about him, or in
his statement to the Jews in John 5:39-47
that the Scriptures testify of him and that
Moses wrote about him. Unity is seen in
the way Jesus is constantly declared to
be the fulfiller of the prophetic promises,
both individually and comprehensively. It
is seen in the way Jesus is portrayed as the
one who in the eschaton brings about the
consummation of all things, so that the
overarching story of the Bible is perceived
as a progression from creation to the new
creation. Many doubt the unity of the
canon or that there is a theological center.
But, on the basis of Jesus’ own testimony
we have to say that the diverse theologi-
cal themes find their center and unity in
Jesus himself. Paul House states it thus:
“[U]nitary biblical theology is possible
because a united Trinity has breathed out
these texts.”7
The necessity for biblical theology lies
in an analytical Christology that goes
well beyond the simplistic assertion, as
important as it is, that Jesus died for our
sins. There are further considerations in
the Christology of the New Testament
that address the question of the unity of
the biblical account. The comprehensive
and cosmic Christ that the New Testa-
ment testifies to is a far more complex
figure than the basic “personal savior” of
popular evangelical piety. The question of
the nature of the problem and the solution
to the problem is crucial. It is sometimes
asked, “If Christ is the answer, what is
the question?” The gospel must show us
both the problem and the answer. But it
does both by its constant self-reference in
terms of its antecedents in the Old Testa-
ment. Thus, it is not only individuals and
the nations that need a savior, for the
whole creation is under judgment and is
being redeemed. Evangelicals frequently
stress the importance of the new birth,
but tend to do so as a purely individual
and subjective experience related to con-
version. The biblical theological perspec-
tive places personal regeneration within
the wider cosmic scope that leads from
creation to new creation.
The cosmic Creator-Christ of John 1
and Colossians 1 points to the need to
understand the inner dynamics of the
gospel and of salvation as they affect the
whole of creation. If, as Paul indicates
in Rom 8:19-23, the significance of God’s
judgment in Genesis 3 includes the “fall”
of the universe on account of the first
Adam’s sin, then the last Adam comes to
restore the universe and effect the new
creation. The summing up of all things
11
 in Christ that Paul speaks of in Eph 1:10
echoes his perspective in Col 1:15-20 of the
cosmic implications of Jesus’ being and
his death. Not only is Jesus the blue-print
of creation, the Creator and upholder of
all things; he restores all things.
This perspective helps us to under-
stand the New Testament pattern of
eschatology. I fully realize that my under-
standing is not that of many evangelicals.
I can only put it as I see it. Adrio König in
his book, The Eclipse of Christ in Eschatol-
ogy, 8 expresses well what I understand
to be the perspective of the New Testa-
ment. Paul’s categories of justification,
sanctification, and glorification indicate
the dynamics of redemption. In mak-
ing atonement for sin, Jesus dealt with
the fall, not only of mankind, but of the
universe. His life, death, and resurrection
constituted the reassembling of reality
representatively in his own person. He is
the locus of the new creation (2 Cor 5:17).
Though it is representative of a wider
reality, it is still the power of God for sal-
vation. The ascension of Jesus means that
a representative Man is justified by his
own merits so as to be acceptable in the
presence of God. We are justified in our
union by faith with the justified Christ
and his merits. We are being sanctified
through the same gospel as we are con-
formed more and more to the image of
Christ. We shall be glorified when Christ
comes again to judge the living and the
dead and we shall be like him (1 John 3:2).
The implication of this perspective for
biblical theology, then, is that all proph-
ecy and promise in the Old Testament
were fulfilled in Christ at his first coming.
The exaltation of Christ is the final dem-
onstration of this as Paul indicates in Acts
13:32-33: “We bring you the good news
that what God promised to the fathers,
12
this he has fulfilled to us their children
by raising Jesus.” So, in 2 Cor 1:20, Paul
asserts, “All the promises of God find
their Yes in him.” Thus, the end of the
ages has come with Jesus of Nazareth as
Paul tells us in 1 Cor 10:11. Hebrews 1:2
tells us that it is “In these last days [that]
God has spoken to us by his Son.” For
John, the coming of Jesus means that this
the last hour (1 John 2:18). For Peter, Jesus
“was made manifest in the last times” (1
Pet 1:20).
But the promises go on being ful-
filled. What was representatively done in
Christ, now becomes experiential reality
in the world through the preaching of
the gospel as it is sovereignly applied by
the Spirit of God. The whole of the end
has come for us in Christ. The whole of
the end is coming in the world and in us
through the gospel. The whole of the end
will come with us as the great consumma-
tive event when Jesus returns in glory to
judge the living and the dead.
Let me summarize this point: The
gospel message concerns the historical
event of the incarnation of God the Son
as Jesus of Nazareth. It tells of his birth,
life, death, resurrection, and ascension
as the activity of God by which we are
saved and creation is restored in him. The
person of Christ as the incarnate God, the
God-Man, is at the heart of the dynam-
ics of salvation in which the one acts for
the many. It is the means by which God
reconnects all aspects of reality in the
person of Christ and, at the same time,
deals with the moral problem of discon-
nectedness, that is, of sin. Just as the cre-
ation fell with the sin of the first Adam,
so with the last Adam, and through his
cross, the creation is renewed or regener-
ated. The unity-distinction in Christ is
the pattern of truth that informs us of all
relationships, not least of those within the
biblical corpora.
The work of Christ in his ministry
includes his being the fulfiller of the Old
Testament promises. It is on the grounds
of his word, and that of the apostles that
come after him, that we accept the basic
tenet that the Old Testament is a book
about Christ. The events of the Old Testa-
ment and the prophetic words that inter-
pret these events are thus testimonies to
the coming Christ. The hermeneutics of
the person of Christ intersect with the
hermeneutics of the work of Christ.9 They
establish the canon as diversity within
unity and as a book about Christ.
Challenges to Biblical Theology
I will not here rehearse at length the
details of the history of biblical studies.
Suffice it to say that certain key events
have affected the fortunes of biblical the-
ology. There was, as I have expressed it
in my recently published book on herme-
neutics, a continual eclipsing of the gospel
in biblical interpretation. Beginning with
the sub-apostolic age, there was the grow-
ing dominance of dogma over exegesis
and hermeneutics. Church dogma, or
the rule of faith, began to determine the
outcome of exegesis and hermeneutics.
Gnostic and Platonic influences in the
allegorical interpretations of Scripture
predominated from the second to the
sixteenth centuries. Then, influenced
by Aristotelian empiricism, Aquinas
established the basis of Roman Catholic
theology, which has remained largely
unchanged to the present, as essentially
liberal because of his dualism of nature
and grace. The Enlightenment subjected
biblical studies to the latest philosophical
fashions eclipsing any place for a God
who speaks a word in a way that can be
understood. The Enlightenment gave us
the modernism of the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries, and this in turn gave
way to post-modernism.
There are two main kinds of challenge
to biblical theology that I can see. The first
is the disappointing rejection or neglect of
it by many evangelicals. This may happen
in response to poorly worked expressions
of biblical theology, or because of an
inconsistent evangelicalism that obscures
the imperative to engage in biblical theol-
ogy. I will defer further discussion of this
until my third lecture. The other is the
academically driven refusal to regard the
Bible in the traditional way as being the
inspired word of God. Ironically, many
of the fine exponents of biblical theology
have had such an Enlightenment view
of the Bible, but they nevertheless perse-
vered in trying to uncover the inner unity
of the Bible. One such was Gabriel Hebert,
an English Anglo-Catholic monk who
taught at a seminary in South Australia
and made a number of much appreciated
visits to Moore College. His work was one
of the influences on my teacher Donald
Robinson and, thus, on me. Yet, in 1957 he
published Fundamentalism and the Church
of God 10 in which he was highly critical
of evangelicalism in general and, in par-
ticular, of the New Bible Commentary pub-
lished by the InterVarsity Fellowship in
1953. This criticism provoked Jim Packer’s
classic evangelical response in Funda-
mentalism and the Word of God.11 Donald
Robinson, who motivated me to pursue
biblical theology, refers to a number of
scholars who influenced his thinking; but
they were not all evangelicals. He men-
tions C. H. Dodd and Oscar Cullmann,
along with Hebert.
It is clear that we can be somewhat
eclectic in our approach to scholarship.
13
 What separates me from non-evangelicals
like Hebert is not the quest for the inner
coherence of the biblical story, but the
theological presuppositions that gov-
ern this quest. This is illustrated in the
American experience of the twentieth
century. Brevard Childs, in his famous
1970 monograph Biblical Theology in
Crisis,12 attempted to understand what
was perceived to be the demise of the
so-called American school of biblical
theology represented by men like G. E.
Wright and my own mentor John Bright.
He saw it as an attempt to build a bridge
between fundamentalism and liberal-
ism. He rightly recognized that there
was a crisis in the understanding of the
doctrine of Scripture. He went on from
there in the 1970s to develop his canonical
approach. In doing so, he did not, in my
opinion, sufficiently come to terms with
the doctrine of Scripture that he himself
identified as the chief cause of the biblical
theological movement’s demise.
Childs was influenced by the his-
torical-criticism of the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries. Yet, we can only be
grateful that he provided a considerable
impetus in the move back to the biblical
documents as we have them as the locus
of theological concern. But, the lack of
consensus about theory and practice
continues to hinder progress. As far back
as 1979, the Adventist theologian Gerhard
Hasel, in a paper to the Evangelical Theo-
logical Society, wrote,
Biblical theology is today in a state
of disarray. The disturbing fact that
“there is no one definition of this
field on which biblical scholars can
unanimously agree” is highlighted
by the diversity of approaches in
the unprecedented volume of recent
publications.13
14
He goes on to refer to eleven different
theologies of the New Testament and at
least twelve theologies of the Old Testa-
ment published in the previous decade.
These, he said, reveal “basic disparities
regarding the nature, function, method,
and scope of biblical theology.” The
Roman Catholic theologian John L. McK-
enzie opens the introduction to his Old
Testament Theology with this comment:
“Biblical theology is the only discipline
or subdiscipline in the field of theology
that lacks generally accepted principles,
methods, and structure.”14
Charles Scobie, in referring to the
legacy of Gabler, indicates that his desig-
nation of biblical theology as a purely his-
torical pursuit allows it to be undertaken
as a secular exercise. Gabler’s famous
distinction between biblical and system-
atic theology encouraged the idea that
he had thus established the discipline of
biblical theology and that it did not exist
before him. Because his approach sat so
comfortably with the Enlightenment, it
led to the division of the discipline into
Old Testament theology and New Testa-
ment theology, to the eventual decline of
biblical theology, and then to its demise.15
But there has always been a conserva-
tive minority seeking to preserve the
traditional views of the Bible recovered
for us by Calvin and Luther. The heirs of
the Reformation have remained, usually
a minority, sometimes persecuted in the
academy, but tenaciously holding on to
the authority of the Bible. The uneasy
sense of the unity of the biblical message
held throughout the Middle Ages was
largely stripped of its allegorism and
scholasticism by Luther and Calvin. This
allowed a truly evangelical biblical theol-
ogy to be reborn. At times it looked like
the runt of the litter but, in the providence
of God, it has latterly grown and matured,
not least in Australia and Britain as well
as in North America.
Childs’s 1970 monograph outlines the
following problematic issues that chal-
lenged biblical theology and led to its
alleged demise: 16
(1) The relationship of history to
revelation.
(2) The problem of the unity of the
Bible.
(3) Claims to the distinctiveness of
biblical thought.
(4) The distinctiveness of biblical
religion.
(5) The question of a theological cen-
tre, and the relationship of biblical
studies to theology.
I believe that, while these are issues that
we must all be concerned with, the prob-
lematic nature of them is largely driven
by the alien philosophical presupposi-
tions of liberal scholarship. That is why
evangelicals, once they are introduced to
the discipline, have usually been much
more positive and optimistic about the
pursuit of biblical theology.
Childs also points to the issues that
Gerhard Ebeling referred to in his book
Word and Faith published in English in
1963.17 This was an attempt to redefine
biblical theology and repair one of
Gabler’s detrimental effects by rejoining
the historical and the theological ele-
ments. But Ebeling saw the theological
unity of both Old and New Testaments as
fragile. He also suggested that the histori-
cal discipline cannot be confined to the
study of a dogmatic entity that we call the
canon. In this we must part company with
Ebeling. James Barr, who seems rather
ambivalent about biblical theology, enu-
merates a number of points that various
scholars have raised in opposition to the
discipline thus:18
(1) It is a purely historical study.
(2) It cannot achieve anything.
(3) Theology is not admissible in the
academy.
(4) It is dependent on invalid lin-
guistic features.
(5) It clashes with sociological and
literary studies.
(6) There is no such thing as a theol-
ogy of the Old Testament.
All of these challenges, I suggest, can
be counter-challenged from the stand-
point of Christian theism and evangeli-
cal theology. Others have sought to cast
doubt on the discipline in similar ways.
John Collins19 and another Roman Catho-
lic theologian, Roland Murphy,20 have
raised the problem of a critical biblical
theology. It seems to me that they exhibit
the Roman Catholic ambivalence to his-
torical critical studies that is generated by
Thomism. Collins concludes that
Historical criticism, consistently
understood, is not compatible with
a confessional theology that is
committed to specific doctrines
on the basis of faith. It is, however,
quite compatible with theology,
understood as an open-ended and
critical inquiry into the meaning
and function of God-language. Bib-
lical theology on this model is not
a self-sufficient discipline, but is a
subdiscipline that has a contribu-
tion to make to the broader subject
of theology.21
More recently, David Penchansky has
argued from a postmodern perspective
that biblical theology is a political exer-
cise.22 With the touching assumption that
we should understand his own authorial
intent, he asserts that both the protago-
nists and the detractors of biblical theol-
ogy have imposed their own meaning on
the biblical text. He can only know this if
he has understood their meaning and has
not imposed his meaning on their texts or
on the biblical text.
15
 We do not have time to pursue these
objections to biblical theology. It will
have to be enough to suggest a common
element in them. In saying that they all
stem from a presuppositional base that is
itself unbiblical is not to say that these are
issues that need not be faced by the evan-
gelical biblical theologian. I personally
find reading critics like James Barr stimu-
lating and often salutary. They remind me
of things that I may be taking for granted
and which remain unexamined. But, in
the end, it is a question of what Robert
Reymond refers to, after Archimedes, as
our pou stō—the place “where I stand”—
my ultimate reference point.23
The presuppositional position of Chris-
tian theism is set out by Calvin in the
opening chapters of his Institutes.24 More
recently, Carl Henry has given a more
contemporary statement in his Toward
the Recovery of Christian Belief.25 Of the
same ilk are the presuppositional apolo-
gists and theologians such as Cornelius
Van Til, Robert Reymond, John Frame,
and Richard Pratt. The genius of Calvin,
in my view, is revealed in his opening
chapters in which he tackles the question
of true subjectivity and objectivity. He
anticipates the Trinitarian structure of the
entire Institutes in these first few chapters.
Knowledge of God and knowledge of self
are interdependent. His understanding
of the nature of subjectivity in relation
to objectivity could well be contem-
plated by many evangelicals who have
a propensity to the internalizing of the
objectivity of the gospel. Calvin outlines
his understanding in successive chapters.
The knowledge of God, the sensus deitatis
(sense of deity), is imprinted on every-
man. But sin corrupts and suppresses this
natural theology so that it cannot operate
authentically. Hence, there is the need for
16
special revelation of Scripture. This wit-
ness is confirmed by the inner testimony
of the Holy Spirit. Word and Spirit are
inseparable, and the word, to bring life
must be both revelatory and redemptive.
Calvin was convinced that proofs of the
credibility of Scripture will only appeal
to those who have the inner witness of
the Spirit.
Summary Conclusion:
The Necessity of Biblical Theology
It is time now to draw together some of
the threads of this discussion. This can-
not be exhaustive given our constraints
of time and space. I have suggested a
number of reasons for my conviction that
the pursuit of biblical theology is not an
optional extra but a necessity. In sum-
mary, the necessity of biblical theology
stems from the gospel. Biblical theology
is most likely to flourish when we are con-
cerned to understand all the dimensions
of the gospel as they have been revealed.
The gospel as theological center to the
Bible implies the following:
(1) The dynamic of redemptive-history
from creation to new creation, with Jesus
Christ at the center, points to a distinctly
Christian view and philosophy of his-
tory. The course of world history, accord-
ing to the Bible, serves the kingly rule
of the Lord God as he moves all things
inexorably to the conclusion that he has
determined from before the foundation
of the world.
(2) The reality principle in the incarna-
tion demands that every dimension of
reality that the Bible expresses be exam-
ined. The reality principle in Jesus is that
he is shown to be God incarnate, the new
creation, the last Adam, the new temple,
the new Israel, the new David, and the
true seed of Abraham. We could extend
the list, but I think the point is made. The
essential thing is that he is the Immanuel,
God among us in perfect relationship to
humanity and to all the dimensions of
reality that the Old Testament presents as
the typological antecedents to his coming.
(3) The conviction of faith from the
apostles onwards is that in Scripture there
is not a confusion of conflicting testimo-
nies but a variegated testimony to the
one saving work of God in Jesus Christ.
The sense of a redemptive plan coming
to fruition in Christ can be seen from the
beginning of the apostolic church. Both
Peter, in Acts 2:16-36, and Paul, in Acts
13:16-41, proclaim a pattern of events in
Israel leading to David and then to fulfil-
ment in Christ. Stephen’s apology in Acts
7:2-53 could also be called a mini-biblical
theology. In all the New Testament epis-
tles, there is a sense of a narrative that lies
behind and is implied by the theologizing
and pastoral comment.
(4) The discipline of biblical theol-
ogy is required by the “big picture” of
the canon of Scripture as God’s word to
mankind. It is the one word given to us
so that men and women may be saved
and, standing firm in the assurance of
their free justification in Christ, may press
on with confidence towards the goal of
their high calling in Christ, emboldened
by the blessed hope of Christ’s return in
glory to judge the living and the dead,
and encouraged by the vision of the new
heaven and new earth in which righ-
teousness dwells for eternity.
ENDNOTES
  1This article was originally presented as
part of the Gheens Lectures, delivered
March 18-20, 2008, at The Southern Bap-
tist Theological Seminary.
 2
Craig Bartholomew, “Biblical Theology,”
in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation
of the Bible (ed. K. Vanhoozer; Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2005), 84.
 3
D. W. B. Robinson, “Origins and Unre-
solved Tensions,” in Interpreting God’s
Plan: Biblical Theology and the Pastor (ed.
R. J. Gibson; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997), 7.
 4
James Barr, The Concept of Biblical
Theology: An Old Testament Perspective
(London: SCM, 1999), xiii.
 5
Gerhard Hasel, “The Future of Biblical
Theology,” in Perspectives on Evangelical
Theology (ed. K. Kantzer and S. Gundry;
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 184.
 6
Ibid., 185.
 7
Paul House, “Biblical Theology and the
Wholeness of Scripture,” in Biblical The-
ology: Retrospect and Prospect (ed. Scott
Hafemann; Downers Grove: InterVar-
sity, 2002), 270.
 8
Adrio König, The Eclipse of Christ in
Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1989).
 9
See my Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006),
chapter 19.
10
A. G. Hebert, Fundamentalism and the
Church of God (London: SCM, 1957)
11
J. I. Packer, Fundamentalism and the Word
of God (London: InterVarsity, 1958)
12
Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology in
Crisis (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970).
13
Hasel, “The Future of Biblical Theology,”
179.
14
J. L. McKenzie, A Theology of the Old
Testament (London: Chapman, 1974), 15.
15
C. H. H. Scobie, The Ways of Our God:
An Approach to Biblical Theology (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 6.
16
Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis, chapter
4.
17
Gerhard Ebeling, Word and Faith (Lon-
don: SCM, 1963).
18
Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology,
17
 chapter 14.
19
John J. Collins, “Is a Critical Biblical
Theology Possible?” in The Hebrew
Bible and Its Interpreters (ed. W. H.
Propp, B. Halpern, D. N. Freed-
man; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
1990), 1-17.
20
Roland E. Murphy, “Reflections
on a Critical Biblical Theology,” in
Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays
in Honor of Rolf Knierim (ed. Henry
T. C. Sun, Keith L Eades, with James
M. Robinson and Garth I Moller;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997),
265-74.
21
Collins, “Is a Critical Biblical Theol-
ogy Possible?”, 14.
22
David Penchansky, The Politics of
Biblical Theology (Studies in Amer-
ican Biblical Hermeneutics 10;
Macon: Mercer University, 1995).
23
Robert L. Reymond, The Justification
of Knowledge (Phillipsburg: Presby-
terian and Reformed, 1979), 79-85.
24
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian
Religion (ed. Joh n T. McNiell;
trans. Ford Lewis Battles; 2 vols.;
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960),
1:1-7.
2S
Carl F. H. Henry, Toward a Recovery
of C hr i st i an B eli e f (Wheaton:
Crossway, 1990).

18
New FROM Baker Academic
THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
A BOOK-BY-BOOK SURVEY
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, editor
9780801036248 • 336 pp. • $19.99p

THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
A BOOK-BY-BOOK SURVEY
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, editor
9780801036231 • 272 pp. • $19.99p

The groundbreaking Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (DTIB)

introduced readers to key names, theories, and concepts in the field of biblical
interpretation. This award-winning work has been well received by scholars, stu-
dents and pastors. These books feature key articles from DTIB, providing readers
with a book-by-book theological reading of either the Old or the New Testament.
The articles are authored by leading scholars and make unique contributions to
the study of theological interpretation of Scripture. These handy and affordable
texts will work particularly well for students in Bible survey courses.

CHRISTIANITY ENCOUNTERING WORLD RELIGIONS

THE PRACTICE OF MISSION IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
Terry Muck and Frances S. Adeney
9780801026607 • 448 pp. • $26.99p
Given the unique religious climate of the twenty-first century and the challenges to Christian mission it
poses, Christianity Encountering World Religions proposes a new, albeit very biblical, model for mission.
Specifically, it is a model for interacting with people of other faiths. The authors term this model giftive
mission, as it is based on the metaphor of free gift. They suggest that seeing mission activity through
the lens of giving the greatest gift possible—the gospel message—not only has the potential for greater
missionary success but also enables us to more closely imitate God’s gracious activity in the world.

A CASE FOR HISTORIC

PREMILLENNIALISM
AN ALTERNATIVE TO “LEFT BEHIND” ESCHATOLOGY
Craig L. Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung,
editors
97808010235968 • 208 pp. • $24.99
“It’s about time we had a scholarly presentation and defense of historic premillennialism, which is prob-
ably the majority view of the ‘end times’ among theologically trained evangelicals. These authors are
eminently qualified to give us that, and here they have done it. All evangelicals and others interested in
alternatives to the popular folk religious beliefs about the ‘end times’ must read this book. If read care-
fully by many, it will turn the growing tide of ‘pretrib rapturism’ and restore the eschatology of the Bible
and the church fathers.”—Roger E. Olson, Baylor University

u
A v a i l a b l e a t y o u r l o c a l b o o k s t o r e , w w w. b a k e r a c a d e m i c . c o m , o r b y c a l l i n g 1 - 8 0 0 - 8 7 7 - 2 6 6 5
S u b s c r i b e t o B a k e r A c a d e m i c ’s e l e c t r o n i c n e w s l e t t e r ( E - N o t e s ) a t w w w. b a k e r a c a d e m i c . c o m

19
 Lecture 2: Biblical Theology in the
Seminary and Bible College1
Graeme Goldsworthy is a minister
of the Anglican Church of Australia and
has served in churches in Sydney and
Brisbane. He is a graduate of the Uni-
versities of Sydney, London, and Cam-
bridge, and earned his Ph.D. at Union
Theological Seminary in Richmond,
Virginia. He lectured at Moore Theologi-
cal College, Sydney, in Old Testament,
Biblical Theology, and Hermeneutics.
Now retired, Dr. Goldsworthy continues
as a visiting lecturer at Moore College
to teach a fourth-year B.D. course in
Evangelical Hermeneutics. He is the au-
thor of many books, including Preaching
the Whole Bible As Christian Scripture
(Eerdmans, 2000), According to Plan:
The Unfolding Revelation of God in the
Bible (InterVarsity, 2002), and Gospel-
Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations
and Principles of Evangelical Biblical
Interpretation (InterVarsity, 2007).
20
The Awakening and Its
Implications: A Personal
Confession and Testimony
At the risk of appearing to be self-
serving, I want to give you some idea of
what makes me tick as a biblical theolo-
gian. I think this is necessary if you are
to appreciate my position and to assess
its relevance to yourselves. I am a child
of my country and its culture, and of the
spiritual heritage of Calvinistic evan-
gelical Anglicanism through which I was
converted at the age of sixteen.
In the year 1770, the year Beethoven
was born and the year of the Boston
massacre, Lieutenant James Cook, Royal
Navy, sailed a 106-foot-long converted
Yorkshire collier, His Majesty’s Barque
Endeavour, up the entire length of the east
coast of Australia, mapping some 2,000
miles of it as he went. Six years later, an
ongoing dispute between King George III
and the British colonies in North America
had come to a head. This resulted in the
unavailability of those regions as a dump-
ing ground for the malcontents and petty
criminals of Britain and Ireland. Conse-
quently, attention turned to the newly
charted east coast of Australia as an alter-
nate venue to which the riff-raff could be
sent. On January 26, 1788, after a voyage
of eight months, Captain Arthur Phillip,
in command of a fleet of eleven ships,
moored in Sydney Cove and established
the first European settlement in Australia
as a British penal colony. Among those
who landed was the Reverend Richard
Graeme Goldsworthy
Johnson, an evangelical Anglican minis-
ter. The inclusion of a chaplain to the first
fleet had been planned for some time, but
the decision to appoint Johnson to this
post appears to have been influenced by
some prominent evangelicals including
William Wilberforce and John Newton.
On a street corner in Sydney’s Central
Business District there now stands a stone
commemorative monument marking
the venue of the first Christian service
in Australia, held on February 3, 1788,
and recording that Johnson preached on
Psalm 116:12: “What shall I render unto
the Lord for all his benefits toward me?”
The content of the sermon is now lost but
there is some conjecture that, as an evan-
gelical, Johnson would have included
verse 13 in his exposition: “I will take the
cup of salvation, and call upon the name
of the Lord.” It cannot be claimed that the
present evangelical nature of the Angli-
can Diocese of Sydney is due to Johnson.
But, certainly the evangelical make-up of
the diocese goes back to these beginnings
that were built on by a succession of key
evangelical leaders.
I began my theological studies at
Moore College in Sydney in 1956. The
college was founded a hundred years
earlier in 1856 by the evangelical bishop
of Sydney, Frederick Barker. He had
been influenced by the great Charles
Simeon in Cambridge, and he remained
a staunch evangelical throughout his
life. The nineteenth century was a time
of rampant secularism during which
the older universities in Australia were
established without theological faculties.
Consequently, the training of clergy had
to be done elsewhere. Up till this time the
Church of England in Australia had relied
on English and Irish clergy coming to the
colonies. This dependence on imported
church leaders lasted, many would think,
much longer than it should have. Marcus
Loane, the Principal of Moore College
when I entered in 1956, was in 1966 to
become the first Australian Archbishop
of Sydney. As one of the oldest tertiary
institutions in Australia, Moore College
was set up to train clergy for the Angli-
can Church. One hundred and fifty years
later, it remains an Anglican institution
with its main purpose to train clergy
for the Anglican Diocese of Sydney. But
it has become quite international and
interdenominational with a small but
steady stream of Presbyterian, Baptist,
and other students, and students from
Britain, Europe, and the USA, as well as
from South America, south and south-
east Asia.
When I entered Moore, I had never
heard of biblical theology and would
probably have understood the term to
mean simply theology that accorded with
the Bible and was thus orthodox and not
unbiblical. There was no distinct course
of Biblical Theology taught at that time.
We were, however, urged to read John
Bright’s The Kingdom of God, and Geerhar-
dus Vos’s Biblical Theology: Old and New
Testaments. Edmund Clowney’s Preaching
and Biblical Theology, published in 1961,
was also to have a considerable influence
at Moore. Moves toward instruction in
biblical theology as a distinct discipline
had begun at Moore in the early 1950s
when Donald Robinson taught a course
in the story of the Bible with emphasis
on the people of God. As far as I know,
Moore College was for some time the only
theological or Bible college in Australia to
teach a course in biblical theology.
In 1996 the annual School of Theology
at Moore, a series of public lectures, was
devoted to the subject of biblical theol-
ogy. The first paper was given by Donald
Robinson who for many years was vice-
principal of the college before taking up
the post of Bishop of Parramatta and sub-
sequently Archbishop of Sydney. As he
had been largely responsible for introduc-
ing biblical theology to the curriculum,
Robinson was asked to tell something
of how it came to be established as a
subject at Moore. The printed versions
of these School of Theology lectures by
Bishop Robinson and other members
of the Moore faculty were published in
a little volume, Interpreting God’s Plan.2
Robinson first considers the possibility
that the nature of his account “reflects
the relative isolation of Australia from
wider theological discourse in the period
under review.”3 Robinson describes how
the Anglo-Catholic monk, Gabriel Hebert,
in 1957 gave lectures to the Brisbane
Anglican Clergy School on the subject
of “Christ the Fulfiller.” He comments,
“In these he propounded an outline of
the contents of the Bible in three stages
somewhat similar to that which I was
developing in the Moore College course.”4
In commenting on Hebert’s published
criticism of the New Bible Commentary, to
which Robinson himself had contributed,
he noted that
Hebert thought the New Bible Com-
mentary was weak and timid in
exegesis, that it lacked a full world
view, an integrated biblical theol-
ogy, and an adequate view of the
church. My point in rehearsing all
this is that our biblical theology
course was being fashioned in the
21
 midst of an on-going debate with Dr
Hebert himself—of a most charita-
ble and constructive kind, I should
say—on these very questions.5
Robinson explains that in the devel-
opment of the course, “The aim was to
assist [the students] in their approach to
theological study in general, and to the
study of the Bible in particular.”6 He fur-
ther comments that, “A distinction was
drawn between the study of the Christian
religion in its various aspects (including
credal doctrines, church history, Prayer
Book) and the study of the Bible in its own
terms to discover what it is all about.”7
This phrase, “the study of the Bible in
its own terms” (italics mine), is the key to
Robinson’s approach to biblical theology.
Robinson developed the course into a
treatment of seven main issues:8
(1) The character of the Bible: its
scope and structure.
(2) The people of God; including a
study of the biblical covenants.
(3) The significance of Abraham and
his seed. This dealt with the bibli-
cal story of the outworking of the
promises to Abraham as it reached
its climax with David and Solomon.
(4) A treatment of the two great
themes of exodus/redemption, and
land/inheritance.
(5) The prophetic view of promise
and fulfilment.
(6) The New Testament claim that all
this is fulfilled in Christ.
(7) Principles of biblical interpreta-
tion.
Here Robinson comments signifi-
cantly:
Based on the foregoing understand-
ing of what the Bible is “about”,
we enunciated a biblical “typol-
ogy” using the three stages in the
outworking of God’s promise to
Abraham, that is, (a) the historical
experience of the fulfilment of God’s
promise to Abraham through the
exodus to the kingdom of David’s
son in the land of inheritance, (b)
22
the projection of this fulfilment into
the future of the day of the Lord, by
the prophets, during the period of
decline, fall, exile and return, and (c)
the true fulfilment in Christ and the
Spirit in Jesus’ incarnation, death,
resurrection, exaltation and in his
parousia as judge and saviour in a
new heaven and new earth.9
I remember well the occasion in late
1957, my second year as a student at
Moore, when I first heard this scheme
expounded. It was in the context of an Old
Testament lecture and Donald Robinson
was the lecturer. A student, with more
that a trace of pain in his voice, asked the
pointed question as to how all this mate-
rial we had been seeking to absorb over
the course really fitted together. Robinson
expounded briefly the three-fold schema
to which I have just alluded. If anything
ever did, this blew my mind. I went away
and drew a diagram of it, and began to
think about the principles involved and
to fill in for myself the details. I have been
doing that ever since. Robinson’s sum-
mary of biblical theology as “a biblical
typology using the three stages in the
outworking of God’s promise to Abra-
ham” is, in my opinion, the key to the
matter. It is to Donald Robinson that I owe
my initial insights into the structure and
content of revelation that constitute the
subject of biblical theology.
How things have changed! English
and Irish evangelicals established the
evangelical nature of Sydney diocese and
Moore College. British and continental
theologians, along with some notable
Americans in the Reformed tradition,
were the key twentieth century influ-
ences in biblical theology being estab-
lished in Australia. But, in a review of the
published 1996 Moore College lectures,
Interpreting God’s Plan, Chris Green, an
Englishman and vice-principal of Oak
Hill College in London wrote this rather
whimsical yet flattering assessment:
Like the duck-billed platypus, con-
temporary biblical theology is an
Australian animal the existence of
which many have doubted and even
mocked. Is it a hybrid? A joke? An
aberration? An impossibility?
The analogy is cute even if not entirely
accurate. There is no doubt that Moore
College’s love affair with biblical theol-
ogy has rubbed off onto some modern
evangelicals in England and also further
afield. It is also being planted by Moore
College graduates doing missionary
work in Africa, South America, Asia, and
Europe. It is being further developed as
courses by the Moore College Department
of External Studies which has some 5,000
students in over fifty countries. But, let us
not forget the European and American
influences that were behind things being
started at Moore in the first place. It is true
that, for a long time Australian theology,
like the Australian fauna, seems to have
reflected our comparative isolation from
the rest of the world. I would suggest
that the acceptance of biblical theology
once it was at all understood, at least in
part reflects the situation that Australian
Christians felt in a society that was from
its outset highly secular and lacking the
kind of Christian foundations that shaped
early American society. We needed the
Bible to be intelligible in order to combat
secularism from a fairly fragile base.
In 1973 I was invited to be a visiting
lecturer at Moore College and to teach the
course of Biblical Theology to first-year
students. I set about to teach for one hour
per week the three-fold schema proposed
by Donald Robinson and that I had been
working over in my mind for the previous
fifteen years. I had come to the conclusion
over time that this schema laid bare the
structure of biblical revelation far better
than any of the other proposals that I was
aware of.
Inevitably the students asked about
books on the subject and I found it dif-
ficult to suggest any beyond John Bright’s
The Kingdom of God and Clowney’s Preach-
ing and Biblical Theology. But, my views
differed from these books in some sig-
nificant ways. Soon the students began
to badger me to write something myself;
a suggestion I rejected as foolish. In time,
however, the students prevailed. With the
promise of editorial help from a former
student who was going into Christian
publishing, I began the task as soon as I
had moved with my family to Brisbane in
1975. Gospel and Kingdom10 was completed
in early 1976 and was rejected as unsuit-
able for publication by an Australian
and a British publisher in turn. It was
eventually taken up by Paternoster Press
in England.
Gospel and Kingdom finally saw the
light of day in 1981 and is still in print,
a fact that reflects the need for such a
work rather than any literary value. Two
other biblical studies, one on the Book
of Revelation and one on the Wisdom
literature followed, both published by
Paternoster. My next attempt at biblical
theology, According to Plan,11 published
in 1991, was geared at being a little more
comprehensive in treating the whole Bible
than Gospel and Kingdom had been. It was
worked out on the ground in the context
of a local church in Brisbane and tried out
chapter by chapter on several successive
groups of ordinary church members.
When I returned full-time to Moore
College in 1995 I was again given the
task of teaching the first-year course in
Biblical Theology. By this time Moore
23
 had expanded its curriculum well beyond
the basic ordination course taught when
I was a student. Now independent of the
Anglican regulatory body, i.e., the Aus-
tralian College of Theology, Moore gains
its accreditation from the Department
of Education of the State of New South
Wales. There are three different one-year
diploma courses for lay people who want
to get a basic knowledge of the Bible and
theology. The three-year Bachelor of
Theology is the basic course for ministe-
rial candidates. The four-year Bachelor of
Divinity is the requirement for Anglican
ordinands in the Diocese of Sydney. There
is a part-time M.A. in theology, a full-time
research M.Th. degree, and the Ph.D. can
be done in conjunction with either the
University of Sydney or the University of
Western Sydney. The point I want to make
is that in all the undergraduate theology
courses (the three one-year diplomas,
the B.Th., and the B.D.) biblical theology
is a compulsory subject over and above
the normal courses in Old and New
Testaments. A student transferring from
another college and seeking credits will
only be granted them on successful com-
pletion of the course in biblical theology.
Why is biblical theology, as a distinct
and compulsory course, so important to
the ethos of an evangelical college like
Moore? Again I must burden you with
a little of our local history. If it does not
cause you to question the place of biblical
theology in the American scene, perhaps
you will at least understand something
of what has been driving it in our corner
of Australia.
I believe it was just after the conclu-
sion of World War II that Moore College
expanded its two-year ordination course
with a preliminary year to concentrate on
study of the Bible, and to break the back
24
of New Testament Greek. It was into this
preliminary year that biblical theology
was later introduced. It is, I think, fair to
say that one important failure that this
subject helped to address was the lack
of any explicit integration in the core
subjects of the ordination course. There
was also the need to improve biblical
literacy. In the biblical studies curricula
of the externally regulated ordination
course there was nothing to require
any interaction between the subjects.
Of special concern was the fact that the
current academic ethos encouraged the
complete separation of the two parts of
biblical studies: Old Testament and New
Testament. For better or for worse, this
formal separation has remained in the
Moore College curricula. But, I have great
confidence that the main reason for this
is practical and not ideological.
Christian ministry is concerned to
bring salvation, in the broadest biblical
sense of that word, to people by evan-
gelism and nurture. It requires the com-
prehensive application of the gospel. The
gospel gets people converted and is, thus,
necessary in evangelism to build up the
church and because people need saving.
But, contrary to some popular misconcep-
tions, we do not move on from the gospel
in Christian living, but with the gospel.
The gospel is the power of God for all of
salvation, and this means that it is also the
matrix for sanctification. And it will be
the gospel that brings us to the consum-
mation in final glorification.
This raises all kinds of questions, not
least about preaching and teaching the
Bible in churches. I will return to that in
my next lecture. But, if we understand the
seminary to be the place where people are
prepared for such gospel-oriented min-
istries, the question is raised about how
the gospel is taught. We need to ask how
the Old Testament relates to such gospel
ministry. At the very least, we have to
say that the study of the Old Testament
is the study of the gospel in type. God’s
dealings with Israel testify to and fore-
shadow the gospel. The New Testament,
then, is the exposition of the gospel as
Jesus fulfils the expectations of the Old
Testament. Christian doctrine expounds
in contemporary terms the implications
of the gospel for our understanding of
God, humanity, and the created world.
Church History is the study of how suc-
cessive generations of Christians have
understood and responded to the gospel
in the world.
In an evangelical seminary, the almost
complete separation of biblical studies
from systematic theology, that Francis
Watson laments in his book Text and
Truth,12 is unlikely to happen. In other
words, teachers of systematic theology
will endeavor to teach what they believe
to be biblical and, therefore, true doctrine.
But how will the students perceive the
relationship of systematic theology to the
Bible? What is the goal of biblical studies?
The legacy of Gabler and the Enlighten-
ment was to bring about the separation
of Old Testament and New Testament
even by biblical theologians. The writ-
ing of biblical theologies of the whole
Bible was overshadowed in the twentieth
century by the plethora of either Old
Testament or New Testament theologies.
Even evangelical biblical scholars largely
avoided the task of an integrated biblical
theology. No doubt the necessary divi-
sion of labor and the sheer size of the task
would be cited in defence of this situa-
tion. The writing of biblical theologies of
the whole Bible has always been seen as
problematic. One reason for this is that
the theological relationship of the two
Testaments remains perhaps the great-
est of the ongoing problems for biblical
studies. Even when we assert that there
is no ideological reason for separating the
two Testaments, the need for division of
labor still exists. This difficulty is surely
reflected in the seminary and Bible col-
lege curricula.
I think that there are at least two ques-
tions that must be constantly before the
seminary and Bible college. The first is
“What shall we do with the Bible?” and
the second is the question Jesus asked,
“What do you think of the Christ: whose
Son is he?” These two questions are inter-
related in that the answer to each depends
on the answer to the other. This does not
reduce to a vicious circle, for we believe
that the sovereignty of God in salvation
brings us to a subjective conviction of the
objective truth of the gospel and, thus, of
the Bible. I refer again to the place of the
inner testimony of the Spirit who works
in tandem with the Word of God.
Unity and Distinction of
Theological Disciplines
One approach to defining biblical
theology, as a subject for the curriculum,
is to state it negatively in contrast to other
theological disciplines. In this regard,
there is some agreement that biblical
theology can be distinguished from
systematic theology; and that it is in some
sense historical and descriptive of what
is in the Bible. We may also recognize
both continuity with historical theology
as well as important differences. We can
define biblical theology at its simplest as
theology as the Bible reveals it (that is,
within its historical framework and, thus,
as a process). Geerhardus Vos defines it
thus: “[biblical theology is] that branch
25
 of Exegetical Theology which deals
with the process of the self-revelation
of God deposited in the Bible.”13 This
self-revelation involves the word of
God, communicated within history, and
revealing the nature of God’s acts within
human history. Vos’s relating of biblical
theology to exegetical theology (exegesis
with a view to getting at the theological
content of the text) reminds us that it
deals with the exegesis of the unique text
that we have received as the inspired
word of God.
In seeking to compare and contrast
the nature of biblical theology with other
theological disciplines we should not
overlook the difficulty in strictly defining
the parameters of each, or in assessing
the relationship they bear to one another.
Historically, the Reformation provided
an essential impetus to biblical theology.
Even modern Roman Catholic biblical
studies must owe something to the
fact that the Bible was released from its
bondage to a clerical monopoly. This was,
of course, not only due to the Reformers’
recovery of the Bible, and translations into
the vernacular, but also to the invention
of the printing press. I have already
alluded briefly (in Lecture 1) to the fact
that Calvin in particular emphasized a
presuppositional approach that grounded
the hermeneutics and method of biblical
study in the Bible itself. Our ultimate
presupposition is the ontological Trinity
revealed through Jesus Christ. The
presuppositional framework includes
those basic biblical assertions that involve
the epistemology both of the unregenerate
and of the regenerate person. Bearing
in mind this presuppositional basis
for biblical theology, we can seek to
distinguish it from other disciplines in
terms of method and scope.
26
Biblical Theology is Distinct from
Systematic or Dogmatic Theology
When teaching biblical theology, I
constantly reminded the students that to
be good biblical theologians they need
also to be good systematic theologians.
While some distinguish systematic from
dogmatic theology (systematic theology
following a logical or philosophical
organization, and dogmatics following a
church confessional organization) I will
treat them here as one. This is “Doctrine.”
It is systematic because it involves the
systematic organization and classification
of the data of biblical doctrines on some
kind of logical basis. Biblical theology,
on t he ot her hand, adopts main ly
redemptive-historical and thematic
perspectives. Systematics is dogmatic
in that it is the orderly arrangement of
the teachings of a particular view of
Christianity. Dogmatics involves the
crystallization of teachings as the end of
the process of revelation and as “what is
to be believed now.” While a high view
of doctrine would maintain that there
is a certain absolute and unchangeable
nature to the truth, it nevertheless
strives to represent it in a contemporary
fashion that is both understandable and
applicable in the present.
Doctrine does not seem to be very
highly regarded by a lot of evangelicals,
which is not only a pity, it is perilous. In
some cases it is due to a lack of careful
teaching or the failure to draw out the
doctrinal implications of a sermon. It is
a challenge to the professors of theology
to so enthuse the seminary students with
the importance of theology and doctrine
that they will see it as an integral part of
their on-going ministry.
Biblical theology looks at the progres-
sive revelation that leads to the final
formulation of doctrine. But, we remind
ourselves that, while systematic theology
is derivative of biblical theology, the two
continually interact. The relationship of
biblical and systematic theology is subject
to ongoing debate. While some of the
early impulse for biblical theology came
from the dissatisfaction with a sterile
orthodox approach to dogmatics, some
biblical theologies were nevertheless
driven by dogmatics in that the categories
of dogmatic theology were used for the
organization of biblical theology and
its concepts. This is one step away from
theology as the Bible presents it. This
organizational feature should be clearly
distinguished from the necessary use of
dogmatic truths as the presuppositions
for doing biblical theology.
While there is an important sense in
which biblical theology is derivative of
dogmatics, it is also true to assert that
biblical theology stems from a dogmatic
basis. This is the point I made in my first
lecture that the ultimate presuppositions
of our dogmatic base go back to the
effectual call of the gospel of Christ. It is
his self-authenticating word that alone
can bring submission to the authority of
the Bible and engender a thirst for it as
the word of God. If it is true to say, as I
believe it is, that we begin with Christ so
that we may end with Christ, the formal
expression of this is that we begin with a
doctrinal presupposition so that we may
end with formulated doctrine.
In his editorial to Themelios (vol. 27, no.
3 [2001]) Carl Trueman expressed some
concern that the resurgence of biblical
theology in Britain, which had been partly
fuelled by its revival in Australia, was
showing a downside. He did not dispute
the importance of biblical theology, but
felt that, at least in the way some handled
it in Britain, it was leading to a neglect
of systematic theology in general and
of Trinitarian ontology in particular. I
was constrained to respond to this in an
article that Trueman graciously accepted
and published in Themelios (vol. 28, no.
1 [2002]). I felt that biblical theology was
being blamed for a problem that probably
had other causes. I had first expressed my
views on the dogmatic basis of biblical
theology in an essay for the Broughton
Knox Festschrift published in 1986.14 That
“Jesus is Lord and Christ” is a dogmatic
assertion which drives biblical theology:
Christ authenticated himself and
established the dogmatic basis upon
which the first Christians engaged
in the task of understanding and
interpreting their Old Testament
scriptures. From the outset a funda-
mental Christology determines bib-
lical theology. It is Jesus Christ, the
Word incarnate, who informs the
biblical theologian of what actually
is happening in the whole expanse
of revelation.15
The question of the relationship of
systematic and biblical theology has been
aired by a number of biblical scholars
over the years. Kevin Vanhoozer, in his
1994 Finlayson Lecture in Edinburgh,
a rg ued for t he ref i nement of t he
biblical theologian’s approach to the
various literary genre of the Bible.16 It
is a reminder that the matter of how
language works and is used by biblical
authors is crucial to theology. Mostly
the evangelical approach has been to
see a logical progression from exegesis
to a biblical-theological synthesis of the
sum of exegetical exercises, and thence
to the formulation of doctrine. There
is, of course, an undeniable logic to
this. My concern has been to keep this
within the evangelical hermeneutical
spiral. On these terms, biblical theology
27
 is the activity of the epistemologically
regenerated mind that adopts the gospel
as its pou stō, its fundamental reference
point.
Biblical Theology is Distinct from
Historical Theology
If Biblical Theology is an historical
discipline, how does it differ from
historical theology? The latter is usually
taken to be the study of the history of
Christian doctrine or, more broadly, the
history of Christian ideas. It looks at
the way the church came to formulate
doctrines at different periods of its
history. It is interested in key Christian
t heolog ia n s a nd t h i n kers, a nd i n
the struggles that so often led to the
formulation of doctrines and confessions
of faith. It is, thus, an important dimension
of church history. Biblical theologians and
dogmaticians are concerned with the
history of theology because we do not
want constantly to reinvent the wheel,
nor do we want repeatedly to fall foul of
ancient heresies. To put it another way, we
do not do theology in a vacuum but from
within a living and historical community
of believers. We go on evaluating the
benefits of climbing on the backs of the
theologians that have gone before us.
In one sense historical theology is a
continuation of biblical theology in that
it reflects on the theology of God’s people
at any given time. But there is an obvious
difference: just as the theological views
of Israel at any given point in history
do not necessarily coincide with the
theology of the Old Testament, so too in
the history of the church, the theology of
the people is not necessarily, in fact never
is completely, the theology of Jesus and
the apostles. The source materials of the
two disciplines are different. Historical
28
theology looks at how people responded
to the gospel revelation. Biblical theology
seeks to understand the revelation itself
as it unfolds.
Biblical Theology is Distinct from
Practical or Pastoral Theology
In general terms we are here talking
about formulations of different aspects
of the way the Word of God impinges
on people’s lives. Theologies of evange-
lism, church ministry and life, Christian
education, counselling, marriage and
human relationships, pastoral care, and
the like would all fit into this category.
If systematic theology is derivative of
biblical theology, then pastoral theol-
ogy is derivative of systematic theology.
Systematic theology is concerned with
the contemporary application of biblical
truth. Pastoral theology involves certain
specifics of this contemporizing as it deals
with Christian behavior and practice.
Biblical theology interacts with, and even
presupposes certain aspects of systematic
theology. In the same way systematic the-
ology will find that it must interact with
pastoral theology so that it may address
the ongoing needs of the people of God.
Biblical Theology in Ministerial
Training
Geerhardus Vos was installed as
professor of Biblical Theology at Princ-
eton Seminary in 1894. In his inaugural
lecture, he propounded his view of the
nature of biblical theology. He then went
on to say,
I have not forgotten, however, that
you have called me to teach this
science for the eminently practical
purpose of training young men for
the ministry of the Gospel.17
Given that most theological curricula in
the seminaries and Bible colleges seem to
reflect their nineteenth century roots, can
biblical theology be taught within such a
framework? I have argued that, to be true
to our evangelical view of the Bible, we
must engage biblical theology. The evan-
gelical institution is in an overall better
position to shape a biblically based course
than an institution driven by liberalism.
But, history suggests that a self-conscious
and intentional inclusion of biblical theol-
ogy is not endemic in evangelical insti-
tutions. If I am right in suggesting that
this reflects our indebtedness to patterns
of pedagogy that developed under the
Enlightenment, then it is alarming. If it is
driven by the desire to maintain high aca-
demic standards that require a division
of labor, that is another matter. I suspect
that there is a further reason for the lack
of formal courses in biblical theology. It
is, I think, largely due to the uncertainties
that have surrounded the subject, and
the general state of flux that still exists.
As recently as 2001, J. G. McConville of
Gloucestershire University (UK) wrote,
Biblical theology is a somewhat
slippery creature, which at times
basks in the sun and at other times
retreats quietly, or even ignomini-
ously, into the shade. If it seems
at first glance to have a simplicity
about it, this is deceptive, and it has
a habit of changing its form when
it re-emerges for another phase of
its life. At present, Biblical theology
shows signs of reaching its prime,
after a spell in the wilderness.18
I suggest that it is up to the evangelical
scholars, seminaries and colleges to see
that this prime, if such it is, does not
lead to another retreat into the shade.
Two things at least will be needed for
this: first, the ongoing struggle to define
the foundations, the parameters, the
method, and the structure of biblical
theology, and, second, the implementa-
tion of courses of instruction in biblical
theology at both the undergraduate and
graduate level.
An examination of the literature by
evangelical biblical theologians illustrates
what I mean. There are clearly differences
of opinion about how to do biblical theol-
ogy, and, thus, of what a first course in
biblical theology should look like. Writers
such as Vos, Clowney, and Van Gemeren
have given their analyses of the structure
of revelation. But a comparison of them
shows little agreement. More recently
Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen
have published The Drama of Scripture19
designed as a text for an introductory
course in biblical theology. There are
great strengths to this book but it fails, in
my opinion, to adequately deal with the
structure of revelation. I myself believe
that the structure proposed by Hebert and
Robinson is the one that best lays bare the
matrix of progressive revelation.
Brevard Childs comments that G. E.
Wright lamented the neglect of biblical
theology in America, saying that it was
difficult to find a leading graduate school
where one could specialize in it.20 When
I did a graduate segment on biblical the-
ology, it was about biblical theologians,
not about the Bible itself. I believe we
need biblical theology as one of the first
courses in Bible for all seminary students.
My opinion that is bred of my own experi-
ences is that biblical theology should not
only be a distinct subject in the seminary,
but also it should be a compulsory core
subject for anyone aspiring to be a teacher
of God’s word. But, can biblical theology
be taught within a curriculum structure
that does not include it as a discreet sub-
ject? Of course it can. But will it be? The
answer to that depends on the faculty
29
 and the curriculum requirements of the
seminary. Within the departments of
biblical studies, will the Old Testament
professors know what the New Testament
professors are doing, and vice versa? Will
the teachers of biblical studies engender
a sense of biblical theology and train the
students in its method?
The separation of the disciplines was
encouraged by the secular tone of the
universities. Even in Europe, Britain,
and the US, once the Enlightenment had
taken hold, the separation was seen as
the academically respectable way to go.
But, in my understanding, the seminary
and the Bible college are significantly dif-
ferent from the university in their aims.
They will overlap to varying degrees
with the aims of the university faculties
of religion and theology, but their distinct
task is to prepare people for gospel min-
istry in the church of God. So, what kind
of training is necessary to best prepare
men and women for the whole range of
ministries in the church? At least since
the nineteenth century, the typical semi-
nary curricula have centered on the three
areas of Bible, Doctrine, and History, and
these, with a variety of skills training,
will go on providing the core of ministe-
rial education. It would be hard, I think,
to argue against their inclusion in some
way or other.
How such core courses are conducted
and with what kind of curricula is still an
issue. In considering this we should be
driven by our understanding of Christian
ministry and what lies at its heart. But,
our understanding of Christian ministry
will depend to a great degree on what
we do with the Bible. At a conference
on revisioning theological education for
the twenty-first century held in Nairobi
in 1998, Victor Babajide Cole raised the
30
important matter of integration in the
theological curriculum.21 In particular
he was concerned with the relationship
of theoretical theology to ministerial
practice. He referred to a book by Elliot
Eisner who suggested that formal school
curricula fall into three categories. These
are (1) the explicit curriculum of what the
school intentionally and in reality offers
to students; (2) the implied curriculum of
non-salient aspects of what the school in
fact teaches students but not intention-
ally so; and (3) the “null” curriculum of
things deliberately omitted from teaching
by the school. Biblical theology will be in
one or other of these categories, but in an
evangelical ministry school I believe it
belongs in the explicit curriculum. It may,
by default, be part of the implied curricu-
lum in biblical studies, which means that
it is probably a part of standard training
in exegesis. If it is in the “null” curricu-
lum, its absence will speak volumes in
the way students learn to handle the Bible
and how they pass on their habits to those
they preach to and teach.
As a teacher of Old Testament, I some-
times found myself out of step with col-
leagues who thought that Old Testament
means just that, and that establishing
links with the New Testament are not our
business. I had to disagree because I saw
before me each day men and women who
would go on to various ministry posi-
tions to expound the Old Testament as
Christian Scripture. Don Carson made a
similar point in his important 1995 article:
All Christian theologians, including
those whose area of specialization is
the Old Testament or some part of
it, are under obligation to read the
Old Testament, in certain respects,
with Christian eyes. . . . [N]o Chris-
tian Alttestamentler has the right
to leave the challenge of biblical
study to the New Testament depart-
 ments. The Gospel records insist
that Jesus himself, and certainly his
earliest followers after him, read
the Old Testament in christological
ways. Jesus berated his followers for
not discerning these points them-
selves. 22
The bottom line in this is the question:
will the integration of theological studies
into a workable basis for Christian minis-
try be left to the students themselves, or
will the structure of the course provide
at least some guidance in this important
matter? I have reason to believe that once
students are aware of the potential of
biblical theology they are keen to engage
it. In recent years we have had a succes-
sion of students coming to Moore College
all the way from Britain and the United
States with the express purpose of taking
advantage of instruction in evangelical
biblical theology.
Biblical Theology and
Hermeneutics
The relationship of the twin concerns
of biblical theology and hermeneutics
was something that took me somewhat
unawares. When I wrote Gospel and
Kingdom, the title I proposed was the
rather prosaic A Christian Interpretation
of the Old Testament. In his wisdom, Peter
Cousins, the editor at Paternoster Press,
chose Gospel and Kingdom as the title and
my proposal became the sub-title. On the
second printing the back cover contained
a piece of a rather generous review from
a British journal, The Christian Graduate.
It began, “At last! A book on hermeneu-
tics for the ordinary man in the pew.” It
suddenly dawned how thick-headed I
had been not to realize that my pursuit
of a biblical theology was an exercise in
hermeneutics. I have been rather relent-
less in applying this insight, if coming
to see the blindingly obvious can be
called an insight. When I wanted to give
something back for the three years I had
been able to spend at Union Theological
Seminary in Virginia devoting myself
for most of the time to the study of the
Wisdom literature, it seemed only right
and logical to write something of a bib-
lical theology of wisdom for ordinary
Christians. Hence Gospel and Wisdom23
was the result. Now, I rarely tackle a
subject that requires Christian comment
and appraisal without asking the biblical
theological question. My method is to
start with Jesus and the apostles to make
clear that we always go back to the Old
Testament to read it through Christian
eyes. I start with Christ so that I may fin-
ish with him. Hermeneutically he is the
Alpha and the Omega.
While there is a great deal of literature
available on a whole range of important
topics written by credible and able evan-
gelical theologians, the place of biblical
theology as a way of gaining a good
understanding of specific matters is not
so much in evidence. It seemed to me
that this can only reflect our failure to
instruct students, the future preachers,
teachers, and writers, in biblical theology
as a method of coming to grips with the
multitude of topical issues that face the
ordinary Christian. When Moore College
gave me time off to write my book on
preaching,24 I searched through a mass of
literature in the Moore College library on
the theory and practice of preaching. The
element almost totally lacking in books
by evangelical as well as non-evangelical
writers, even those who saw expository
preaching as of prime importance, was
biblical theology as one of the preacher’s
key tools of trade.
When, at the suggestion of a student, I
31
 set out to write my book on Prayer and the
Knowledge of God,25 again I searched the
literature. I could not find anything that
approached being a biblical theology of
prayer. Most of the books were about the
importance, the purpose, and the practice
of prayer. How can such a massive and
important subject be really understood
without tracing its part in the progressive
revelation in the Bible?
Because Christian ministry is gos-
pel ministry, seminary teachers need
to understand that we are all inter-
dependent in our own specialities. Our
common love of the Bible means that we
should be more aware of how the Bible
is being taught and applied in courses
other than our own. The great advantage
of the wider move to canonical theology
is the serious manner in which it treats
the Christian Bible as one book. As I
have already indicated, evangelicals have
always been people of the canon, though
unfortunately this is often the theory
rather than the practice. No professor of
New Testament studies can avoid deal-
ing with the wider canon since the Old
Testament keeps appearing as the pre-
supposition to the theology of the New
Testament. Old Testament professors
perhaps need the canonical perspective
to be more intentionally before them.
For me it was the theology of the Old
Testament that found its fulfilment in the
New that made it imperative to at least
raise the question of how the Old Testa-
ment should be interpreted as Christian
Scripture. The other motivation was the
pastoral one and the conviction that the
Old Testament is a book about Christ. At
the 2000 Wheaton conference on bibli-
cal theology, Paul House commented,
“[F]rom positive collaboration with bibli-
32
cal, dogmatic, philosophical and practical
scholars I am convinced that unitary bib-
lical theology is the best venue for experts
in these fields to share their best insights
with one another.”26
Summary Conclusion
This lecture has been very much a
personal odyssey that I hope has not been
tedious for you. There are at least two
reasons why I have gone down this track.
The first is that I think it is important for
people to understand how a particular
emphasis arose and why there is a bit of
a crusade going on to promote biblical
theology. The second is related, in that I
am still on a mission. That mission is to
try to remove some of the ambiguity and
uncertainty about the pursuit of biblical
theology as a distinct discipline in its own
right. I wish that every seminary and
Bible college would take up the challenge
to provide an introductory course in “big
picture” biblical theology and then strive
to keep the vision alive in the way biblical
studies are conducted.
I believe that it is doubly important
that evangelical colleges teach biblical
theology, deliberately, intentionally,
and not just hope that the biblical stud-
ies teachers between them will get the
message across. One reason why it is
not done is specialization. A second is
that academic deans and registrars are
understandably shy of one more course
on top of the large number already
clamoring for attention as necessary in
ministerial training. A third is perhaps
the main reason for the neglect of biblical
theology. Even among evangelicals there
is no real consensus about what biblical
theology is and how it should be done.
Because of these difficulties, I recognize
that the approach to biblical theology in
individual seminaries and Bible colleges
may differ from what I have suggested. I
certainly do not want to imply criticism of
situations of which I have no knowledge
or do not understand. These are my per-
sonal convictions born of my experience
as a Christian minister living in one of the
most secular of western societies.
I will close on this note: I believe that,
if we begin with Christ clothed in his
gospel and work out from there, not only
is biblical theology possible, but it is an
absolute necessity in order to be con-
sistent with the gospel. At a time when
everything seems to conspire to convey
a sense of the diversity of Scripture, we
need to recover its unity within diver-
sity. An evangelical biblical theology
employs the Trinitarian and Christologi-
cal perspective of unity and diversity. I
can think of no better way to make the
great Reformation dicta become realities
as we proclaim salvation that is by grace
alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone,
grounded on the Scriptures alone, and all
this to the glory of God alone.
Endnotes
 1
This article was originally presented as
part of the Gheens Lectures, delivered
March 18-20, 2008, at The Southern Bap-
tist Theological Seminary.
 2
D. W. B. Robinson, “Origins and Unre-
solved Tensions,” in Interpreting God’s
Plan (ed. R. J. Gibson; Carlisle: Paternos-
ter, 1997), 5.
 3
Ibid., 1.
 4
Ibid., 5
 5
Ibid., 6.
 6
Ibid.
 7
Ibid.
 8
Ibid., 7-9.
 9
Ibid., 9.
10
Gospel and Kingdom: A Christian Inter-
pretation of the Old Testament (Exeter:
Paternoster, 1981).
11
According to Plan: The Unfolding Revela-
tion of God in the Bible (Leicester: Inter-
Varsity, 1991).
12
Francis Watson, Text and Truth: Redefining
Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1997).
13
Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old
and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1948), 13.
14
“‘Thus Says the Lord’: The Dogmatic
Basis of Biblical theology,” in God Who
is Rich in Mercy: Essays Presented to D.
B. Knox (ed. P. T. O’Brien and D. G.
Peterson; Homebush West: Lancer, 1986),
25-40.
15
Ibid., 33.
16
Kevin Vanhoozer, “From Canon to Con-
cept: ‘Same’ and ‘Other’ in the Relation
Between Biblical and Systematic Theol-
ogy,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theol-
ogy 12, no. 2 (1994): 96-124.
17
G. Vos, “The Idea of Biblical Theology
as a Science and as a Theological
Discipline,” in Redemptive History
and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter
Writings of Geerhardus Vos (ed. R. B.
Gaffin; Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1980).
18
J. G. McConville, “Biblical Theology:
Canon and Plain Sense,” Scottish Bulletin
of Evangelical Theology 19, no. 2 (2001):
134.
19
Cra ig Ba r t holomew a nd Mic hael
Goheen, The Drama of Scripture: Find-
ing Our Place in the Biblical Story (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2004).
20
Craig Bartholemew, “Introduction”
to Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and
Biblical Interpretation (Scripture and
Hermeneutics Series; vol. 5; Milton
Keynes: Paternoster, 2004), 4.
21
Victor Babajide Cole, “Integration in the
33
 Theological Curriculum,” Evangeli-
cal Review of Theology 23, no. 2 (1999):
141-62.
22
D. A. Carson, “Current Issues
i n Bibl ica l Theolog y: A New
Testament Perspective,” Bulletin for
Biblical Research 5 (1995): 40f.
23
Now included in The Goldsworthy
Trilogy (Milton Keynes: Paternoster,
2000).
24
Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian
Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2000).
25
Prayer and the Knowledge of God:
What the Whole Bible Teaches (Leices-
ter: InterVarsity, 2003).
Paul House, “Biblical Theology and
26

the Wholeness of Scripture,” in Bib-

lical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect
(ed. Scott Hafemann; Downers
Grove: InterVarsity, 2002), 270.

34
35
 Lecture 3: Biblical Theology
in the Local Church and the Home1
Graeme Goldsworthy is a minister
of the Anglican Church of Australia and
has served in churches in Sydney and
Brisbane. He is a graduate of the Uni-
versities of Sydney, London, and Cam-
bridge, and earned his Ph.D. at Union
Theological Seminary in Richmond,
Virginia. He lectured at Moore Theologi-
cal College, Sydney, in Old Testament,
Biblical Theology, and Hermeneutics.
Now retired, Dr. Goldsworthy continues
as a visiting lecturer at Moore College
to teach a fourth-year B.D. course in
Evangelical Hermeneutics. He is the au-
thor of many books, including Preaching
the Whole Bible As Christian Scripture
(Eerdmans, 2000), According to Plan:
The Unfolding Revelation of God in the
Bible (InterVarsity, 2002), and Gospel-
Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations
and Principles of Evangelical Biblical
Interpretation (InterVarsity, 2007).
36
Biblical Theology and
Expository Preaching
In his book, The Sermon Under Attack,
Klaas Runia quotes P. T. Forsyth as saying,
“It is, perhaps, an overbold beginning, but
I will venture to say that with its preach-
ing Christianity stands and falls.”2 There
is no doubt that we are faced with the
hard questions of the nature of preaching
and its importance. Do we capitulate to
the modern theorists and theologians, or
do we press on and preach the traditional
Sunday sermon expounding the Bible and
calling people to repentance and faith?
Do we persevere in this even if it seems
that in numbers of regular listeners we
may be losing ground? As far back as the
early 1970’s, a survey in the United States
showed that, on the whole, evangelical
seminaries were growing at a time that
many of the more liberal ones were strug-
gling to maintain numbers of students.
Certainly that is still the situation in
Australia. Many evangelicals would sug-
gest that their emphasis on the Bible as
the focus of the teaching and preaching
of the church is one main reason for such
growth. Anecdotal evidence would indi-
cate that there is something in this claim.
Evangelical Protestants stand in a
long and venerable tradition, going back
to the Reformation, of the centrality of
preaching in the activities of the gathered
congregation. We could appeal to the
practice of the Reformers, the Puritans,
and the leaders of the Evangelical revival,
not to mention all the great preachers of
Graeme Goldsworthy
the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth
centuries. There are stirring accounts of
men like Wesley, Whitefield, Spurgeon
and, more recently, Campbell Morgan,
Lloyd-Jones, and Billy Graham, whose
preaching to thousands was profoundly
effective in the conversion and edifica-
tion of so many. We have to ask about the
stimulus for this activity through which
multitudes have been converted to Christ.
Can it really be simply a passing phenom-
enon destined to become outdated as we
have now entered a more technologically
oriented age of electronic communication
media? There are good biblical reasons
for not giving up on preaching the word.
To begin with, there is a close rela-
tionship between preaching and bibli-
cal theology. Peter Adam, in his article,
“Preaching and Biblical Theology” in
the New Dictionary of Biblical Theology
says that we can summarize a biblical
theology of preaching thus: “God has
spoken; It is written; Preach the Word.”3
We can of course be more precise about
such a biblical theology to show how the
practice of proclamation of the Word of
God lies at the very heart of the bibli-
cal story of salvation. On the one hand
a biblical theological survey of the role
of proclamation in the Scriptures is
important for understanding the central-
ity of the preached word in the world
today. On the other hand the nature of
the word preached will affect the way
preaching is undertaken. This is where
biblical theology should be no longer an
optional extra for enthusiasts, for it is
the very heart of expository preaching.
There is a well-known adage that “a
text without a context is a pretext.” But,
what is the necessary context of any
given text that prevents it from becom-
ing a pretext? The evangelical doctrine
of Scripture includes the unity of the
Spirit-inspired testimony to the Christ
within the whole canon. We should need
to ask the question about context only
to remind ourselves that it is a given. To
ask about the context of a given text is to
ask about its meaning; it is even to ask
what we may legitimately designate by
the “literal” meaning of the text. Francis
Watson’s proposal merits consideration.4
He says the literal sense of the biblical
texts comprises (1) verbal meaning (locu-
tion), (2) illocutionary and perlocutionary
force, and (3) the relation to the center.
For those unfamiliar with the terminol-
ogy of speech-act theory, the first two
relate to authorial intent, and the third
to what Watson calls the “speech-act that
lies at the centre of Christian scripture,
the life, death and resurrection of Jesus
as the enfleshment and the enactment of
the divine Word.”5 Watson is thus happy
to describe the incarnate Christ as the
central speech-act of Scripture and the
literal meaning of a text includes its rela-
tionship to him.
The answer we give to the question:
“what do you think of the Christ?” will
inevitably reflect our understanding of
the unity of the Bible. Biblical Theology
reminds us that the understanding of the
whole is built up from the parts and, at
the same time, the parts can only be fully
understood as parts of the whole. Biblical
theology, as I have thus far tried to define
it, involves us in the two-fold exercise of
analysis or exegesis of individual texts,
and the synthesis of the individual texts
into a big picture or metanarrative. Once
we accept the overall unity of the Bible we
have to realize that every single text is in
some way supported by every other text.
No individual part of Scripture stands
alone. The context of any text, which
prevents its misuse, is the whole canon.
This, in practical terms, does not mean
that we have to be making explicit links
from, say, a chosen text being preached,
across to every other text. It would be
impossible to do so. But it does mean that
we will be aware that there are such links
and that we need to explore the important
paths that our text points us to. This is
not merely the progression through texts
from one part of Scripture in order to find
its meaning in another. There is an inter-
play of texts that affects the meaning of
all of them. Above all, the fact that Jesus
is the center of Scripture and that he is
the one Mediator between God and man,
seems to me to indicate that the connec-
tion between texts, however far apart they
are, is to be found by the relationship of
each to the center, that is, to the Christ of
the gospel.
Biblical theology provides the needed
way of handling the contextual signifi-
cance of the preacher’s chosen text. We
should remind ourselves that the three
dimensions of Scripture; the literary, the
historical, and the theological, are insepa-
rably interwoven. To deal with the literary
qualities of the text apart from its place in
the ongoing history of the saving acts of
God will reduce it to a timeless platitude
whose relationship to the Word of God is
immediately jeopardized. It has been one
of the features of modern hermeneutic
confusion that the emphasis on the locus
of meaning has shifted from theology to
history and then to literature, as if these
37
 were alternate possibilities instead of
interdependent realities. Likewise, the
movement of the hermeneutical focus
from authorial intent, to autonomous text,
and finally to the reader has also involved
an “either-or” perspective, rather than a
“both-and” perspective. It is one of the
strengths of the adaptation of speech-
act theory by a number of theologians
including Kevin Vanhoozer, Nicholas
Wolterstorff, and Anthony Thiselton, that
it has refocused the legitimate place of
all three loci. Christians should be sensi-
tive to the need to focus on all legitimate
dimensions as interdependent and not
treat one at the expense of the others. As I
have already asserted, the doctrine of the
Trinity and its correlate in the doctrine of
the two natures of Christ should remind
us that relationships exist as unity and
distinction.
Biblical theology enables us to under-
stand the biblical teaching on any given
topic in a holistic way. We are not depen-
dent on a few proof-texts for the establish-
ment of a doctrine or for understanding
the nature of some important concept.
We can look at what lies behind the
developed concept as we may have it
in the New Testament, and ask what is
really impelling it into the prominence it
has. We can observe the various strands
that give this doctrine its texture and its
richness. We can then better evaluate the
importance it should have in the contem-
porary church.
Here, then, is the challenge to the
preacher who would be true to the bibli-
cal text so that the use of individual texts
does not become a pretext. Preaching that
uses a snippet of biblical text as a spring-
board for launching into a discourse
on anything and everything other than
what the text is really about in its own
38
context, is guilty of distorting the word
and robbing it of its true saving power.
It is a matter of concern that so many
books on preaching seem to be mostly
concerned with sermon craft, rhetoric,
and communication. For some reason,
the obvious perspective of the unity of
the Bible, the overall message of biblical
revelation, seems to become submerged
under a mass of lesser concerns.
As I mentioned in my previous lecture,
when I was researching my book Preach-
ing the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture
I was disappointed to find that, even
among evangelical writers on preach-
ing, the subject of biblical theology was
rarely mentioned. In books dealing with
the importance of expository preaching
one might expect some emphasis on the
need for a holistic approach to the bibli-
cal canon. I believe that it is the role of
biblical theology to provide us with that
perspective of the unified message of the
Bible. In keeping with my stated prefer-
ence for opening up any biblical topic
using the method of biblical theology,
I would have liked here to give a more
detailed introduction to a biblical theol-
ogy of preaching. This would be to deal
with the theme of preaching or procla-
mation in the Bible rather than dealing
with the matter of our preaching from
the Bible. However, the two are closely
related if distinguishable. A biblical theol-
ogy of the theme of the word of God and
its proclamation provides the structure
and motive for applying the discipline
of biblical theology more generally to the
task of preaching.
In my previous lectures I have endeav-
ored to show something of the structure
of the metanarrative of Scripture. In
essence it was described as the revelation
of God’s kingdom, and of the way into it,
in three stages: the kingdom revealed in
Israel’s history; the kingdom revealed in
prophetic eschatology; and the kingdom
revealed as fulfilled in Christ. Each of
these stages is related to the others, but
in the end salvation is through Christ and
him alone. This salvation is not merely
the initial experience of conversion and
the consequent hope of heaven. It also
involves the whole process by which,
during this life, God is conforming us
through his word and Spirit more and
more into the image of Christ, and the gift
of perseverance by which he will bring us
finally to glory. Thus, all proclamation,
including that of the Old Testament, must
somehow point people to Christ. Chris-
tian living and sanctification are moti-
vated and structured by the gospel. In
theological terms, our justification is the
basis of our sanctification. Furthermore,
the gospel of our justification establishes
the pattern for eschatology. Just as the
most important thing that is said about
humanity in creation is in terms of our
relationship to God as created in his
image, so the most important thing that
can be said about redeemed humanity
in the regeneration is our relationship to
Christ who is the true image of God. It is
the role of biblical theology to uncover the
relationship of every part of the Bible to
Christ so that we can preach Christ from
all of Scripture, and relate our redeemed
humanity to Christ by means of every
part of Scripture.
The preacher, then, seeks first to
understand the text in itself by means
of exegesis. But the task is not finished
until that text, with all its detail, is related
to the fulfilment it has in Christ. In this
stage of exegesis one should not hurry on
to Christ too quickly. To do so can lead
to a superficial understanding of the text
which, in turn, will lead to a superficial
understanding of the Christ to whom it
points and testifies. In considering the
task of preaching from the Old Testa-
ment we are led by the study of biblical
theology to take account of the way that
every event and person, every theological
concept, somehow finds its fulfilment in
Christ. To flesh out that rather extreme
statement, let me propose the following
Christological markers (each of which
could be the subject of a separate lecture):
(1) Christ is the God of the Old
Testament who has now come in
the flesh.
(2) Christ is the true and faithful
people of God.
(3) Christ is the true Israel, the true
Son of David, and thus the true Son
of God.
(4) Christ is, in his humanity, the
new creation.
(5) Christ is the prophet, priest,
king, wise man, and faithful Isra-
elite.
(6) Christ is the new temple in which
God dwells among his people.
Each of these points is, I believe, sustain-
able from the way the New Testament
treats the fulfillment of the Old Testa-
ment in Christ. The dark side must also
be recognized. If Jesus, “who knew no
sin, was made sin for our sake,” (2 Cor
5:21), then his act of vicarious sacrifice
and atonement demonstrates to the full-
est extent the seriousness of sin. In that
sense he even functions as the antitype
of creation’s alienation from God.
All of these roles can be seen in the
way the New Testament relates the Old
Testament to Christ. This relationship is
a two-way thing; we understand the New
Testament only as the fulfillment of the
Old. On the other hand the message of
the New is that Jesus of Nazareth makes
clear the full meaning of the Old. Thus,
there is priority to the New for it brings to
39
 us the revelation of God’s final and fullest
word which is Jesus.
Preachers who ignore these relation-
ships or who avoid the task of trying to
understand them, do so to their detri-
ment. Those who work at understand-
ing the Bible on its own terms will be
rewarded over and over as people come
alive to the proclamation of a Bible that is
understandable in its one comprehensive
message about God, his righteous judg-
ment, his love for us in Christ, and the
coming of his kingdom. Only by such
a holistic exposition can we convey the
necessity and nature of God’s judgment
to a skeptical world. When we apply
biblical theology to preaching, and do so
with prayerful humility before God, we
may expect that the power of the gospel to
convert and to change people’s lives will
be most evident.
Having said all that, I need to point
out that the place of biblical theology in
expository preaching is not always agreed
upon or understood by evangelicals. I
believe one main reason for this is the
fluid nature of biblical-theological study
and the lack of consensus about what it
entails. Recently I have received emails
from a young pastor in the Netherlands,
a pastor of a Flemish church in Belgium,
a pastor from a large church in Illinois,
and a former student now ministering in
an Anglican Church in Sydney’s west. The
first three of these echoed matters that
some Moore College students brought
to my attention soon after I returned to
teach there in 1995. The gist of the com-
mon problem raised was that certain
difficulties arise from the application of
my biblical theological perspective to
the Old Testament as a means of finding
the significance of the text in relation to
Jesus. Exposition of the Old Testament
40
text inevitably seemed to be a precursor
to a predictable and almost stereotyped
application. This was variously described
as: “Ho-hum! Here comes the Jesus bit,”
or “So now we can say ‘Hooray for Jesus’.”
My former student told me that some
time ago he had preached on 1 Samuel 17
giving a biblical-theological account of
the significance of David slaying Goliath.
Subsequently, an elderly retired minister
in the congregation indicated some dis-
quiet about the way the sermon had been
handled. The matter he raised was the old
controversy between exemplary preach-
ing as against a redemptive-historical
approach. Specifically, he suggested that
Hebrews 11 gave grounds for emphasiz-
ing David’s faith as an example to us,
rather than the redemptive-historical per-
spective on David as a type of Christ, our
substitute redeemer. However, I do not
believe that a careful reading of Hebrews
11 does lead us to that conclusion in view
of the qualifications made in vv. 13-16
and 39-40. In any case it is not a bland
“either-or” situation. My correspondent
referred to the retired man’s view that
biblical theology was the scourge of the
recent crop of students graduating from
Moore College!
The question of the problem of all Old
Testament sermons ending up with the
same platitudes about trusting Jesus is
important. If that is what happens, then
there is something seriously wrong. Since
Jesus and the apostles testify to the fact
that the Old Testament is a book about
Christ we must be careful to understand
what it is saying before running too
quickly to the New Testament and finding
a superficial or stereotyped fulfillment
in Christ. The Reformers were clear that
the foundations of Christology were to
be found in the Old Testament. On this
basis they could speak of Jesus in terms
of his role as prophet, priest, and king. To
these I would add the role of wise man,
although wisdom could be subsumed
under the fulfillment of Davidic (and Sol-
omonic) kingship. I have already alluded
in my first lecture to my understanding
of Christ as the one who reconnects all
things in himself. The great cosmic pas-
sages such as Eph 1:10 and Col 1:15-20 are
important here. I will not repeat what I
have already said. I want only to empha-
size that there is a great deal more to Jesus
than his being the Son of God who died
on the cross for our sins. Our Christology
as it comes out in our preaching should
reflect every aspect of reality that is dealt
with in both Old and New Testaments.
Biblical Theology in
Christian Education
Biblical theology involves “big picture”
Bible reading. The canon is the ultimate
context that provides the hermeneutical
framework for any text of the Bible. As I
have already indicated, biblical theology
should aim to uncover and show the
inter-connectedness of all parts of the
Bible. My experience is that adults, many
who have been Christians for a long time,
express some amazement that they have
never seen or been shown this macro-
structure of revelation before. Certainly
a lot of published curricula for teachers
of children and young people seem to
major on fragmentary approaches to
the Bible. One of the prime reasons for
teaching adults to become mature in their
understanding of the Bible is that most
of them sooner or later will have some
teaching role, if not in Sunday Schools
and youth groups, then as parents of
their own children. In my opinion, no
person should be assigned to teach the
Bible in church groups unless they have
read and understood some basic biblical
theology. Ideally, they should have
undergone some more formal instruction
in biblical theology. Pastors also have a
responsibility to see that Sunday school
curricula and teaching materials used for
all age groups are at least gospel-based
and Christ-centred. But, I would argue
for more. We need Christian education
curricula and courses for all ages that
enable the learners to grasp the sense of
the one complete and integrated message
of Scripture.
One of the difficulties we face is
created by who we are as evangelicals.
We believe passionately in the need
for people, young and old, to make a
personal response of faith to the gospel,
and to maintain that commitment of faith
to their life’s end. Some evangelicals tend
to assume that the task of any and every
session of Bible teaching is not completed
until some kind of imperatival application
and even appeal has been made.
Let me clarify this. I am certainly
not opposed to application since every
part of the Bible certainly applies to
us. “All Scripture is breathed out by
God and profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, and for training in
righteousness, that the man of God may
be competent, equipped for every good
work” (2 Tim 3:16-17). It is the question of
how it applies that is the issue. Over the
years that I have listened to Bible talks
and group discussions, I have noticed that
a certain perspective almost always seems
to predominate. After some brief attempt
to understand what the passage is saying,
the questions frequently asked first are
“how does this apply to us?”; “what does
this teach us about ourselves?”; or, “what
is God saying to me?” But, it seems to me
41
 that this is to jump the gun and, to mix
the metaphors, to be in danger of short-
circuiting the texts.
Let me put it another way. Gramma-
tically, the biblical material is cast in
two main modes: the indicative and the
imperative. Biblical narrative is essen-
tially indicative, that is, it is a telling of
what is (or was). One of the prevalent
errors in much Christian writing and
preaching is to simply turn indica-
tives into imperatives. This is done in
the interests of relevance and personal
involvement. But the Bible presents very
clear distinctions between indicatives and
imperatives. The gospel is indicative. The
call to repentance and faith is impera-
tive. How we live as Christians is the
imperative, of which the New Testament
contains much. But the imperatives, the
“oughts” of the Christian life, spring from
the indicatives of the gospel. Of course,
even imperatives can be misapplied when
taken out of context. The application of
the Sinai law is an obvious case.
The classic evangelical piety that wants
to leap from the narrative immediately to
the imperatives usually manages to short-
circuit the text so that the biblical road
from, say, an Old Testament narrative
to us bypasses the central indicative
which is Christ. At best, this fails to
show the genuine connection between
text and hearer. At worst, it results in
moralizing, distorted pietism, and even
gross legalism. Thus, the first question
that I believe we should ask when it
comes to the matter of applying the
text is not “What does this tell us about
ourselves?” but “What does this tell us
about Christ?”
I want to make a brief comment about
biblical theology and young people.
Developmental psychologists may tell us
42
that young children find abstract concepts
difficult to assimilate. The retired minis-
ter that I referred to earlier, who criticized
the David and Goliath sermon, had spent
most of his ministry dealing with Chris-
tian education for young people. He felt
that children find the biblical theological
approach too abstract, whereas using
David directly and fully in exemplary
fashion (with all the “incidentals”) is more
concrete. I respect this man’s experience,
but I think he has really not understood
what biblical theology is about. For chil-
dren, the telling of the biblical narrative
should be just that. There is nothing
abstract about telling the stories of what
God has done. Furthermore, exhorting
children to have faith without coming to
the point of what the object of that faith
is, is about as abstract as you could get!
I am confident that, had the sermon in
question been delivered to children, the
approach would have been appropriately
geared to the younger audience.
The teenage years are crucial for the
formation of mature, adult views of life
and faith. While it may be important to
treat matters in a more problem-centred
way, the last thing Christian high school
students need is mere legalism or a mys-
tical relation with Jesus. Problem-based
studies dealing with relationships, sexu-
ality, drugs, social justice, environment
and the like, need a biblical-theological
underpinning so that it becomes second
nature to search for the Christian position
as one that is implicated by the gospel.
The alternative is to provide pat, ready-
made answers supported by proof texts
and in isolation from the solutions to
other problems. Not only is this spoon-
feeding approach misleading, it does not
help the students learn how to use the
Bible for themselves. To teach biblical
theology is to teach people to read the
Bible intelligently.
Biblical Theology in the
Christian Home
While there are some obvious differ-
ences between the Christian home and
the local church, there are also some
important similarities. Most Christian
parents, I think, would recognize the
duty they have to extend the ministry of
the church into their home-life in mat-
ters of leadership and spiritual nurture.
Whether we operate in a baptistic or a
paedobaptist-covenantal framework is, in
my opinion, not the ultimately significant
thing. Evangelicals of both persuasions
agree on this: that the child of a Christian
home is a gift of God to the parents who
have the privilege and responsibility to
make the person and work of Christ real
to that child. Blended with the normal
parental love and nurture will be prayer,
a progressive instruction in the word of
God, and reliance on the Holy Spirit to
apply God’s word.
Unfortunately, we have not always
been well served in children’s literature.
This situation is sometimes reflected
in the curricula produced for Sunday
Schools. In my experience two main
problems characterized a lot of material
for young people. The first was fragmen-
tation so that there was little sense of the
unity of the biblical story. The second
was the constant style of application. If it
wasn’t repetitiously evangelistic, it was
moralistic and thus verging on legalism.
I know this is a gross generalization, and
I can only speak out of my own limited
experience. Years ago I started saying that
we really need a good biblical theology
written for children. I knew I was not a
children’s writer although from time to
time I was urged to give it a go. Recently
an excellent work for young children has
appeared from Crossway in Wheaton.
This is David Helm’s The Big Picture Story
Bible.6
There is one aspect of teaching the
Bible in the Christian home that I believe
needs to be emphasized. The strategy of
application in the home should not be
the same as the strategy at an evange-
listic meeting or in the weekly sermon.
I sometimes think that evangelicals are
lacking in confidence in the power of the
word to do its work. It seems to me that it
is more important to allow the teaching of
the Bible to build a sense of the narrative
that leads to Jesus, than to be constantly
trying to find an immediate personal
application every time the Bible is opened
or a Bible story told. Constant application
easily leads to the child believing that this
Christian faith stuff is all about what he
or she must do. The missing focus is often
the sense that this is what God has done.
What God has done should take priority.
It must do, for until there is a sense of
what God has done any application in
terms of what we must do will be warped
and corrupted. At the evangelistic level,
there is no point in telling children, or
adults, that they need to trust in Jesus
until we have told them what that means,
why they need to, who Jesus is and what
he has done to make him worth trusting.
The Pastor as a Biblical Theologian
I believe people in churches have the
right to expect their pastors to be both
godly and competent in theology. Just
what criteria they have to assess such
competency would vary a great deal
from church to church and from person
to person. It is not too much to suppose
that good theological training will find
43
 expression as professional competence
in the way the pastor preaches, teaches,
evangelizes, counsels, and answers dif-
ficult questions. The pastor who has been
tuned to biblical theology will, I believe,
have the potential to give better leader-
ship in some important areas. I would
like to suggest at least five areas in which
biblical theology might be seen as integral
to a soundly biblical pastoral practice.7
First, biblical theology is integral to, and
helps promote, a high view of the Bible. This
for many people means a high doctrine
of Scripture, perhaps in terms of the
supreme authority of the inspired and
infallible texts. Certainly, the supreme
authority of the Bible over tradition and
reason is a generally accepted mark
of evangelicalism. By a high view of
the Bible, I mean that once the chosen
doctrinal terminology concerning the
nature and authority of the Bible has
been duly considered and installed, this
will be employed self-consciously and
with intent as the touchstone of all faith
and practice. Biblical theology can play a
significant role in this.
To begin with, biblical theology, by
exposing the inner structure of biblical
revelation becomes the source of an ongo-
ing adventure in discovering new ways
that the texts are interconnected. The
interconnectedness of texts is what gives
them meaning. The more we understand
the structure of Scripture, the better able
we will be to find our own place within
the biblical story.8 That is to be well on
the way to making valid interpretations
of the way particular texts apply to us.
Quite simply, if we can see how any text
relates to Jesus Christ then, since we also
study to know how the people of God
relate to him, we can grow in understand-
ing of how the text relates to us through
44
Christ the mediator. One of the greatest
antidotes to destructive critical views is
the biblical-theological perspective on
the coherence of the whole canon. To take
one example: In the 1980s a prominent
Anglican bishop called into question the
orthodox Christian doctrine of the bodily
resurrection of Jesus. He was quoted as
saying that we did not need a “knock-
down” miracle to impress us. If, as it
seems, he was implying that Christians
saw the resurrection purely as a story
calculated to impress unbelievers, then he
totally missed the point. Biblical theology
helps us to see the connection between all
the promises of God to Israel, and Jesus
in his resurrection.
Second, biblical theology promotes a high
Christology. This is to approach the ques-
tion, “What do you think of the Christ;
whose Son is he?” When Hans Küng, the
rather unconventional Roman Catholic
theologian, wrote his book On Being a
Christian, he asked a pointed and disturb-
ing question: “which Christ?”9 Which
Christ do we proclaim and worship? Is
it the Christ of popular piety, the Christ
who requires us to approach him through
his mother, the Christ of dogma, the
Christ of the enthusiasts, or the Christ of
literature? There are two main ways to
pursue the subject of Christology that,
I believe, are complementary. The one is
a biblical-theological approach, and the
other is a dogmatic approach. Both are
necessary, but the need for a thoroughgo-
ing biblical-theological approach is not
always appreciated at the level of pasto-
ral ministry. It is important that people
know something of the one they are being
exhorted to put their trust in. Have we not
all at some time heard the “evangelistic”
sermon that calls on people to come to
Jesus without having given the slightest
indication as to why and on what basis?
When biblical theology shows us how all
the great themes about God, his people,
and the promises are gathered together
in Christ, then faith in Christ takes on
a meaning that is all too rarely attained.
Third, biblical theology promotes a high
view of the gospel. Very early in the history
of the church, the loss of the objective
and historic gospel went hand in hand
with the loss of the historical and natural
meaning of the Old Testament. Catholi-
cism developed on the back of a biblical
theology heavily slanted towards the alle-
gorical interpretation of Scripture. Both
Catholicism and allegorical interpretation
involved the de-historicizing of the gos-
pel. The Reformation re-historicized both
the gospel and the Old Testament. The
prime focus recovered in the Reformation
was the justification of the sinner on the
basis of the objective, historical work of
Christ for us. Catholicism had reversed
the vision so that the prime focus was on
the work of Christ, or his Spirit, within
us. This meant the reversal of the rela-
tionship of sanctification to justification.
Infused grace, beginning with baptismal
regeneration, internalized the gospel, and
made sanctification the basis of justifica-
tion. This is an upside-down gospel.
The attempts of the Antiochenes to
keep an historical and typological her-
meneutic to the fore largely failed to
take hold in the medieval church. Thus,
the historical acts of God in the Old
Testament were allegorized into being
something other than the typological
and historical antecedents to the histori-
cal gospel. Many evangelicals, I fear, are
more Catholic than Protestant in that
the main focus of the gospel is seen to
be “Jesus living in my heart.” This is the
Roman Catholic infused grace all over
again with the same results. Assurance of
salvation is seen to be based on the sub-
jective experience of sanctification, and is,
thus, eroded if not completely destroyed.
I am asserting that the loss of a robust
biblical theology from our evangelical
preaching and teaching leads to a blur-
ring of the gospel. The important biblical
doctrine of the new birth of the believer
has often been hijacked from its biblical-
theological context and transformed to
become the essential gospel. In practice,
much evangelical ministry concentrates
more on what God can do in our lives
now, at the expense of what God has done
for us in the life, death, and resurrection
of Jesus. Of course both are valid aspects
of the biblical teaching, but it is the per-
spective of the relationship of the two that
becomes distorted.
Fourth, biblical theology promotes a
high view of the ministerial task. It is to
be regretted that many ministers find
themselves overworked, under-funded,
under constant pressure to conform to
the preconceived ideas about the minister
and his role, and burdened with expecta-
tions of success rather than faithfulness.
The result is that many ministers become
pragmatic and driven by the search for
the next program that will bring people
through the doors on a Sunday. There is
no more potent antidote to pragmatism
than the reinforcing of the truth that
the gospel is the power of God for salva-
tion. I want to be bold here and claim
that biblical theology can have real and
observable effects in our lives and min-
istries. In the first place, biblical theology
will help the minister to be clear as to
what the gospel is that is God’s power
for salvation. Understanding the breadth
of the biblical view of salvation will
help prevent the harassed pastor from
45
 being side-tracked into the wrong kind
of success.
A biblical-theological focus is a key
antidote to distorted perspectives in that
it contextualizes texts that might other-
wise be taken out of context. Unfortu-
nately, the minister who strives for this
focus will often meet opposition because
it will mean dealing with distinctions
within the broader unity. Popular opin-
ion does not like fine distinctions, even
if important. Thus, if one suggests that
something which is good has usurped
the place of something better, or the best,
one is likely to be accused of rejecting the
good thing altogether.
Any minister struggles with the need
to establish priorities for time and tasks.
Ministers are increasingly expected to
be efficient and effective CEOs of fairly
complex local church organizations. Once
again pragmatism easily takes over. With-
out in any way trivializing the problems,
we recognize that the office of pastor-
teacher is first and foremost the office of
theologian. The role of biblical theology in
this relates to the fact that it interacts with
the necessary abstractions of systematic
theology, or church doctrine, and ties
them to the history of redemption and of
the people of God. In practical terms, bib-
lical theology resonates with the reading
and expository preaching from the Bible
week by week, and with people’s reading
of the Bible at home. Ministers need to
carry with them the biblical doctrine of
doctrine. Biblical theology is the bridge
between text and doctrine and keeps it
from being abstract. Both the minister
and his people need the perspective that
we together are heirs to the whole won-
derful process of salvation-history that
culminates in Jesus Christ. This is what
makes the ministerial task worth doing.
46
Fifth, biblical theology promotes a high
view of the people of God. Christians need
a biblical anthropology as well as a
biblical ecclesiology in order to resist
the tendency to the self-centeredness of
our sinful nature. Evangelicalism was
afflicted by nineteenth century individu-
alism, which has ripened into post-mod-
ern subjectivism. A biblical-theological
survey of the theme of the people of God
builds up a sound Christology and a
realistic anthropology. The people of God
are defined by their union with Christ,
a union that in turn is defined by who
and what Christ is. Only in a secondary
way are we defined by our relationship
to the great heroes of faith in the Bible.
That is why their relationship to Christ is
so important to the interpretation of the
narratives in which they figure.
When we start to lose sight of this bib-
lical perspective, it is easy to downgrade
the people of God in our churches into
the core membership of an organization.
They are perceived in practice as financial
supporters of the institution and the vol-
untary helpers in a multitude of activities,
some good, some indifferent, some inimi-
cal to the gospel. Let pastor and people
study the great themes of the people of
God through the method of biblical theol-
ogy. Let them ponder the wonder of it all,
that the process that began with Adam
and Eve and which is consummated in
the visions of the book of Revelation of
the people of God worshipping before
the throne of God and the Lamb, is really
and truly the same process into which our
local church is caught up.
A biblical theology of the people of
God will include a biblical theology of
the church. This is too big a subject to do
more in this lecture than simply indicate
that it is there and needs attention. At the
very least it is important as an antidote to
the rampant individualism and subjectiv-
ism of our time. But, the doctrine of the
church is not only a matter of a corporate
sense of being in Christ, it is also a matter
of being in the world. When, for example,
the first three chapters of the Book of
Revelation are treated as separate from
the rest of the book, as is often done in
series of sermons and Bible studies, the
significance of the seven churches of Asia
Minor is largely lost. When the book is
taken as a whole, and provided it is not
done with an exclusively futurist per-
spective, then we learn that the ordinary,
small, unremarkable, congregations, as
much as any other, are in the front line of
God’s action in this world to redeem and
judge the whole universe.
Biblical theology in the church must
begin in the pastor’s study. Above all,
biblical theology involves a way of think-
ing about how one uses and applies the
Bible. It is a way of thinking that needs to
be cultivated about all the issues of pas-
toral ministry. It is a method of approach
to almost any matter that confronts us in
ministry. It is a way of training ourselves
in theological reflection that will pay
handsome dividends if we persevere.
Often there are no clear doctrinal for-
mulations to assist us in facing certain
issues, and we are left with a few Bible
verses that might spring to mind, along
with a certain amount of experience-
based wisdom. It is in such cases that
biblical theology comes into its own.
Whatever the subject—prayer, guidance
or knowing the will of God, assurance,
the fulfilment of prophecy, secular pow-
ers, miracles, Israel and the Palestinians,
social justice, suffering, the Sabbath,
leadership, life after death, church and
denominations, and the whole range of
ethical issues—biblical theology provides
a strategy for investigation. It enables us
to make progress on subjects that do not
turn up in concordances (because they do
not involve any single and obvious bibli-
cal word), nor in handbooks of doctrine
(because they are not perceived to be
central matters of doctrine).
Summary Conclusions:
Biblical Theology in Our
Post-Modern World
In this series of lectures, I have tried
to do several things. First of all, I wanted
to give attention to the nature of biblical
theology and the necessity for it to be part
of every Christian’s equipment for life
and ministry in the world. In my second
lecture, I turned attention to the academy,
particularly to those seminaries and col-
leges concerned with ministerial training.
For whatever reason, and however it is
justified, the lack of introductory courses
in biblical theology in, so it would seem,
the majority of such institutions is to be
regretted. It may betray in some cases
tardiness in facing the realities of our
modern and postmodern societies and in
changing our understanding of the kind
of curriculum needed to address those
realities. In other cases it may show that
the theoretical aspects of the essence and
method of biblical theology are still so
diffuse that it gets left in the “too hard”
basket. In this third lecture, I have tried
to address the matter of ministry in the
front line: preaching and pastoral care,
Christian education, and one of the most
important of all, the ministry of Christian
parents to their children.
These three aspects, the theoretical
foundations, the formal instruction in
the Christian academy, and the ministry
in the church and in the Christian home,
47
 are all inter-related. If ministry in the
local church is mediocre, it will breed
mediocrity in those that seek to enter
ministry. It will encourage mediocrity
in the home ministry. The evangelical
academy is more likely to have entry
requirements that include consideration
of the academic ability of the applicant,
indications of ministry gifts, and proof
of spiritual maturity. One advantage of a
denominational structure is that it is likely
to have resources to facilitate the business
of encouraging interest in full-time
ministry and in laying down criteria for
acceptance into the seminary. However,
non-denominational organizations can
also make effective contributions to the
promotion of ministry training.
It is because of the inter-relationship of
the church, the home, and the academy
that what happens in one will affect what
happens in the others. Twenty years ago
Scott Hafemann issued a warning in an
article entitled “Seminary, Subjectivity,
and the Centrality of Scripture: Reflec-
tions on the Current Crisis in Evangeli-
cal Seminary Education.”10 I suspect the
problems of modernity affecting evangel-
ical thinking have only intensified in this
postmodern age. Hafemann noted, after
J. D. Hunter, that many evangelical lead-
ers were participating in the prevailing
culture of “modernity,” that evangelicals
responded to the challenge to their iden-
tity by trying to bend without breaking,
and that evangelicals had become their
own worst enemy. This latter was seen in
the move first to de-objectivization and
then to subjectivization. This leads to
evangelicals doubting the importance of
serious exegesis of the biblical text:
Thus because what one “feels” about
the Bible and God is now culturally
supported it can easily be wedded
with one’s subjective experience as
48
the primary source of certitude for
liberals and the growing source of
certitude for evangelicals.11
He goes on to point to an emerging theo-
logical support for evangelical unwilling-
ness to put in the hard effort in exegesis of
the text, a theology strikingly similar to
classical liberalism. This includes the idea
that a personal relationship with Christ
lessens the need to look at Scripture his-
torically, the borrowed charismatic pneu-
matology that the Spirit becomes the only
exegete we need, and the transferring of
the locus of revelation from the Bible to
experience.12
Others have been sounding similar
warnings on a broader front of evangeli-
cal religion. Many will be familiar with
David Wells’s books No Place for Truth,
and God in the Wasteland. In a recent
essay “The Supremacy of Christ in a
Postmodern World,” part of a volume
by the same name, Wells points to the
postmodern ethos as including removal
of a transcendent God and revelation
in favor of spirituality without religion
and which is entirely from within and
directed to the self. In the face of this and
of the threats posed by global terrorism,
Wells comments that “Evangelicalism,
now much absorbed by the arts and tricks
of marketing, is simply not very serious
anymore.”13
It would be fatuous to claim that the
whole answer to the evangelical malaise
is biblical theology. On the other hand,
I do not really think we can avoid the
disasters that Wells and Hafemann warn
of without a return to serious exegesis
of the biblical text. Hafemann sees part
of the difficulty for the seminary to be
persuading the incoming students that
Greek and Hebrew and close attention to
the exegetical task are important when
this is so foreign to both the secular cli-
mate and the ethos of much evangelical-
ism. As Geerhardus Vos defined biblical
theology as a part of exegetical theology,
I would perhaps reverse the order. Either
way, they belong together. Exegesis is not
complete until the significance of the pas-
sage is seen in relation to the whole story,
and thus to Christ.
I believe it is true to say that what starts
in the academy may take a generation or
more to filter to the level of the layper-
son in the local church. The tragedy of
this becomes clear when Bible-believing
Christians suddenly find themselves at
the mercy of a rampant liberal in their
pulpit. However, the seminary and Bible
college can also influence things for
reform and for an increase in biblical
ministry. The task is not easy, especially
if the youth of our churches are imbibing
a culture and world-view that is alien
to Christianity. Wells is right to see the
problem as a clash of worldviews. But
if he and Hafemann are right in their
analysis, the task is great. It is not only
introductory courses of biblical theology
in the seminary that we need. The need
is also great for the biblical theologians
to work with the historians and dogmati-
cians to hammer out the viable methods
and procedures so that biblical theology
will have some recognizable theoretical
basis that stems from divine revelation
in Scripture.
I conclude on this note: The gospel
is about objective historical events, not
about subjective experience and ideals.
Subjective experience, to be valid, must be
the fruit of the gospel. The gospel is about
the transcendent God of creation doing
something to rectify the corrupted his-
tory of mankind, not about a self-centered
technique of personal self-improvement.
The good news is that the Man from
heaven has re-written our personal his-
tories so that what counts before God is
that when we were dead in our trespasses
and sins, God made us alive with Christ,
raised us up with him, and made us to sit
with him in heavenly places (Eph 2:5-6).
The cancer of subjectivism that threatens
the very existence of true biblical religion
is not new; it is as old as Adam’s rebel-
lion. But, the remedy must at the very
least involve a determined return to the
historic and objective gospel as the only
basis for a true spiritual subjectivity.
The gospel is above all a sovereign
work of our God with consequences for
eternity that were planned from before
the foundation of the world. Whatever
the human dimensions in the resurgence
of biblical theology, the divine dimension
is the indispensable cause of all that is
good. If the quest for a viable, legitimate,
and consequential biblical theology is of
God, then our responsibility as academ-
ics and Christian pastors is great indeed.
The discipline of biblical theology will
only prosper and bear fruit in the church
if we, the theologians, repent for past
omissions and pray for the Spirit of God
to do a powerful work and to revive his
word among us and in this needy world.
Endnotes
  1This article was originally presented as
part of the Gheens Lectures, delivered
March 18-20, 2008, at The Southern Bap-
tist Theological Seminary.
 2
Klaas Runia, The Sermon Under Attack
(Exeter: Paternoster, 1983), 1, quoting
P. T. Forsyth, Positive Preaching and the
Modern Mind (New York: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1907).
 3
Peter Adam, “Preaching and Biblical
Theology,” in New Dictionary of Biblical
49
 Theology (ed. T. D. Alexander and
Brian S. Rosner; Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 2000), 104.
 4
Francis Watson, Text and Truth:
Redefining Biblical Theology (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 123.
 5
Ibid., 121.
 6
David Helm, The Big Picture Story
Bible (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004).
 7
See my essay, “The Pastor as Biblical
Theologian,” in Interpreting God’s
Plan: Biblical Theology and the Pastor
(ed. R. J. Gibson; Carlisle: Paternos-
ter, 1997), 110-29.
 8
See Craig G. Bartholomew and
Michael W. Goheen, The Drama of
Scripture: Finding Our Place in the
Biblical Story (Grand Rapids: Baker,
2004).
 9
Hans Küng, On Being a Christian
(Glasgow: Collins, 1974), 126-44.
10
Scott Hafemann, “Seminary, Sub-
jectivity, and the Centrality of
Scripture: Reflections on the Cur-
rent Crisis in Evangelical Seminary
Education,” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 31, no. 2 (1988).
11
Ibid, 137.
12
Ibid, 138-40.
13
David Wells, “The Supremacy of
Christ in a Postmodern World,”
in The Supremacy of Christ in a
Postmodern World (ed. John Piper
a nd Ju st i n Taylor; Wheaton:
Crossway, 2007), 23.

50
51
 Was Joseph a Type of the Messiah?
Tracing the Typological Identification
between Joseph, David, and Jesus
James M. Hamilton serves as This typological way of reading
Associate Professor of Biblical Theology the Bible is indicated too often and
explicitly in the New Testament
at The Southern Baptist Theological itself for us to be in any doubt that
Seminary. He previously served as this is the “right” way of reading
it—“right” in the only sense that
Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies
criticism can recognize, as the way
at Southwestern Baptist Theological that conforms to the intentionality
Seminar y’s Houston campus and of the book itself and to the conven-
tions it assumes and requires. . . .
was the preaching pastor at Baptist
Naturally, being the indicated and
Church of the Redeemer in Houston, obvious way of reading the Bible,
Texas. Dr. Hamilton has written many and scholars being what they are,
typology is a neglected subject,
scholarly articles and is the author of even in theology, and it is neglected
God’s Indwelling Presence: The Ministry elsewhere because it is assumed
of the Holy Spirit in the Old and New to be bound up with a doctrinaire
adherence to Christianity (Northrop
Testaments (B&H, 2006). Frye, The Great Code).1
Introduction
How do we interpret the world and the
events we experience? The world and the
events that take place within it are not,
after all, self-interpreting. In this essay I
will argue that earlier biblical narratives
so impacted later biblical authors that
their minds, their vocabulary, and their
interpretive framework were all shaped
by what they read in earlier biblical nar-
ratives, chiefly the Pentateuch.2 I will seek
to demonstrate this from the way that
later biblical authors frame their accounts
to correspond with earlier stories. This
essay will focus on narratives devoted to
Joseph, David, and Jesus.
In the story of Joseph we find a cer-
tain pattern of events. The way that key
aspects of this pattern of events drew
attention, were passed down, and later
52
James M. Hamilton
written up by Moses may have been
influenced by the story of Cain and Abel.3
The presence of these elements in the
Joseph story then exercised influence on
the selection of events included in the
stories of Moses,4 Daniel,5 Esther,6 and
Nehemiah.7 Each of these instances could
be studied in their own right, but in this
essay we will focus on the narrative cor-
respondences between Joseph and David
before looking to Jesus. My contention in
the first part of this essay is that the story
of Joseph in Genesis 37–50 was a forma-
tive influence on the account of David
produced by the author(s) of Samuel.8 I
will seek to show that the Joseph story
had a world-view shaping impact upon
the author(s) of Samuel. The Genesis
account was so deeply pressed in that the
shape of the thing left its mark, its type.9
My proposal is as follows: as a result of
the deep impression made by the Joseph
story, the life of David was interpreted
by people who read what happened to
David through the lens of Joseph.10 In
this sense Joseph functioned as a type of
David. There was precedent for this in the
way that the Joseph story influenced key
points in the account of Moses, so once
the narratives of Moses and David were
presented in the “Josephic” pattern, it is
plausible that expectations for more of
the same would be generated. Once these
patterns began to be recognized, which
would have been possible for readers
of the Pentateuch because it contained
the repeated patterns in the stories of
Joseph and Moses, the patterns might be
associated with Cain’s enmity for Abel,
Ishmael’s for Isaac, and Esau’s for Jacob.
These typological patterns, where the one
favored by God is rejected by his kinsmen,
could have been understood as prospective
in that they generated the expectation that
future individuals in the line of promise,
who experienced God’s favor and kind-
ness, would be expected to experience
similar treatment.
In my view the prophet like Moses
in Deut 18:15–18 should be understood
in precisely this way—as pointing to a
succession of prophets (that according
to Deut 34:10–12 would culminate in one
uniquely like Moses) who would experi-
ence a pattern of events similar to what
Moses underwent in being raised up by
God, rejected by the people, declaring
the word of God, and being vindicated
by God.11 That is to say, the recognizable
pattern (along with specific texts like
Deuteronomy 18 and 34) pointed forward
to others who would have parallel expe-
riences. It also seems that Luke presents
Jesus making this kind of typological
association between the righteous proph-
ets and their wicked opponents when he
speaks of “the blood of all the prophets
. . . from the blood of Abel to the blood
of Zechariah” (Luke 11:50–51).12 All the
righteous prophets have received the
same kind of treatment from their wicked
kinsmen, and the pattern will culminate
in the murder of Jesus himself, for which
reason Jesus asserts that all the blood of
the prophets, “shed from the foundation
of the world, may be charged against this
generation” (11:50). There is historical
correspondence between the way wicked
opponents have treated the righteous
prophets, and the pattern undergoes a
heightening or escalation of significance
when the Messiah himself experiences the
fullest expression of this pattern of events
and is crucified. The pattern is typologi-
cally fulfilled in Jesus.
In an earlier essay I attempted to trace
out the ways that David functioned as a
type of Jesus the Messiah.13 This essay
will examine the Joseph story’s impact
on the author(s) of Samuel, then seek to
show how the Joseph story also shaped
the interpretive framework reflected in
the New Testament. If what is presented
here proves to be convincing, there is a
natural point of application that flows
from it: if biblical language, imagery, and
patterns of events provide the interpretive
matrix or grid of meaning through which
later biblical authors interpreted the
events they recount, what should those
of us who seek to learn from the biblical
authors use to form our own interpretive
framework?14
I would offer the following working
definition of typological interpretation:
typological interpretation is canonical
exegesis that observes divinely intended
patterns of historical correspondence
and escalation in significance in the
events, people, or institutions of Israel,
and these types are in the redemptive
historical stream that flows through the
Bible.15 Some exposition of aspects of this
definition will perhaps be helpful, starting
with the last part first: (1) the progress of
revelation through salvation history as
recorded in the Bible functions as banks of
the stream for typological interpretation.
Things that are outside the banks of this
stream do not match the “type” of inter-
pretations that qualify as valid typological
readings. (2) Divine intention points to
God’s sovereign, providential work in the
53
 drama of human history. (3) Typological
interpretation of the Bible looks for the
ways the human authors of the Bible
have “read” God’s work in history, and it
seeks to discern cues the human authors
give as to how they have interpreted that
work. (4) Typological interpretation then
shapes the worldview of those who have
learned interpretation from the biblical
authors, and we who would learn from
the biblical authors seek to interpret the
world and our experiences in it in the
same way that the biblical authors have.
We seek to have our symbolic universe
shaped by the symbolic universe por-
trayed in the Bible. We seek to build our
interpretive framework after the pattern
of the interpretive framework employed
by the biblical authors. Our world is, as
it were, read through the lens given to us
by the Bible.
Was Joseph a Type of David?
Peter Leithart has written, “Like great
novelists, the biblical writers repeat a
theme, word, or image throughout a
book, and it accumulates significance as
it goes.”16 My argument that the author(s)
of Samuel intended the book’s audience
to see that Joseph was a type of David
will be based on three observable sets
of data: (1) linguistic correspondences: the
reuse of key phrases from the Joseph story
points readers of the David narratives
back to Genesis 37–50; (2) sequential event
correspondences: the pattern of events in
the David narrative broadly corresponds
to the Joseph story both in terms of the
events themselves and in terms of the
chronological sequence in which the
events are presented; and (3) redemptive
historical import: both Joseph and David
are presented as agents of salvation for
God’s people in fulfillment of promises
54
he has made. We turn to the evidence for
each of these.
Linguistic Correspondences
As we begin to survey this evidence,
it is important to note that the argument
being presented is based on the accumu-
lation of all the pieces of data to be sur-
veyed below. Taken individually, a point
of correspondence may seem incidental
or easily dismissed. Taken all together,
however, these are the kinds of correspon-
dences that allusively draw the mind of
someone reading the narratives of David
to the narratives of Joseph, with the result
that Joseph and David come to be associ-
ated with one another, even if not in an
explicit or conscious way.17 The authors
of the biblical narratives are not heavy
handed, nor do they invent material or
falsify history. They do, however, make
significant choices about which events
or aspects of events to record, and they
make linguistic choices regarding how to
describe those events. These choices can
function as intentional, if subtle, allusions
to earlier narratives, and they can point us
to the ways in which the biblical authors
frame their interpretation of history to
match earlier biblical patterns.
It is also helpful to consider the way
that allusions work in our own language
and culture. We know from our own expe-
rience that a unique phrase made up of
common words that only occurs in a few
places inevitably causes readers to associ-
ate the passages where the unique phrase
occurs. Often we know the first instance
of such a phrase, and we recognize that
the author who reuses the same phrase
consciously points his readers back to its
original instance. So, for instance, words
like “whom,” “for,” “bell,” and “tolls” are
very common in English literature. But
when Hemingway entitles his novel “For
Whom the Bell Tolls” the allusion to John
Donne’s meditation is unmistakable.18
As it happens, there are only three
instances in the text of the Old Testament
(as reflected in BHS) where we find the
phrase “shepherding the flock” in the
form of the participle h[,ro with both the
bet preposition and the article prefixed to
the noun “flock” !aCoB;.19
Gen 37:2, Joseph was “shepherding
the flock with his brothers”
!aCoêB; ‘wyx'a,-ta, h[,Ûro
1 Sam 16:11, David was “shepherd-
ing the flock” !aCo+B; h[,Þro
1 Sam 17:34, David was “shepherd-
ing the flock”
!aCo+B; wybiÞa'l. ^±D>b.[; hy"ôh' h[,’ro
Flocks and shepherds are common in
the Old Testament, but this combination
of the terms in these forms is unique to
these three verses. The use of the unique
phrase referring to Joseph in Gen 37:2 by
the author of Samuel with reference to
David establishes a connection between
Joseph and David. Others described in
similar terms include Abel, Jacob, and
Moses:
Gen 4:2, Abel was shepherding the
flock !acoê h[eroå ‘lb,“h,-yhiy>w):
Gen 30:36, Jacob was shepherding
the flock !b'Þl' !acoï-ta, h[,²ro bqoª[]y:w>
Exod 3:1, Moses was shepherding
the flock Arït.yI !aco±-ta, h[,²ro hy"ïh' hv,ªmoW
Outside of the six passages listed above,
there are no other instances of particular
individuals being described with the
masculine singular participle of the
verb “shepherding” taking “flock” as its
object,20 and the only instances in which
“flock” has the prefixed preposition bet
and the article are those that refer to
Joseph and David.
A similar linkage between rare phrases
occurs with the phrase “to shepherd the
flock of the father,” where the verb “shep-
herd” is in the qal infinitive construct
with the lamed preposition followed by
the marker of the definite direct object et
connected to “flock of his/their father.”
The only two instances of this phrase are
in Gen 37:12 and 1 Sam 17:5.21
Gen 37:12,
`~k,(v.Bi ~h,Þybia] !acoï-tªa,ª tA[±r>li wyx'_a, Wkßl.YEw:
1 Sam 17:15, lWa+v' l[;äme bv'Þw" %leîho dwI±d"w>
     `~x,l-(' tyBe( wybiaÞ ' !aco-ï ta, tA[±rl> i
These two phrases differ only in the
pronominal suffix modifying the word
“father.” In Genesis Joseph’s brothers
are doing this action, while in 1 Samuel
David is doing the action. We should not
discount this as evidence because David
is not described in terms that describe
Joseph, for the reuse of the phrase from
the Joseph narrative serves as another
link between the two narratives.
Even the use of a more common phrase
might be significant if it fits into a similar
sequence of events. In other words, though
the phrase “and they went” (Wkl.YEw:) is very
common in the Hebrew Bible, it may
nevertheless remind readers of the David
narratives in Samuel of the Joseph story in
Genesis, since both Joseph’s and David’s
older brothers are described this way.
Joseph’s brothers went off to shepherd
the flock of their father (Gen 37:12), then
Jacob sent Joseph to check on his brothers,
at which point Joseph’s brothers opposed
him. Similarly, David’s brothers went off
to battle with Saul (1 Sam 17:13), then
Jesse sent David to check on his brothers,
at which point David’s brothers reacted
harshly to him. Then a few phrases later,
in 1 Sam 17:15, we meet another phrase
from Gen 37:12, noted above, “to shep-
herd the flock of the father.” At the head
of this parallel sequence of events, the
phrase “and they went,” though common,
55
 is nevertheless a linguistic point of contact
between the two narratives.
There are other linguistic connections
between the Joseph and David narratives
that overlap with points of sequential
event correspondence, strengthening
what might otherwise be a tenuous lin-
guistic connection. For instance, it is
relatively common for people to inquire
about the “peace” (~Alv') of others (e.g.,
Gen 29:6; 43:27; 1 Sam 10:4; 25:5; 2 Sam
8:10). Thus, as above with the phrase
“and they went” describing the depar-
ture of both Joseph’s and David’s older
brothers, it is not significant in itself that
Joseph’s father sent him to inquire about
the “peace” of his brothers, and David’s
father later did the same (Gen 37:13–14;
1 Sam 17:17–18). But this item becomes
significant when taken with the other
linguistic ties and event sequence matches
between the narratives. In view of (1) the
already mentioned sequential event cor-
respondences and (2) the role that both
Joseph and David play in redemptive
history, the fact that Joseph and David
were both sent to see about the “peace”
of their brothers is another link between
the two narratives.
Even small words attract attention if
they are only used in a few contexts. Texts
that use the same rare word come to be
associated with one another, as readers
puzzle over a word they do not recognize.
From ancient times students of the Bible
have gathered all the instances of rare
words in order to examine the rare word
in context in an effort to determine its
meaning.22 This process would naturally
result in the association of Gen 37:19,
where Joseph’s brothers refer to “this
dreamer” using the rare demonstrative
pronoun hz<L'h;,23 with 1 Sam 17:26, where
David refers to “this Philistine” using
56
the related demonstrative pronoun zL'h;,
which is likewise rare.24 The use of a rare
but relatively easy to understand term
(because of its apparent relationship to
the more common forms hz< and hZ<h;)25
would be one more commonality between
the contexts that would cause them to be
associated in the minds of the audience. It
seems likely that the author(s) of Samuel
were aware that this would take place,
and that they intended it.
Another connection between the
Joseph narratives in Genesis and the
David narratives in Samuel is the unique
“coat of many colors.” This expression,
~ySiP; tn<toK., is only found in two places in
the Old Testament: in the description of
the coat Joseph’s brothers stripped off of
him (Gen 37:3, 23, 32),26 and in description
of the robe that Tamar tore after Amnon
sexually abused her (2 Sam 13:18–19).
Again, the use of an expression unique
to these two accounts links them. We
also note that the presence in both narra-
tives of a sexually abused woman named
Tamar provides yet another occasion for
readers of the David story in Samuel to
engage in comparative and contrastive
analysis with the Joseph story in Genesis
(Genesis 38; 2 Samuel 13).27
Another linguistic connection overlap-
ping with a sequential event connection
is seen in the way that a phrase used by
Joseph’s brothers, when they mean to do
him harm, is placed on the lips of King
Saul by the author(s) of Samuel when Saul
means to do David harm:
Gen 37:27, Joseph’s brother’s say,
“Let not our hand be upon him”
Abê-yhiT.-la; ‘Wn“dEy"w>
1 Sam 18:17, Saul says, “Let not my
hand be upon him” ABê ‘ydIy" yhiÛT.-la;
These are the only two instances of the
phrase “Let not my/our hand be” using
the expression yhiT.-la; with dy" in the Old
Testament.28 The phrase is the same, save
the natural adjustment to the new con-
text in 1 Samuel, and the event sequence
is also the same. Joseph’s brothers say
this as they set about their opposition
to Joseph, which results in his removal
to Egypt. Saul says this as he sets about
his opposition to David, which results in
David fleeing Saul’s presence for Philis-
tine territory. This produces an alignment
not only between the protagonists, Joseph
and David, but also between their antago-
nists, Saul and Joseph’s brothers.29 This
reality establishes a connection at the level
of redemptive historical import as well,
for in both cases the one whom God has
acknowledged is opposed by his kinsmen.
Rather than belabor the point by
discussing each and every instance of
linguistic connection between the Joseph
story and the David narratives, at this
point I will simply list some other lin-
guistic points of contact between the two
passages:
Taken individually, these linguistic
correspondences might seem threads too
weak to tie up the case that the Joseph
story was a formative influence on the
author(s) of the narratives concerning
David in Samuel. But taken all together
we have a cord of far more than three
strands, and I submit that these sixteen
points of linguistic contact form one not
easily broken. There are other points of
linguistic contact not noted above,35 to
say nothing of those I might not have
noticed. Moreover, this interwoven cord is
itself reinforced by the similarities in both
the sequences of events and the redemp-
tive historical import of both Joseph and
David. To these we now turn.
Sequential Event Correspondences
Both Joseph and David are young sons
of old fathers, and both have older broth-
ers (Gen 37:2–3; 1 Sam 16:11; 17:12). Both
Joseph and David are shepherding the
flock (Gen 37:2; 1 Sam 16:11; 17:34). Both
Joseph and David are designated as God’s

Linguistic Points of Contact Not Discussed above

       Genesis 37–50          Samuel
Gen 38:1, 12, 20 1 Sam 22:1
Adullamite Cave of Adullam31
Gen 38:26 1 Sam 24:17
Judah says of Tamar, “she has been Saul says to David, “you have been
more righteous than I because . . .” more righteous than I because . . . ”
-yKi( yNIM,êmi hq")d>c'( ‘rm,aYO“w yKiÛ yNIM<+mi hT'Þa; qyDIïc; dwIëD"-la, ‘rm,aYO“w: ;
Gen 37:5, 9; 39:2, 3, 21, 23; 48:21 1 Sam 16:18; 17:37; 18:12, 14, 28
Yahweh was with Joseph32 Yahweh was with David33
Gen 39:3 1 Sam 16:18; 18:5, 14–16, 30
Yahweh causes everything Joseph does Yahweh with David to make him
to succeed successful34
Gen 39:4 1 Sam 16:22
Joseph found favor in Potiphar’s sight David found favor in Saul’s sight
wyn"ßy[eB. !xe² @seîAy ac'’m.YIw: yn")y[eB. !xeÞ ac'm'î-yKi
Gen 39:6 1 Sam 16:12, 18
Joseph’s handsome appearance David’s handsome appearance
`ha,(r>m; hpeîywI ra;toß-hpey > 1 Sam 16:12, yairo+ bAjåw> ~yIn:ßy[e hpeîy>
1 Sam 16:18, ra;To+ vyaiäw>
Gen 41:26 1 Sam 16:21
Joseph “stood before” Pharaoh David “stood before” Saul
ynEßp.li Ad§m.['B. wyn"+p'l. dmoß[]Y:w:)
Gen 41:38 1 Sam 16:14
Joseph has the Spirit David has the Spirit

57
 chosen—Joseph through his dreams, and
David when Samuel anoints him. Both
Joseph and David have a father who
apparently does not expect greatness from
them—Joseph’s father responds with
incredulity to his dreams (Gen 37:5–10),
and when Samuel came to anoint one
of his sons as king, Jesse only sum-
moned David from the field after Samuel
passed over all of David’s brothers (1
Sam 16:8–13). Both Joseph and David are
described as handsome (Gen 39:6; 1 Sam
16:12, 18). Both Joseph and David have
older brothers who go away—Joseph’s
brothers to shepherd the flock (1 Sam
37:12), and David’s brothers go with Saul
(1 Sam 17:13). Both Joseph and David
are sent by their fathers to see how their
brothers are doing (Gen 37:13–14; 1 Sam
17:17–18).36 Both Joseph and David meet
with animosity from their older broth-
ers—Joseph’s brothers put him in a pit
and sell him into slavery (Gen 37:18–36),
and David’s brother answers him harshly
(1 Sam 17:28).
Both Joseph and David meet opposi-
tion from their brothers, succeed, face
more affliction, and ultimately prevail
as God’s deliverer for his people. Once
Joseph’s brothers sell him into slavery
in Egypt, Joseph succeeds in Potiphar’s
house and Potiphar entrusts everything
to him (Gen 39:1–5). Once David has been
answered harshly by his brother, he goes
on to slay Goliath (1 Sam 17:49–51), hav-
ing ministered to King Saul by playing
the harp when the evil spirit troubled him
(16:23). Then, just as Joseph was desired
by Potiphar’s wife and refused her (Gen
39:7–12), Saul offered his daughter Merab
to David, and he refused her (1 Sam
18:17–19). David was then desired by
Saul’s daughter Michal, and Saul sought
to use her as a snare against David (1 Sam
58
18:20–21). After Joseph fled, Potiphar’s
wife lied about him (Gen 39:17–18), and
after David fled Michal told a lie about
him (1 Sam 19:17). The lies of Potiphar’s
wife were the cause of more affliction for
Joseph (Gen 39:13–20), and in David’s
flight he found no little affliction, includ-
ing his wife Michal being given to another
man (1 Sam 25:44). Saul planned to use
his daughters as snares for David (1
Sam 18:17, 21). David retook Michal (2
Sam 3:13–16), but she eventually turned
against him (2 Sam 6:16–23). The authors
of the two narratives are explicit on the
point that Yahweh was with Joseph and
David and caused them to succeed in
everything they did, in spite of all afflic-
tion and opposition (see the references in
the chart above).
Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery,
which took him out of the promised land.
Saul hurled his spear at David, which
forced him to flee the promised land (e.g.,
1 Sam 19:10; 21:10; 27:1). Both Joseph and
David were pleasing to Gentile kings and
prospered among foreigners—Pharaoh
was only greater than Joseph with respect
to the throne (Gen 41:40), and Achish
was ready to take David into battle until
the other Philistine lords objected (1 Sam
29:1–11).
Both Joseph and David were thirty
years old when they rose to power (Gen
41:46; 2 Sam 5:4). Exalted to power in
Egypt, Joseph forgave his brothers and
showed kindness to them (Gen 45:1–15;
46:31–34; 50:19–21). Anointed as king
over Israel, David refused to lift his hand
against Saul—though Saul sought to kill
him (e.g., 1 Sam 26:8–11)—and David
later forgave Mephibosheth, who pros-
trated himself before David much the
way Joseph’s brothers had prostrated
themselves before him (cf. Gen 50:18; 2
Sam 9:6–8). Joseph married an Egyptian
woman, daughter of a priest, and had
sons by her (Gen 41:50–52, cf. Moses, who
also married the daughter of a Gentile
priest and had sons by her, Exod 2:16–22).
David also married a Gentile, the daugh-
ter of the king of Geshur, and had a son
by her (2 Sam 3:3).
Joseph interceded with Pharaoh on
behalf of his family (Gen 46:31–47:12).
David interceded with the king of Moab
on behalf of his (1 Sam 22:3–4). Once
Joseph made himself known to his broth-
ers, he provided land and grain for his
father’s house, delivering them from the
threat of the famine (Gen 47:27). Once
David was acknowledged as king over all
Israel, he provided rest for the land, deliv-
ering the people from all their enemies
round about (2 Sam 7:1; 8:1–14).
As with the linguistic connections,
so with the correspondences between
the sequence of events in the narratives
of Joseph and David: isolated examples
taken alone might be easy to dismiss,
but the accumulation of example after
example, in my judgment, places the
burden of proof on those who would
deny that the author(s) of Samuel sought
to establish a connection between Joseph
and David. The events recorded and the
language used to record them point in
the direction of David being described
with terms that describe events well
known from the Joseph story. This con-
clusion is independently confirmed by
Robert Alter’s analysis, where he con-
cludes (from a different perspective)
regarding the use of the Genesis narra-
tives in Samuel: “From such purposeful
deployment of allusion, the inference is
inevitable that the author of the David
story was familiar at least with the J
strand of the Joseph story in a textual
version very like the one that has come
down to us.”37
Those of us who affirm that these
events took place, of course, will see
another hand at work in the shaping
of history. A divine hand orchestrated
what took place such that key patterns
of events recurred in the lives of Joseph,
David, and the others mentioned above in
the introduction. That divine hand then
guided the interpreters of those events,
with the result that the descriptions of
earlier instances of these patterns became
the interpretive grid through which later
describers of similar patterns interpreted
the history they set down. Thus, the good
guys are identified by the Lord himself,
opposed by their kinsmen and driven
away to Gentile territory, where they
marry, have children, and are delivered
from every affliction, vindicated by God,
and then turn up triumphant to deliver
their own people, who find forgiveness
for their earlier evil opposition to God’s
chosen agent of salvation. This pattern
can be seen in Joseph and David, as well
as in Moses and others (such as Jephthah
and Samson).
Redemptive Historical Import
Genesis 3:15 points to a seed of the
woman who will crush the serpent’s
head.38 Genesis 5:29 indicates that the
godly line traced in the genealogies
expected a seed of the woman who would
reverse the curses (cf. Gen 5:29 with Gen
3:17–19). Genesis 12:1–3 announces that all
the families of the earth will be blessed by
Abraham, and 22:18 adds that the blessing
will come through the seed of Abraham.39
Genesis 17:6 and 16 say kings will come
from Abraham, and a natural conclu-
sion to draw is that the seed of Abraham
through whom the nations will be blessed
59
 will be a king. The blessing of Abraham is
passed to Isaac (Gen 26:2–5), then to Jacob
(28:3–4). Then Joseph becomes lord of all
Egypt (45:9), and he provides food for all
the peoples of the earth (Gen 41:56–57).
With Joseph delivering the Gentiles from
famine, then providing for his brothers,
there is a sense in which all the families
of the earth have been blessed through
the seed of Abraham. Regarding Joseph’s
treatment of his brothers, it is interesting
to observe that the guilty have their feet
washed (Gen 44:24) and eat bread when
Joseph comes (44:25).
One might expect from the Joseph
narrative that the blessing of Abraham,
having been passed through Isaac to
Jacob, would be realized through a deliv-
erer from the line of Joseph, especially
since Jacob blesses Joseph’s sons (Gen
48:14–20). This was not to be, however,
and 1 Chron 5:1–2 (ESV) explains:
The sons of Reuben the firstborn
of Israel (for he was the firstborn,
but because he defiled his father’s
couch,40 his birthright was given to
the sons of Joseph the son of Israel,
so that he could not be enrolled
as the oldest son; though Judah
became strong among his brothers
and a chief came from him, yet the
birthright belonged to Joseph).
This text clearly states that though the
birthright went to Joseph, the blessing
of Abraham was not realized through a
leader from Joseph’s line. Rather, the chief
came from the line of Judah. This refers to
the line of David, who descended from
Judah, and even in the Joseph narrative
there are ways in which Judah shines.41
Joseph had told his brothers they would
not see him again unless they brought
Benjamin with them. Jacob was under-
standably reluctant to entrust Benjamin to
the care of his sons. When Reuben offered
60
his own sons as surety for Benjamin’s
life, Jacob refused Reuben’s offer (Gen
42:37–38). But when Judah offered his
own life as surety for Benjamin’s, Jacob
sent his beloved son to Egypt with Judah
(43:8–14). Then Jacob blessed Judah with
the ruler’s staff that would never depart
from him (49:8–12).
In a sense the redemptive histori-
cal import of Joseph approximates the
redemptive historical import of David.
Joseph delivers his kinsmen, but he is not
king in the promised land. The promise of
a king to Abraham preceded the Joseph
narrative in Genesis 17, and another
indication of a king follows it in Gen
49:8–12. The Balaam oracles reiterate the
expectation of a king who will lead Israel
to peace and security (Num 23:21; 24:7,
17), and regulations for the king are stated
in Deut 17:14–20.42 Early students of the
Pentateuch, then, who might have noticed
the parallels between Joseph, Moses, and
others, might have expected future deliv-
erers of Israel to have similar experiences,
but they might also have been hoping
for a righteous king. These aspects of the
Pentateuch could have fostered the hope
for one like Joseph but greater than he,
king in the land.
It may have been just such an expecta-
tion that resulted in what is being argued
here, namely, that the author(s) of Samuel
shaped the narratives concerning David
such that readers were pointed back to
the Joseph stories. More happened in
David’s life than is recorded in the narra-
tives of Samuel. One instance of this will
illustrate the point: when the author(s)
of Samuel framed up the story of David
killing Goliath, was it necessary to include
the details recounted above that are so
reminiscent of Joseph? Was it necessary
to record that David, the young son of
an aged father, had older brothers who
had gone off with Saul, and that Jesse
sent David to his brothers to see how
they were doing? Was it necessary to
include the interchange between David
and his brother Eliab? It would seem that
there could have been other places in the
narrative where the details of David’s
family could have been recorded. Since 1
Samuel 16 closes with David serving Saul
by playing the harp for him, the material
about Jesse sending David to check on his
brothers could have been left out. Since
David was designated as Saul’s armor
bearer in 1 Sam 16:21, it would have been
natural for David to be at the front to hear
the Philistine’s taunts, and the narrative
could have carried forward with David’s
response to and triumph over Goliath. If
verses that tell of David’s family and his
going back and forth from his father to his
brothers, such as 1 Sam 17:12–15, 17–20a,
had been left out, the narrative would
have proceeded without interruption from
David as Saul’s armor bearer to his con-
frontation with Goliath. I contend that the
author(s) of Samuel included what they
did not only because it happened that way
(again, much else that happened was not
included), but also in order to highlight
the historical correspondences between
Joseph and David. As Leithart puts it,
“Through analogy, the writer guides his
reader’s responses and judgments about
characters and events.”43 The fact that
David goes on to be king in Israel provides
the note of escalation, making David, in a
sense, a typological fulfillment of Joseph.
Between Joseph and David, there are
points of historical correspondence, and
there is an escalation of significance from
Joseph to David. It seems to me that the
author(s) of Samuel sought to establish
these things, and succeeded.
While the redemptive historical import
of David goes beyond that of Joseph, since
David is king in the land of promise, still
David cannot build the temple. His seed,
however, will do so. The seed of David
will see his throne established forever,
be as a son to Yahweh his father, and the
kingdom of David will be established
through him (2 Sam 7:12–16). Like Joseph,
who embodies aspects of the realization
of the promise, but whom the narrative
points beyond to one greater, so also the
narratives of Samuel point beyond David
to his greater descendant. Psalm 110 also
points beyond David, and Luke presents
Jesus pointing this out (Luke 20:41–44).
Before we move to the question of
whether Joseph was a type of Christ, a
summary of my argument in this first sec-
tion is in order. I have pointed to linguistic
points of contact between the narratives
of Joseph and David, summarized cor-
respondences between the two narratives
at the level of historical event sequences,
and described the roles played by Joseph
and David in the outworking of God’s
promise to crush the head of the serpent
and bless all the families of the earth as
promised in the blessing of Abraham. The
argument here is that history developed
this way because God intended these
patterns of events to be repeated in the
lives of Joseph and David. Further, the
author(s) of Samuel wrote what they
wrote the way they wrote it in order to
show that Joseph was a type of David,
and having pointed readers of the nar-
ratives back to Joseph, they then pointed
their audience beyond David to his seed.
The next question to be considered is this:
if Joseph was a type of David, was he also
a type of the Messiah?
61
 If Joseph Was a Type of David, Was
He Also a Type of the Messiah?
In order to establish whether or not the
early Christian perspectives reflected in
the New Testament indicate that Joseph
was a type of the Messiah, we will ask two
questions: first, given David’s role as a
type of the Messiah,44 and having argued
for Joseph’s role as a type of David, are
there passages in the Gospels that reflect
patterns that are closer to Genesis than to
Samuel? And second, are there passages
in the New Testament that make a con-
nection between Joseph and Jesus? What
follows below argues for an affirmative
answer to both questions, and the argu-
ment is that the patterns in the Gospels
are typological patterns, as are the connec-
tions between Joseph and Jesus made by
Stephen in his speech in Acts 7. Because
Acts 7 draws explicit connections between
Joseph and Jesus, we will take it first, then
move back to the connections seen in the
Gospel narratives.
Stephen’s Speech in Acts 7
Stephen “was doing great wonders
and signs” (Acts 6:8) in Jerusalem when
he was opposed by the Synagogue of the
Freedmen and others (6:9). When they
could not overcome his wisdom and
the Spirit in which he spoke (6:10), they
cooked up three charges against him: (1)
“we heard him speaking blasphemous
words against Moses and God” (6:11); (2)
“this man does not cease speaking words
against this holy place and the law” (6:13);
and (3) “we heard him saying that this
Jesus the Nazarene will destroy this place
and change the customs which Moses
handed over to us” (6:14). Stephen then
addressed the high priest and the Sanhe-
drin (6:12; 7:1). He told them about Abra-
ham and the Patriarchs (7:2–8); Joseph
62
and the sojourn in Egypt (7:9–16); Moses,
the exodus, Sinai, and the wilderness
rebellion (7:17–43); the tent of testimony
and Solomon’s temple (7:44–50). Then he
indicted them (7:51–53). In response, they
gnashed their teeth (7:54), threw him out
of town, and stoned him (7:58). Evidently
what Stephen said to them was more than
the innocuous history lesson it seems to
be at first glance.
Stephen answered the three charges
leveled against him, but something in his
words caused the Sanhedrin to set aside
all concern for judicial proceeding. The
highest council of the Jewish people was
so enraged at what Stephen said (7:54)
that they took immediate, deadly action.
Perhaps the violent reaction to Stephen
resulted from the way that his speech
typologically identified his opponents
with the wicked throughout Israel’s his-
tory, while at the same time identifying
the early Christians, and most especially
Jesus, with the righteous in Israel who,
like all the prophets, were opposed by
their wicked kinsmen throughout Israel’s
history.
Typology is not all there is in Stephen’s
speech. He answers the charge of speak-
ing “against this holy place” (6:13), for
instance, by showing that God is not
limited to the land of Israel, the city of
Jerusalem, or temple mount. Yahweh
appeared to Abraham in Mesopotamia
(7:2), and Abraham had no foothold in
the land (7:5). Similarly, Yahweh appeared
to Moses at Sinai (7:30), and then even
though Yahweh took up residence in
the temple, Isaiah taught that Yahweh’s
footstool would be not merely the ark
but the earth, which Yahweh created as
his dwelling place (7:44–50). These state-
ments seem to represent Stephen’s efforts
to place the temple mount in Jerusalem in
proper biblical-theological perspective.
We can see also that Stephen responded
to the charge of speaking against God and
Moses by endorsing what Moses wrote
about God (7:2–40 all comes from the Pen-
tateuch), and he was probably responding
to the charge of teaching that Jesus would
change the regulations of Moses when
he alluded to Moses teaching that God
would raise up a prophet like himself
(7:37). The bit about Jesus destroying
the temple may reflect Jesus’ statements
regarding the temple in John 2:19 (cf.
2:21) 45 and the false charges brought
against Jesus in Mark 14:58, with the
taunt as he was crucified in Mark 15:29.
The early Christians saw believers as the
replacement of the temple (cf. 1 Cor 3:16;
6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; 1 Pet 2:5),46 so this charge
against Stephen may even be a distortion
of such teaching, to which Stephen’s com-
ments about God not being limited to the
land of Israel also apply.47
Still, the Sanhedrin had kept its cool
in the face of early Christian teaching in
other cases, such as when Peter and John
declared they would obey God rather
than man (Acts 4:19). What Peter and John
did not do was declare that their oppo-
nents had aligned themselves with those
who had opposed and killed the prophets
throughout Israel’s history. This Stephen
did, and it got him killed.
Stephen’s indictment of his opponents
in Acts 7:51–53 provides the key informa-
tion for understanding why his remarks
were so incendiary. Luke presents Ste-
phen saying,
You stiff-necked people, uncircum-
cised in heart and ears, you always
resist the Holy Spirit. As your
fathers did, so do you. Which of the
prophets did not your fathers per-
secute? And they killed those who
announced beforehand the coming
of the Righteous One, whom you
have now betrayed and murdered,
you who received the law as deliv-
ered by angels and did not keep it
(Acts 7:51–53, ESV).
The statement “you always resist the Holy
Spirit” is exposited by the words that
follow, “As your fathers did, so do you”
(Acts 7:51). In other words, the resisting
of the Holy Spirit to which Stephen refers
are the actions of the “fathers” he has
enumerated to this point in his discourse.
The “fathers” resisted Joseph and sold
him into slavery in Egypt (7:9), and they
are identified in that section of Stephen’s
speech as “the patriarchs” (7:9) and as
the “fathers” (7:11, 12, 15). Similarly, the
“fathers” resisted Moses (7:25–28), and
with respect to Moses Stephen elaborates
on the point: “This is the Moses who said
to the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for
you a prophet like me from your broth-
ers. . . . Our fathers refused to obey him,
but thrust him aside, and in their hearts
they returned to Egypt” (7:35, 39).48 The
formula in Stephen’s words, as they did so
you do, is the kind of comparative state-
ment used when typological interpreta-
tions are being made. John Polhill puts
it well: “The whole purpose of Stephen’s
speech now becomes clear. His historical
survey had illustrated Israel’s constant
rejection of God’s chosen leaders. Moses,
Joseph, the prophets are all types of and
pointers to Christ; and Stephen pointed
out to his hearers that they had already
killed him.”49 A possible implication of
Stephen’s theology and teaching might
be that his opponents concern for present
Jerusalem—rather than being concerned
with the worship of God through his
Messiah—is analogous to returning to
Egypt.50 Perhaps another part of what
infuriated Stephen’s opponents was
their perception that he had identified
63
 Jerusalem with Egypt (cf. Acts 7:39; Gal
4:25; Rev 11:8).
Stephen charged his opponents with
“always” acting this way, just as their
fathers did, and the examples he gave
of those whom the fathers resisted are
Joseph and Moses. 51 These two, how-
ever, Stephen treats as “typical.” That
is, the fathers’ treatment of Joseph and
Moses is paradigmatic. Thus, Stephen
asks, “Which of the prophets did your
fathers not persecute?” (Acts 7:52).52 His
statement in Acts 7:52, “they killed those
who announced beforehand the coming
of the Righteous One,” is very similar
to the words of Jesus quoted above,
regarding the blood of all the prophets
from Abel to Zechariah being charged to
that generation (Luke 11:50–51). Stephen
seems to be interpreting history the same
way Jesus did, and just as Jesus could
charge that generation with the blood of
all the prophets because of the way they
treated him, so Stephen asserts that “you
have now betrayed and murdered” Jesus
(Acts 7:52).53
Stephen apparently read his own situ-
ation and the recent events that had taken
place with Jesus through the lens of the
Old Testament, with particular reference
in this instance to Joseph and Moses. He
identified Jesus and the early Christians
with those to whom God had shown
favor, and he identified the Jewish oppo-
nents of Jesus and the early Christians
with Joseph’s brothers and Moses’ kins-
men who opposed and rejected them.54
Luke has read the events this way as well,
for he links Stephen and Moses when
he records Stephen saying that Moses
did “wonders and signs” (7:36) having
noted that Stephen himself was doing
“wonders and signs” when the opposi-
tion rose up against him (6:8).55 There are
64
also clear parallels between the deaths
of Stephen and Jesus (Acts 7:59–60; Luke
23:34, 46). This typological identification
of Stephen’s opponents with the wicked
in Israel’s history is the basis for Stephen’s
charge that his opponents are “stiff-
necked people, uncircumcised in heart
and ears [who] always resist the Holy
Spirit” (Acts 7:51). Polhill points out that
Stephen has in essence turned the charges
made against him back upon his oppo-
nents: “No, it was not he but his Jewish
accusers who were the real lawbreakers (v.
53). They were the apostates and idolaters
who had constantly transgressed the first
Commandments.”56 And his opponents
seem to understand precisely these impli-
cations of his words: they understand
that he has identified them with Joseph’s
brothers and with the wicked Israelites
who opposed Moses. They understand
that he claims that Jesus is the prophet
like Moses precisely because in Jesus is
seen the fullest expression of this “typi-
cal” pattern of events—God’s chosen and
anointed, rejected by the people, vindi-
cated by God. They understand, and they
will not tolerate such assertions. Gnashing
their teeth, they stone him.
What I have argued above regarding
the narratives of Samuel, namely, that the
author(s) of Samuel shaped their narra-
tives so as to match their account of David
to the Joseph story, also holds, in my view,
with what Luke has done in his Gospel
and in Acts. Luke Timothy Johnson writes
regarding Luke’s account of Stephen’s
speech in Acts 7:
And in the case of both Joseph and
Moses, Luke has edited his account
in such fashion as to show how
each fits into a pattern of twofold
sending and rejection, so that these
biblical exempla point forward to
the twofold sending and rejection
of the prophet Jesus. By this editing
 of the biblical narrative, Luke not
only reinforces the fundamentally
prophetic character of Scripture and
its heroes, but by doing this sup-
ports the ideological position of his
community that Scripture is best
understood when read as pointing
toward the risen prophet Jesus.
. . . And he does all this within the
tight limits set by the text of the
LXX itself, whose wording he con-
sistently employs.57
Gospels Reflecting Genesis Rather
Than Samuel
As we turn now to the narratives con-
cerning Jesus in the Gospels, our concern
is to show that the Joseph story has not
only influenced the Gospel narratives by
means of its influence on the narratives
of David but has had a direct influence
on the narratives concerning Jesus in the
Gospels. To establish this I will highlight
two points of linguistic contact between
Luke’s Gospel and the Joseph story as
translated into Greek. From there we will
consider event sequence correspondences
between Joseph and Jesus, before consid-
ering the redemptive historical import of
the two.
Linguistic Correspondences
The claim here is not that these are the
only two points of linguistic correspon-
dence between the Joseph narratives in
Genesis and the Jesus narratives in the
Gospels, but this discussion will focus
on two from Luke’s Gospel. Rather than
take them in the order in which they
appear in the Gospel, we will begin by
looking at one that appears in the par-
able of the wicked tenants. The second
appears in a comment Luke makes as
the narrator of the Gospel. I take them
in this order because I think it likely that
Jesus interpreted his life through the
lens given to him from the Joseph story,
and from this his followers learned to do
likewise. Read this way, the comment
made by Luke becomes an indication
that he is interpreting the Old Testament
the way that Jesus did, and at the same
time interpreting Jesus the way that Jesus
interpreted himself.
The parable of the wicked tenants
(Luke 20:9–18) is in some ways an inter-
pretation of the whole history of Israel.58
The planting of the vineyard (Luke 20:9)
is reminiscent of Isaiah’s love song for
Yahweh’s vineyard (Isa 5:1–7), where the
vineyard is explicitly identified as Israel
and Judah (5:7).59 When Jesus finishes the
parable, Luke relates that “the scribes and
the chief priests sought to lay hands on
him at that very hour, for they perceived
that he had told this parable against
them” (Luke 20:19, ESV), so they clearly
understood that Jesus was identifying
them as the wicked tenants, who beat
the servants sent to them by the owner
of the vineyard (20:9–12). Israel’s history
of afflicting the prophets Yahweh sent
to them, from Moses to Jeremiah, makes
it easy to identify the prophets with the
servants the wicked tenants reject.60 Sig-
nificant figures, such as Moses, Joshua,
Samson, and David, are identified as the
Lord’s servant in the Old Testament.61
From this perspective, Stephen’s
speech in Acts 7 is simply a more explicit
version of Jesus’ parable of the wicked
tenants in Luke 20, and the parable of the
wicked tenants is a thinly veiled exposi-
tion of the statement about the blood of
all the prophets from Abel to Zechariah
(Luke 11:49–51). In the parable, the
owner of the vineyard decides to send
his beloved son (20:13). The audience of
Luke’s Gospel has had Jesus identified as
the beloved son at his baptism (3:22), and
some manuscripts have “beloved son”
rather than “my son, the chosen one” at
65
 the transfiguration (9:35, cf. KJV). Luke
presents Jesus routinely referring to him-
self as the son of man, but Jesus’ opponents
may have been aware of the occasions
when the demons confessed Jesus as “son
of God” (4:41; 8:28), and they may have
heard that Jesus said the kind of thing
Luke records at 10:22. The audience of
Luke’s gospel has every indication that the
beloved son in the parable of the wicked
tenants is to be identified with Jesus, and
it is likely that Jesus’ audience would have
understood him that way as well.
As with Joseph and David, the father in
the parable sends the son to see about his
own, and the son will meet with a harsh
response from those to whom the father
has sent him. Here we meet the linguistic
connection to the Joseph story in Genesis,
for the words that Jesus places on the lips
of the wicked tenants are the very words
of the Greek translation of Genesis 37:20:
avpoktei,nwmen auvto,n, “let us kill him”
(Luke 20:14).62 It seems likely that in telling
this parable that summarizes the history of
Israel’s rejection of the prophets, Jesus has
chosen the very language of a significant
early instance in Israel’s history when the
patriarchs themselves rejected Joseph, the
one whom God had designated as preemi-
nent through his dreams.
The parallel accounts of the parable
of the wicked tenants in Matthew 21 and
Mark 12 strengthen the allusion by includ-
ing the first word of the phrase in Gen
37:20—the patriarchs words are rendered,
deu/te avpoktei,nwmen auvto,n, “come, let
us kill him” (Gen 37:20). This three word
phrase occurs in Matthew 21:38 and Mark
12:7, and some manuscripts include deu/te
(“come”) in Luke 20:14. Genesis 37:20,
Matt 21:38, and Mark 12:7 are the only
three places in all of biblical Greek where
this three word phrase occurs.63
66
Whatever language Jesus was speaking
(Aramaic? Greek?) when he told this par-
able, the evangelists present him alluding
to the Joseph narrative. It would seem
that the evangelists present Jesus telling
a parable that encapsulates the way that
Israel treated the prophets God sent to
her, and as he presents himself as the
ultimate example of one who will receive
this treatment,64 as God’s beloved son,
he uses the very language of the Joseph
story to depict the way that his opponents
will respond to him. Luke presents the
opponents understanding exactly what
Jesus is saying and wanting to seize
him in response. This parable, with its
linguistic connection to the Joseph story,
with the event sequence correspondence
of the father sending the son, who is
then rejected, and with the redemptive
historical import of Jesus as the last of
a long line of figures whom the owner
of the vineyard has sent to his tenants,
indicates that Jesus understood himself
as the typological fulfillment of this pat-
tern, which means that Jesus understood
himself as the typological fulfillment of a
pattern to which the Joseph story made a
key contribution.
The other point of linguistic cor-
respondence to examine here indicates
that Luke the evangelist had learned this
perspective and reflects it in a narratorial
comment. After Joseph told his second
dream to his father, his father rebuked
him (Gen 37:10), his brothers envied him
(37:11a), and then we read, “but his father
kept the saying in mind” (37:11b, ESV).
The Greek translation of this phrase in
Gen 37:11b reads, o` de. path.r auvtou/
dieth,rhsen to. r`hm/ a. The point of contact
with this in Luke comes when the parents
of Jesus, having searched for him for three
days, find him and his mother said, “Son,
why have you treated us so? Behold, your
father and I have been searching for you
in great distress” (Luke 2:48). The parents
of Jesus were understandably worried,
and we might not be mistaken to see a
rebuke in the words of Mary. Jesus then
responds (2:49). Luke relates that his par-
ents did not understand (2:50), and that
Jesus went home and was submissive
(2:51a). Luke 2:51b then states, “And his
mother treasured up all these things in her
heart” (ESV). In order to see how similar
the words Luke places on the lips of Mary
are to the Greek translation of the words
of Jacob, it will be helpful to set them one
on top of another:
Gen 37:11, o` d e . path.r au tv ou/
dieth,rhsen to . r`h m/ a
Luke 2:51, kai . h` mh,t hr auvt ou/
dieth,rei pa,nta ta. r`h .mata e nv th/|
kardi,a | auth/j
Luke’s phrase matches the Greek of
Genesis 37 lexically and syntactically,
with the articular subject modified by
the possessive pronoun, followed by the
same verb, with the same object.65 Like
Joseph’s father, who “kept the thing,”
Jesus’ mother “was keeping all these
things,” and in both cases the narrator
makes this comment after the parent has
rebuked the child. Luke seems to want
to remind his readers of Jacob’s words to
Joseph near the beginning of his account
of Jesus, with the result that they will
interpret other aspects of the life of Jesus
through the lens of Joseph, just as Jesus
interpreted his own life through the lens
of Joseph.
Sequential Event Correspondences
The linguistic correspondences just
discussed serve, in my view, as cues to the
audience of Luke’s gospel. The audience is
to take these cues and follow them. Jesus
is like Joseph, who was a key early figure
in the pattern of Israel’s treatment of those
God raised up to deliver her. We will have
more to say about the redemptive histori-
cal import of this in the next section, here
we will highlight some sequential event
correspondences between Joseph and
Jesus.
Luke’s notation that Jesus “was about
thirty years of age” (Luke 3:23, ESV) is
almost certainly included to draw the
minds of his readers to the only other two
figures the Bible says were thirty years
old: Joseph (Gen 41:46) and David (2 Sam
5:4).66 This instance is another one where
event sequence overlaps with linguistic
correspondence. The Greek translation
of Gen 41:46 has the two word phrase,
ev t w/ n tria, k onta, to describe Joseph’s
thirty years, this same two word phrase
is used to describe Jesus being “about”
thirty years of age in Luke 3:23. The two
words are transposed in 2 Samuel. The
significance of this notice at the level of
event sequence comes in the fact that in
each case the age is noted at the begin-
ning of the figure’s public service: Joseph
as he begins to serve Pharaoh, David as
he begins to reign over Israel and Judah,
and Jesus as he begins to bring in the
kingdom.
The genealogy follows the notice
that Jesus was thirty years old in Luke
(3:23–38); then Jesus faces temptation in
the wilderness (4:1–13). There is a woe-
ful pattern of sexual misbehavior in the
Old Testament seen in Judah with Tamar,
Samson with Delilah, David with Bath-
sheba, and Solomon with his multiplied
wives, but Joseph resisted the temptation
of Potiphar’s wife (Gen 37:7–9). Simi-
larly, Jesus resisted Satan’s temptations
(Luke 4:1–13). Just as Joseph’s righteous
conduct was twisted by Potiphar’s wife
67
 and used against him (Gen 37:11–20), so
also the righteous mighty deeds of Jesus
were twisted and used against him (e.g.,
the charge that he drove out demons by
Beelzebul, Luke 11:15). God was with
Joseph (e.g., Gen 39:21), and Nicodemus
knew that God was with Jesus (John 3:2).
Just as Joseph was sold for 20 shekels
of silver (Gen 37:28), so also Jesus was
sold for a sum of silver, 30 pieces (Matt
27:14–16). Just as Joseph’s brothers, sons
of Israel, sold Joseph into the hands of
Ishmaelite-Midianite traders (Gen 37:28),
so the nations gathered together against
Jesus (Acts 4:25–27; cf. Ps 2:1–2). Joseph’s
brothers had stripped him of the special
coat his father gave him (Gen 37:23), and
Jesus too was stripped of his seamless
robe (Matt 27:28; John 19:23).
Joseph was in the pit (sometimes trans-
lated “dungeon” Gen 40:15) with two
other criminals (40:4), one of whom was
delivered while the other was destroyed
(40:12–15, 18–22), hanged on a tree (40:19,
22; 41:13). As for Joseph, he insisted that
he had done nothing to deserve his pun-
ishment (40:15). Jesus, too, was with two
criminals, one who mocked him while the
other was told by Jesus that he would be
with him in paradise (Luke 23:43).67 As for
Jesus, Luke’s gospel insists that Jesus was
innocent (Luke 23:4, 14–15, 20, 23, 41, 47).
Joseph’s brothers treated him as a dead
man, and they fooled Israel into believing
he was dead as well (Gen 37:31).68 Joseph
was not dead, however, even though
his brothers thought he was “no more”
(42:13). He was living and ruling over
Gentiles in Egypt. Similarly, the Jewish
leadership was convinced that Jesus
was dead, and they tried to fool others
into believing he was dead as well (Matt
28:11–15). But just as Joseph was alive,
Jesus is alive and reigns over a largely
68
Gentile church. When Joseph’s brothers
later appeared before him, they became
conscious of their own sin toward him
(42:21). Not realizing who he was, they
bowed down to him. Joseph’s dreams
came true. Joseph then made himself
known to his brothers (45:1–3), and it was
as though he was back from the dead.
The New Testament maintains that, like
Joseph’s brothers, those who have rejected
Jesus will see the one they pierced (Rev
1:7; cf. Zech 12:10). Paul’s words in Rom
11:25–27 can be interpreted to mean that,
like Joseph’s brothers, Jesus’ kinsmen will
bow to him when they behold him back
from the dead.69
Redemptive Historical Import
Jesus is not simply one more example
in this pattern. He is its culmination. He
is its fulfillment. Joseph told his brothers
that God sent him to Egypt to preserve life
(Gen 45:5), to bring about a great deliver-
ance (45:7). But that deliverance was only
from famine. Jesus delivered his people
from their sins. He broke the curse. As
David Wells put it, the last defense against
evil held, and in his death and resurrec-
tion Jesus has broken the back of evil.70
It may be that it was this pattern of the
way that Israel rejected those God sent to
her that made Jesus so certain that as the
Messiah “it was necessary” for him to suf-
fer (cf. Luke 9:22, 44; 12:50; 13:32–33; 17:25;
18:31–33; 24:25–26). And when Jesus
“interpreted to them in all the Scriptures
the things concerning himself” (24:27), it
seems that he highlighted the ways that
he fulfilled these typological patterns.
Attending to these typological patterns
would also explain Paul’s preaching of
the same themes (e.g., Acts 17:2–3).
Jesus is the climactic rejected prophet,
and he is the risen king in the land. In his
death the exile reaches its nadir, and his
resurrection begins the new exodus. The
followers of Jesus are now sojourning in
the wilderness, making their way to the
promised land. And one day the new
Jerusalem will descend from heaven, and
we will see his face.
Conclusion
I have argued that Joseph was a type
of David. This claim is based on the ways
that the author(s) of Samuel makes use
of the linguistic stock of the Joseph story,
the way event sequences in the David
narratives are matched to those in the
Joseph story, and the roles Joseph and
David play in redemptive history. And I
have argued that Joseph is also a type of
the Messiah. This claim is based on the
explicit connection between the rejection
of Joseph, Moses, and Jesus made by Ste-
phen in Acts 7, on the linguistic connec-
tions to the Joseph story in the parable of
the wicked tenants and in the way Mary
“was keeping all these things,” and on
the correspondences in the sequences of
events experienced by Joseph and Jesus.
The authors of the Gospels have shaped
their narratives to highlight points of
historical correspondence between Joseph
and Jesus, and their claim is that the sig-
nificance of these historical events has
been fulfilled in Jesus.
The story of the Bible is the story of the
world.71 This has implications for us. We
should not only read the Bible typologi-
cally, the types we find in the Bible should
shape the way we view the world.72 With
whom do we identify? Do we identify
with the people of Sodom, who sinned
and were destroyed? Or do we identify
with Joseph and Jesus, who resisted
temptation and were vindicated by God?
Do we identify with Judas, who made his
peace with the opponents of Jesus and
took their money? Or do we identify with
Jesus, who told his followers,
If the world hates you, know that
it has hated me before it hated
you. If you were of the world, the
world would love you as its own;
but because you are not of the
world, but I chose you out of the
world, therefore the word hates you.
Remember the word that I said to
you: ‘A servant is not greater than
his master.’ If they persecuted me,
they will also persecute you. If they
kept my word, they will also keep
yours (John 15:18–20, ESV).
Stephen Wright states, “it is important
to restate that the position towards which
Frei has pointed, and which many oth-
ers have now stated from one angle or
another, is that a recovery of true biblical
faith in our generation must first be a
matter not of defence [as in defending the
historicity of the narratives, which Wright
holds Christians should take for granted]
. . . but of inhabiting the story.”73 Similarly,
Peter Leithart writes, “the types of Scrip-
ture provide us with a set of names and
symbols by which we may evaluate our
world and which provide a motivation
for action.”74
The kind of typological interpretation
that informed the author(s) of Samuel,
Jesus, and the evangelists, appears to be
the kind of typological interpretation we
see in 1 Clement. The letter addresses
division in the church in Corinth, and this
division has apparently been caused by
jealousy directed at the legitimate leader-
ship of the church. Accordingly, Clement
identifies the usurpers in the church with
the wicked throughout Israel’s history,
and he identifies the legitimate leadership
in the church with Abel, Jacob, Joseph,
Moses, and David (1 Clem 4:1–13).75
Peter Leithart has described this kind
69
 of interpretation in terms of the biblical
text absorbing the world:
If the world absorbs the text, as
in allegorical or historical-critical
interpretation, we can discover
nothing in the text that we did not
know before; the text can only illus-
trate truths we learned from other
sources, and it will not challenge
or rebuke us. If the text absorbs the
world, as typological interpretation
demands, it is useful for correction,
reproof, and training in righteous-
ness. Interpreted typologically,
Scripture is unleashed to function
as revelation.
And that, after all, is what it is.76
The final word goes to the Apostle Paul:
“Now these things happened to them
typologically, but they were written down
for our instruction, on whom the end of
the ages has come” (1 Cor 10:11).77
ENDNOTES
 1
Northrop Frye, The Great Code: The Bible
and Literature (Harvest, 2002), 79–80.
 2
This statement assumes that what the
Bible claims for itself regarding the
formation of the Canon is true. Thus,
as Deut 31:24 and the many references
 
to “the law of Moses” indicate, Moses
wrote the Pentateuch. Joshua later added
to what Moses had written (Josh 24:25–
26; cf. Deut 31:24–26), as did Samuel (1
Sam 10:25). See Roger Beckwith, The
Old Testament Canon of the New Testament
Church and Its Background in Early Judaism
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985). These
narratives, then, would have been avail-
able by the time of David, when proph-
 
ets and seers such as Samuel, Nathan,
and Gad would have studied them,
along with the king, who was com-
manded to do so in Deut 17:18–20. The
very Davidic book of Psalms indicates
that King David took Deuteronomy 17
70
seriously (cf. e.g., Psalm 1 and 19:7–11).
The alternative picture constructed by
modern critical scholarship is a house
with no foundation built on sands of
scholarly speculation. See, for instance,
Duane Garrett, “The Undead Hypoth-
esis: Why the Documentary Hypothesis
is the Frankenstein of Biblical Studies,”
The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology
5, no. 3 (2001): 28–41. Hans Frei has
shown how the loss of confidence in the
historical reliability of the Bible ended
typological interpretation in The Eclipse
of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth
and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics
(New Haven: Yale, 1974). For a brief sum-
mary of Frei’s argument and the conclu-
sion that “its main shortcoming seems
to be that in one sense, Frei did not
go far enough,” see Stephen I. Wright,
“Inhabiting the Story: The Use of the
Bible in the Interpretation of History,”
in “Behind” the Text: History and Biblical
Interpretation (ed. Craig Bartholomew, C.
Stephen Evans, Mary Healy, and Murray
Rae; Scripture and Hermeneutics Series
4; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 496.
3
Like Abel, Joseph was shepherding the
flock. Like Abel, Joseph was acknowl-
edged by God. Like Abel, Joseph’s
brothers hate him unto death because of
God’s favor to him. Like Abel, Joseph’s
brothers do violence to him in the field.
The enmity from brothers rejected by
God directed at brothers accepted by
God reappears in the accounts of Isaac
and Ishmael and Jacob and Esau.
4
Like Joseph, Moses was shepherding
the flock. Like Joseph, Moses received
a revelation that identified him as the
agent of salvation for God’s people. Like
Joseph, Moses was rejected by God’s
people when he sought to lead them.
Like Joseph, Moses was then separated
 from God’s people, and while he
was removed from them he mar-
ried the daughter of a gentile priest
and sons were born to him. Like
Joseph, after these things Moses  
became the agent of deliverance for
God’s people.
 5
Like Joseph, Daniel is held by the
captain of the guard. Like Joseph,
Daniel is brought before the king to
interpret a troubling dream, which
the magicians are unable to do. Like
Joseph, Daniel asserts that interpre-
tations belong to God. Like Joseph,
Daniel declares the interpretation  
of the dream, in which God has
revealed what he will do. Like
Joseph, Daniel is recognized by the
foreign ruler as one in whom the
Spirit of God resides. Like Joseph,
Daniel is given a gold chain around
his neck and exalted to power by
the foreign king.
 6
Like Joseph, Esther is virtually a
slave in a foreign land. Like Joseph,
she is described as being “hand-
some in form and appearance.”
Like Joseph, she is cleaned up and
presented to the king. Like Joseph,
she finds favor in the king’s sight.
The wording of her resolution is  
reminiscent of Israel’s words (cf.
Esth 4:16 and Gen 43:14), and like
Joseph she makes requests of the
king that benefit, yea, deliver the
Jewish people from wicked opposi-
tion. There are also ways in which
Mordecai corresponds to Joseph:
like Joseph, Mordecai is rewarded
by the king with new raiment and
honored to ride in royal style with
a herald before him. Like Joseph,
Mordecai is a Jew in a foreign land
who rises to second in command
under the king. My thanks to Mark
Sherid for drawing my attention to
Mordecai, which also prompted me
to consider Esther herself.
7
Like Joseph, Nehemiah is a Jew in a
foreign land who has access to the
king. Nehemiah is concerned for
the state of the land of promise, and
he makes requests of the king that
benefit the Jews and their land. As
with the opposition to Joseph and
the others named in the foregoing
footnotes, the opposition to Nehe-
miah is wicked.
8
We do not know who wrote the
books of Samuel, nor do we know
how many people might have been
involved in the project. The tradi-
tion in Baba Bathra 14b that Samuel
wrote the parts of 1 Samuel that
precede his death, and that the rest
was completed by Gad the seer
and Nathan the prophet appears
to derive from 1 Chron 29:29, “Now
the acts of King David, from first to
last, are written in the Chronicles
of Samuel the seer, and in the
Chronicles of Nathan the prophet,
and in the Chronicles of Gad the
seer” (ESV).
9
Cf. the range of meaning and the
glosses for the word tu p, oj, “type”
given in Walter Bauer, A Greek
English Lexicon of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature
(ed. Frederick W. Danker; 3rd ed.;
Chicago: University of Chicago,
2000), 1019–1020: “(1) a mark made
as the result of a blow or pressure,
mark, trace . . . . (2) embodiment
of characteristics or function of a
model, copy, image . . . . (3) an object
formed to resemble some entity,
image, statue . . . . (4) a kind, class,
or thing that suggests a model or
pattern, form, figure, pattern . . . .
(5) the content of a document, text,
content . . . . (6) an archetype serving
as a model, type, pattern, model . . . .”
(bold text removed).
10
Cf. the discussion of the relation-
ship between “formative narra-
tives” and “world-view” in David
Lyle Jeffrey, “(Pre) Figuration:
Masterplot and Meaning in Biblical
History,” in “Behind” the Text, 365.
11
Cf. D. A. Carson, “Review of Ken-
neth Berding and Jonathan Lunde,
eds., Three Views on the New Tes-
tament Use of the Old Testament,”
Themelios 33, no. 3 (2008): 78–80:
“Even if we accept that (at least
some kinds of) types in the Old
Testament are clearly predictive,
would the human author of the first
entry in a series of events/institu-
tions that become a repeated pat-
tern (i.e., a type) have understood
that he was laying the cornerstone
for a type? Doubtless God would
know, and presumably the more
discerning of later human authors
would sooner or later discern the
pattern, but why is it necessary or
even plausible to assert that the
author of the first entry would be
so discerning?” (80). What I have
suggested above leaves open the
possibility that in the material that
Moses used as he wrote Genesis,
he saw the pattern in Abel, Isaac,
and Jacob in a sense culminating
in Joseph. The influence this mate-
rial had on Moses could have then
prompted him to see significance in
the elements in his own experience
that corresponded to Joseph’s, and
then as he wrote Deut 18:15–18 he
71
 could plausibly have had in mind
future prophets who would have
similar experiences. Assuming
that the Deuteronomy 34 account
of Moses’ death and the observa-
tion that no one like Moses had
yet arisen was written by someone
other than Moses, perhaps Joshua,
we might nevertheless see a hint
of the Deut 18:15–18 prophecy cul-
minating in a unique figure whose
word Yahweh would enforce. In
this case, the foreshadowing in
the typological pattern might have
been intended by the earliest of the
biblical authors, Moses himself.
12
Though he is mainly concerned
with the order of the books in the
OT canon, nevertheless Roger Beck-
with’s discussion of this text is stim-
ulating for the light it sheds on what
Jesus and the evangelists intended
in the words of Matth 23:34–36,
paralleled in Luke 11:49–51 (The Old
Testament Canon of the New Testament
Church, 212–34).
13
See my Julius Brown Gay Lecture
presented at The Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary on March
13, 2008, “The Typology of David’s
Rise to Power: Messianic Patterns
in the Book of Samuel.” Online in
audio: http://www.sbts.edu/media/
audio/JBGay/20080313hamilton.mp3
or text format: http://www.sbts.edu/
pdf/JBGay/the_typology_of_davids_
rise_to_power2008-03-101.pdf.
14
In “The Typology of David’s Rise to
Power” the question was raised as
to whether we today can identify a
person, event, or institution in the
OT as functioning typologically if
the NT does not explicitly identify
it as such. The framing of the ques-
72
tion above indicates that I think we
can and should learn to interpret
the way the biblical authors do, and
that we can and should apply their
methods to questions they have
not answered for us. What I am
presenting here also impinges on
the whole discussion of the genre
of the gospels. While many clas-
sify the Gospels as a form of Greek
Biography, it seems far more plau-
sible to me that the Gospels should
be classified as biblical narrative
since they carry forward the story
begun in Old Testament narrative
and fulfill it.
15
For an attempt to practice the
theory articulated in this definition,
in addition to the present study and
the Julius Brown Gay Lecture cited
above, see my essay, “The Virgin
Will Conceive: Typological Fulfill-
ment in Matthew 1:18–23,” in Built
upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of
Matthew (ed. John Nolland and Dan
Gurtner; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2008), 228–47.
16
Peter J. Leithart, A House for My
Name: A Survey of the Old Testament
(Moscow, ID: Canon, 2000), 32, and
see his discussion of “innerbiblical
interpretation,” which he defines
as, “the way biblical writers inter-
pret their own times through the
lenses of earlier events in Israel’s
history” (33).
17
Thus, in my judgment, the biblical
authors understood and wrote in a
way that reflects what G. K. Ches-
terton (Orthodoxy [1908; repr., Colo-
rado Springs: Waterbrook, 2001],
216–17, ch. 9) was getting at when he
wrote, “the evidence in my case . . .
is not really in this or that alleged
demonstration; it is in an enormous
accumulation of small but unani-
mous facts. The secularist is not to
be blamed because his objections
to Christianity are miscellaneous
and even scrappy; it is precisely
such scrappy evidence that does
convince the mind. I mean that a
man may well be less convinced of
a philosophy from four books, than
from one book, one battle, one land-
scape, and one old friend. The very
fact that the things are of different
kinds increases the importance of
the fact that they all point to one
conclusion. Now, the non-Christi-
anity of the average educated man
to-day is almost always, to do him
justice, made up of these loose but
living experiences. I can only say
that my evidences for Christianity
are of the same vivid but varied
kind as his evidences against it.
For when I look at these various
anti-Christian truths, I simply dis-
cover that none of them are true. I
discover that the tide and force of
all the facts flows the other way.”
18
Cf. the discussion of criteria in
Harm W. M. van Grol, “Exegesis of
the Exile – Exegesis of Scripture?
Ezra 9:6–9,” in Intertextuality in
Ugarit and Israel, Oudtestamen-
tische Studiën (ed. Johannes C. de
Moor; Boston: Brill, 1998), 40–42.
He concludes, “All these criteria
serve us, scholars, in our work
and communication, but they do
not necessarily match reality in
full. If there is no real quotation,
if there is no explicit marker, and
if the connection between the two
texts is not very broad, there still
may be an allusion. Words go their
 own way. Nevertheless, criteria are
useful. They force us to present the
supposed connections in detail.”
19
To establish these claims I have
used A. Even-Shoshan, ed., A New
Concordance of the Old Testament
(Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1997) in
comparison with the results of
searches performed with Bible-
Works 7.
20
Related phrases that do not fit the
criteria listed above appear in Gen
29:9; 46:34; 47:3; Num 27:17; 1 Kgs
22:17; 2 Chron 18:16; Ps 80:2; Ezek
34:8, 12, 23; Zech 10:2; 11:4.
21
The only other instances of “to
shepherd” in the qal infinitive con-
struct with the lamed preposition
are in 2 Sam 7:7; 1 Chron 17:6; Ps
78:71; and Song 6:2.
22
See the discussion of “The Appa-
ratus of the Masorah” in Emanuel
Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew
Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992),
73–74: “The . . . Masorah gedolah
(Masorah magna . . .) written in
the upper or lower margins. This
apparatus is closely connected with
the [Masorah parva] as its function
is to list in detail the particulars
mentioned by way of allusion in
the [Masorah Parva], especially the
verses referred to by that appara-
tus. For example, if the [Masorah
parva] states that a certain word
occurs eight times in the Bible, the
[Masorah magna] lists the verses
in detail.” The brackets above are
a result of my removal of Tov’s
abbreviations. These Masorah are
marginal notes in the manuscripts
of Hebrew Bibles. Some notes are
even concerned with “defective
spellings” of certain words, show-
ing that even the smallest details of
rare words were known and their
locations recorded.
23
The three occurrences of this form
are found in Gen 24:65; 37:19; and
Isa 58:5. Even-Shoshan (Concordance,
295) seems to have missed Isa 58:5.
24
This form occurs six times in the
OT: Judg 6:20; 1 Sam 14:1; 17:26;
2 Kgs 4:25; 23:17; Zech 2:8.
25
so Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and
Charles A. Briggs, eds., A Hebrew
English Lexicon of the Old Testament
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1952), 229
(henceforth BDB).
26
It might also be relevant that the
same verb, jvp, is used to describe
Joseph’s brothers stripping him of
his robe and Jonathan stripping
himself of his robe (Gen 37:23; 1
Sam 18:4). Different terms are used,
however, to describe the “robe” in
these two contexts, which decreases
the likelihood that this is a relevant
observation. The different language
used to describe Tamar’s removal
of one set of garments for another
(Gen 38:14, 19) does show that the
author(s) of Samuel had other lin-
guistic possibilities.
27
Robert Alter (The David Story: A
Translation with Commentary of 1
and 2 Samuel [New York: Norton,
1999], 267) notes that the phrase
pronounced by Amnon in 2 Sam
13:9, yl;ê['me( ‘vyai-lk' WayciÛAh “Clear out
everyone around me!” is an exact
reproduction of the words spoken
by Joseph just before he revealed
himself to his brothers in Gen 45:1.
Alter goes on to compare and con-
trast elements of the Joseph story
with the narrative in 2 Samuel 13.
28
A search done with BibleWorks 7
indicates that the other instances
of yhiT.-la; in the OT are in Job 6:29;
Prov 3:7; 22:6; 23:20; 24:28; Eccl 7:16;
Jer 50:26; Ezek 2:8.
29
See also the reminiscence between
the two sons of Eli, whom the Lord
desired to kill (1 Sam 2:25; 4:11),
and the two wicked sons of Judah
whom the Lord killed (Gen 38:7–
10). Judah’s attempt to admonish
Onan to do right is as ineffectual
as Eli’s.
30
These are the only instances of
“Adullamite” in the OT.
31
The other references to “Adullam”
in the OT are in Josh 12:15; 15:35; 2
Sam 23:13; 1 Chron 11:15; 2 Chron
11:7; Neh 11:30; and Mic 1:15.
32
See further my essay, “God with
Men in the Torah,” Westminster
Theological Journal 65 (2003): 113–33.
33
See further my essay, “God with
Men in the Prophets and the Writ-
ings, Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical
Theology 23 (2005): 166–93.
34
The Hebrew terminology in these
instances differs slightly, but the
term used in Gen 39:3 with ref-
erence to Joseph “prospering,”
x:yliîc.m;, is the same term used in Ps
1:3, x:yli(c.y:, both deriving from xlc.
The terminology used to describe
David prospering varies somewhat.
In both cases it is God’s presence
that causes everything Joseph and
David do to succeed. See the similar
analysis in Alter, The David Story,
114.
35
See, for instance, the following: (1)
the rare term in 1 Sam 17:18, hB'ru[]
“token,” occurs only elsewhere in
Prov 17:18, and it is related to the
rare term used in Gen 38:17–18,
20, !Abr" [ e “pledge,” which occurs
73
 only in those three verses (see BDB
786). (2) Gen 37:2 describes Joseph
as “young,” r[;n:, and 37:3 describes
him as the son of Jacob’s old age.
1 Sam 16:11 uses the plural of r[;n:
“young men” to describe Jesse’s
sons, and David is identified as the
youngest. Jesse is described as old
in 17:12. See also the other linguis-
tic points of contact between the
Joseph story and Samuel noted by
Alter, The David Story, 72, 267–70.
36
David Toshio Tsumara (The First
Book of Samuel [New International
Commentary Old Testament; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007], 449)
writes of Jesse’s sending of David (1
Sam 17:17–19), “The present episode
is sometimes compared with the
Joseph story. For example, R. P. Gor-
don explains: ‘[David’s] errand to
the battle-front is a detail reminis-
cent of Joseph’s fact-finding mission
to Dothan (Gen. 37:12ff.); in both
cases the errand leads to an unfore-
seen encounter with destiny.’ How-
ever, since sending a messenger to
find out about someone’s welfare is
such a common experience, the nar-
rator probably was not particularly
thinking of the Joseph story.” As
I have stated several times above,
taken individually, a detail such as
this one might be easily dismissed.
Taken with all the other details dis-
cussed here, however, the burden
of proof shifts to those who would
agree with Tsumara.
37
Alter, The David Story, 267.
38
See further my essay, “The Skull
Crushing Seed of the Woman:
Inner-Biblical Interpretation of
Genesis 3:15,” The Southern Baptist
Journal of Theology 10, no. 2 (2006):
74
30–54.
39
See further my essay, “The Seed
of the Woman and the Blessing of
Abraham,” Tyndale Bulletin 58, no. 2
(2007): 253–73.
40
By doing what Reuben did, Absa-
lom became a new Reuben (cf.
2 Sam 16:21–22 and Gen 35:22).
I should note that typological
interpretation is similar to but not
equivalent with the method of
“homiletical identification” seen in
rabbinical haggadah where “differ-
ent characters from Scripture who
are linked by similarity of name or
of other characteristics are often
said to be the same person, and this
in the face of the plainest evidence
to the contrary” (Beckwith, The Old
Testament Canon of the New Testament
Church, 217, see the whole discus-
sion, 217–20, with notes 86–93 on p.
232–33). Typological identification
differs in that people retain their
individual identity even if they
fit the “type” of, for instance, the
wicked who oppose the righteous.
41
So also Stephen G. Dempster,
Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology
of the Hebrew Bible (New Studies in
Biblical Theology; Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 2003), 89–92.
42
See ibid., 116–17, 120.
43
Peter J. Leithart, A Son to Me: An
Exposition of 1 & 2 Samuel (Moscow,
ID: Canon, 2003), 13.
44
As argued in “The Typology of
David’s Rise to Power: Messianic
Patterns in the Book of Samuel.”
45
On which see the argument that
John presents Jesus as the typo­
logical fulfillment of the temple in
Paul M. Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfill-
ment of the Temple in the Gospel of John
(Paternoster Biblical Monographs;
Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster,
2006).
46
For an examination of this theme,
see my study, God’s Indwelling Pres-
ence: The Holy Spirit in the Old and
New Testaments (NAC Studies in
Biblical Theology; Nashville: B&H,
2006).
47
Cf. George Eldon Ladd, A Theology
of the New Testament (rev. ed.; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 391.
48
Having noted that Stephen has
highlighted the similarity of Joseph
to Moses, John B. Polhill, (Acts [New
American Commentary; Nash-
ville: Broadman, 1992], 199) writes,
“Moses was a type of Christ. Both
were sent by God to deliver Israel.
Both were denied, rejected by those
they were sent to save. But the like-
ness does not end there. Moses per-
formed ‘wonders and miraculous
signs’ in Egypt . . . . One cannot
fail to remember how Jesus also
performed signs and wonders” (the
likening of Joseph to Moses is on p.
192, cited in note 69 below).
Ibid., 206. Alternatively, cf. I. How-
49
ard Marshall (“Acts” in Commentary
on the New Testament Use of the Old
Testament [ed. G. K. Beale and D.
A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker,
2007], 571): “It is possible for the
reader to see where the characters
in the story can be regarded as
‘types’ . . . but despite strong hints
. . . the possibility is not followed up.
. . . Bock (1987: 217–18) finds no use
of a Joseph-typology here, since no
‘deliverance’ terminology is pres-
ent; Wall (2002: 126) proposes that
Joseph typifies the prophets and
their fate, including Jesus and now,
in particular Stephen. However,
in the case of Moses there is the
specific prophecy that the Lord will
raise up a prophet ‘like me’ (7:37),
and this statement invites typologi-
cal development . . .” Against Mar-
shall’s hesitancy, the key criteria for
determining whether or not one is
dealing with typology are historical
correspondence and escalation. Thus,
that “no ‘deliverance’ terminology
is present” is not relevant. Even if
we were to insist on its presence,
however, it would not be difficult
to make the case that Stephen/Luke
are invoking the broader context of
the Joseph story, in which Joseph
does “deliver” his family and all the
earth from famine. A fuller version
of this argument, on which Mar-
shall depends, is in Darrell L. Bock,
Proclamation from Prophecy and Pat-
tern: Lucan Old Testament Christol-
ogy (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,
1987), 217–18. Bock’s negative evalu-
ation is controlled by the question
of whether the “three elements”
he finds often mentioned by com-
mentators are present: (1) “Joseph’s
deliverance of the Patriarchs;” (2)
his “innocent suffering;” and (3)
“the Patriarchs’ second coming to
Joseph as a parallel of the time of
deliverance” (217). The problem
with this is that Stephen/Luke’s
point in Acts 7 has to do with Isra-
el’s rejection of those sent to deliver
her, and these other items Bock
mentions should only come into
the discussion once we move from
the issue at hand (the rejection of
the prophets) to broader questions
not addressed by the text of Acts 7. If
these broader questions are not the
author’s agenda in Acts 7, it does not
seem fair to reject the possibility of
typology because Acts 7 does not
address these broader questions. If
we stay with the question of what
is addressed by Acts 7, Bock himself
writes, “There can be little doubt
that Joseph fits into the general
pattern of this speech which seeks
to show that the Jews, beginning as
far back as the Patriarchs, rejected
the very men through whom God
was working or revealing himself.
This point is acknowledged by
virtually every exegete of this pas-
sage” (Proclamation from Prophecy
and Pattern, 217).
50
Cf. David Peterson, “The Worship
of the New Community,” in Wit-
ness to the Gospel: The Theology of
Acts (ed. I. H. Marshall and David
Peterson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1998), 377: “Jerusalem preferred
to remain with the Temple and to
regard that as the final mark of
God’s favour, rather than let it lead
them to Jesus to whom it pointed”
(Peterson is quoting Eric Frank-
lin, Christ the Lord: A Study in the
Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts
[S.P.C.K., 1975], 102–3).
51
So also Frank Thielman, Theology of
the New Testament: A Canonical and
Synthetic Approach (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2005), 192–93: Luke
“devotes the lengthy speech of Ste-
phen to an historical review of Isra-
el’s rejection of those whom God
sent to deliver his people from vari-
ous desperate circumstances. The
patriarchs were jealous of Joseph . . .
Moses . . . . The speech ends with
a ringing indictment of Israel for
its most recent, and most serious,
rejection of a deliverer from God.”
52
Cf. Beckwith, The Old Testament
Canon of the New Testament Church,
215: “Abel being a ‘prophet’ in the
same sense probably as some of the
other patriarchs, who are given the
title in Gen. 20.7; Ps. 105.15; 1 Chron.
16.22; Tobit. 4.12; Ecclus. 49.9 . . .
Acts 3.25; 7:52 (where special allu-
sion is apparently made to Moses
and Joseph). A ‘prophet’, according
to this usage, is not necessarily
God’s mouthpiece in addressing
others, but, like those prophets who
are, he is privileged to stand in an
exceptionally close relationship
with God, in which he enjoys both
direct knowledge of the mind of
God and special access to God in
prayer” (emphasis his).
53
Confirming the argument that
“New Testament theology began
with the biblical expositions of
Jesus” in E. Earle Ellis, “Jesus’ Use
of the Old Testament and the Gen-
esis of New Testament Theology,”
in E. Earle Ellis, Christ and the Future
in New Testament History (Boston:
Brill, 2001), 20–37, quote on p. 29.
54
Similarly Heinz-Werner Neudorfer,
“The Speech of Stephen,” in Witness
to the Gospel, 284, 288: “Apparently
this is typological exegesis with
respect to the archetypal figures of
Joseph and Moses.”
55
So also Polhill, Acts, 191.
56
Ibid., 206.
57
Luke Timothy Johnson, Septuagintal
Midrash in the Speeches of Acts (The
Père Marquette Lecture in Theol-
ogy 2002; Milwaukee: Marquette
University, 2002), 29. In my view
what Johnson has described is bet-
ter termed typological interpretation
75
 than “septuagintal targum,” which
is what he labels “the rereading of
Scripture in Stephen’s speech.” See
John Nolland’s comments on “Rep-
etition and escalation in salvation-
history” where he discusses the
“pervasiveness” of the “typological
element in Luke’s presentation”
which has been “increasingly rec-
ognized” (John Nolland, “Salva-
tion History and Eschatology,” in
Witness to the Gospel [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1998], 70–71).
58
So also N. T. Wright, The New Testa-
ment and the People of God (Christian
Origins and the Question of God
1; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 76.
59
Arland J. Hultgren (The Parables of
Jesus: A Commentary [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2000], 357) grants this
for Mark and Matthew but claims
it is “all but lacking in Luke 20:9.”
This judgment seems to result
from a focus on Luke’s account
as compared with Matthew and
Mark rather than a focus on Luke’s
account in the context of Luke’s
Gospel read in light of the OT. Ken-
neth E. Bailey (Jesus through Middle
Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the
Gospels [Downers Grove: InterVar-
sity, 2008], 413–14) has no difficulty
seeing Isaiah 5 in his analysis of
Luke 20:9–18, nor do David W. Pao
and Eckhard J. Schnabel (“Luke,”
in Commentary on the New Testament
Use of the Old Testament, 360–62).
60
Hultgren, Parables, 359; and Klyne
R. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A
Comprehensive Guide to the Parables
of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2008), 288.
61
Cf. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty,
123 and note 25.
76
62
Snodgrass (Stories with Intent, 277)
asks “Is Gen 37:20 relevant?” Abso-
lutely.
63
Aside from Gen 37:20, Matt 21:38,
Mark 12:7, and Luke 20:14, the
only other place in all of biblical
Greek where the two word phrase
avp oktei,nwmen auvto n, “let us kill
him” occurs is in Judg 16:2.
64
So also N. T. Wright, Jesus and the
Victory of God (Christian Origins
and the Question of God 2; Min-
neapolis: Fortress, 1996), 497.
65
Pao and Schnabel (“Luke,” 268)
note that the wording of Luke 2:51
“closely resembles that of Gen.
37:11” but do not interpret the simi-
larity as I do here.
66
The text of 1 Sam 13:1 is very dif-
ficult, but in spite of what the NIV
and NET say, the Hebrew text does
not say that Saul was thirty years
old when he became king.
67
Another conceptual link between
Genesis and Luke is the way that
Joseph urged the one who was
delivered to “remember” him when
he was restored to his position in
attendance upon Pharaoh (40:14),
and one of the thieves crucified
with Jesus urged him to “remem-
ber” him (Luke 23:39–43).
68
Israel concludes that an “evil beast”
has torn Joseph (37:33). The refer-
ences to the beasts that surround
the Psalmist may have been influ-
enced by the Joseph story.
69
Commenting on Acts 7:12–13, Pol-
hill (Acts, 192) writes, “What Ste-
phen did emphasize, however, was
the seemingly insignificant detail
that the brothers made two visits
and only recognized Joseph on the
second. Why this emphasis? The
same would be true of Moses later
on in Stephen’s speech. . . . One is
strongly tempted to see here a ref-
erence to the two ‘visits’ of Christ.
The Jews had rejected him on his
first coming. Would they now
accept him when confronted by
Christ through Stephen’s preach-
ing?” Cf. Bock, Proclamation from
Prophecy and Pattern, 366 n. 16:
“Lake and Cadbury, The Beginnings
of Christianity, IV, p. 73, describe as
‘possible’ the inclusion of the detail
of the second trip as pointing to the
second coming.”
70
David F. Wells, God in the Waste-
land: The Reality of Truth in a World
of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1994), 171.
71
Cf. Stephen Wright (“Inhabiting
the Story,” 506–507): “A renewed
figural interpretation will, I sug-
gest, be both cosmic and personal.
That is, it will not confine itself
to the application of Scripture to
the course of individual lives; it
will recognize the Bible as the key
that unlocks understanding of the
unfolding course of the universe.
. . . We must distinguish the idea
that Scripture interprets the cosmos
from the idea that Scripture con-
stitutes an independent source of
knowledge concerning the cosmos.
When Scripture is treated as having
the latter function, it is mistreated
and becomes hostage to every sci-
entific advance.”
72
For excellent Bible Study curricu-
lum that examines the Joseph story
with a stimulating concluding
chapter on typology, noting inter-
esting connections with, among
other books in the NT, Revelation,
 see Warren Austin Gage and Chris-
topher Barber, Joseph and Judah, The
Masterpiece Study Series, vol. 1 (Ft.
Lauderdale, FL: St. Andrews House,
2005). Online: www.saintandrews-
house.com.
73
Wright, “Inhabiting the Story, 501.
74
Leithart, A Son to Me, 23.
75
See Michael W. Holmes, The Apos-
tolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English
Translations (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2007).
76
Leithart, A Son to Me, 23.
77
I wish to thank Travis B. Cardwell,
Andrew David Naselli, Professor
Thomas R. Schreiner, and Profes-
sor Brian J. Vickers for reading an
early draft of this essay and offer-
ing helpful feedback. I also wish
to thank Professors Peter J. Gentry
and Stephen J. Wellum for insisting
on textual warrant for typological
interpretations. My gratitude to
each of these men for their help and
stimulation does not defer to them
responsibility for what is claimed
here, which I accept in full.

77

Robert W. Yarbrough is Chair of
the New Testament Department and
Associate Professor of New Testament
at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in
Deerfield, Illinois. He also serves as the
Editor of Trinity Journal and as Chair of
the theological and exegetical depart-
ment at the Institutul Biblic Emanuel in
Oradea, Romania. Dr. Yarbrough has
written numerous scholarly articles and
is the author of The Salvation-Historical
Fallacy? Reassessing the History of
New Testament Theology (Deo, 2004),
Encountering the New Testament: A
Historical and Theological Survey (Baker,
2005), and 1, 2, and 3 John in the Baker
Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament (Baker, 2008).
78
The Practice and Promise
of Biblical Theology:
A Response to Hamilton
and Goldsworthy
Athletic coaches sometimes remind frus-
trated players, “If it was easy, everybody
would be doing it.” Anyone responsible
for interpreting the Bible, and then com-
municating their interpretation, needs to
remember that adage. Everybody does not
hit home runs, throw touchdown passes,
dunk over opponents, or shoot below par.
And everybody who interprets the Bible
does not achieve notable success.
Of course, the goal in interpreting
God’s word, the Bible, is not success in
the normal sense; it is to glorify God and
engage in a use of his word with which he
will be pleased—perhaps to evangelize or
edify, perhaps to correct or condemn. This
is where the studies of Graeme Goldswor-
thy and James Hamilton elsewhere in
this journal are of value.1 The approaches
they set forth are not guaranteed to make
hermeneutical or homiletical superstars
out of anyone. But I believe that carefully
heeded and discerningly appropriated,
they shed valuable light on the interpre-
tive labors of everybody who reads, lives,
and seeks to share Scripture.
Below I will comment rather briefly on
James Hamilton’s study, before interact-
ing more extensively with the lengthier
remarks of Graeme Goldsworthy. Both have
much to offer in commending the practice
and promoting the promise of a neglected
approach to Scripture: biblical theology.
Robert W. Yarbrough
The Hamilton Hypothesis:
Perceiving Patterns
The great strength of Hamilton’s study
is to have restated the case for a tried-
and-true means of making connections
between Scripture passages that might
otherwise seem disjointed. “Typology,”
in one form or another, is as ancient
as biblical writers themselves, who
pioneered this mode of understanding
God’s word once it had come to the
prophets, was written down, and as time
passed came to be interpreted by subse-
quent generations. Thanks in part to their
God who was so emphatic that his people
should remember former times, godly
Hebrew and eventually Jewish readers
looking back began to note likenesses or
patterns—in God’s faithfulness, in his
judgments, in Israel’s fickleness, in sin’s
costliness, in redemption’s gloriousness.
Later writers of the Old Testament take
up themes, mention figures, and extend
lessons found in writings predating their
times so as to shed light on their pres-
ent situations. God, the inspired biblical
writers were made to see, was not only
at work vertically from above, injecting
his presence into situations according to
his aims and will. He was also at work
along the horizontal continuum of cir-
cumstances and human affairs we call
history. To detect that horizontal con-
nection, and to view God’s word now,
as biblical writers did, in organic and
significant connection with God’s word
to and for former days, was the core of
the typological impulse.
It is helpful that Hamilton works out
his views in dialogue with a range of
interpreters both from current and past
generations. The old-timer anchoring
matters2 is Leonhard Goppelt, whose
Typos first appeared in German in 1939.3
Senior scholars like E. Earle Ellis, Richard
Longenecker, and the late Hans Frei also
appear; they are certainly part of the
hermeneutical mix in discussion of typol-
ogy (or lack thereof) in the last couple
of generations. Then a welter of newer
thinkers and studies is cited: Michael
Fishbane, Francis Watson, Mark Seifrid,
G. K. Beale, Grant Osborne, Richard
Hays, Rikk Watts, and others. Hamilton
does not urge his case by ignoring rival
views but by conceding their existence
and considering their arguments, then
attempting to see if he can more convinc-
ingly go beyond them. This platform of
discussion furnishes a strong basis for his
own proposal.
I agree with Hamilton that we can,
with both confidence and caution, read
the Old Testament alert to the kind of
likenesses that we see established there,
sometimes repeated already in the Old
Testament corpus, and then recapitu-
lated by various means and to varying
degrees in the New Testament. When
Jesus compares his raising up on the
cross to the bronze serpent lifted up by
Moses in the wilderness (John 3:14; cf.
Num 21:9), we can be confident we are
dealing with typology. Analogies can
be multiplied across the sweep of New
Testament writings. This is especially
true when we encounter words actually
denoting “type,” whether the word typos
itself (see, e.g., Rom 5:14, referring to
Adam) or other words that may express
the same idea: skia (cf. Heb 10:1, referring
to the law), hypodeigma (cf. 2 Pet 3:6, refer-
ring to Sodom and Gomorrah), or parabolē
(cf. Heb 11:19, referring to the tie between
Isaac and Christ).4 And as seen above in
the case of John 3:14, the thing denoted by
“type” may be present when no technical
term for it is employed.
Are there potential problems in Hamil-
ton’s proposal? While I don’t see material
flaws, his constructive section on Samuel
and Mark is merely one analysis of a very
narrow slice of biblical tradition. The
essay does not furnish a wide-ranging
defense or definition of the practice of
“typology” in general.5 Nearly 100 years
ago it was recognized that “how much
of the OT is to be regarded as [typologi-
cal] is a question not easily answered.”6
About the only thing definite is that
“two extremes . . . should be avoided.”7
Accordingly, while Hamilton has given
a rationale for and example of a reason-
able typological reading, in the nature
of the case (one short article) we cannot
expect full justification of a method that is
perennially disputed and whose precise
definition is much debated.8
What Hamilton has reminded us of,
surely, is that typology of some descrip-
tion, which even from a minimalist
perspective counts as an interpretive
approach central to biblical theology,9 has
its place in our hermeneutical tool chest.
But what is biblical theology, and why is
it important? Those are questions at the
core of this journal’s articles by Graeme
Goldsworthy, to which we now turn.
79
 The Goldsworthy Goal:
Universalizing Biblical Theology
Definition and Strengths
Herbert Hoover is remembered for
(among much else) his 1928 presidential
campaign slogan, “A chicken in every
pot and a car in every garage.” Perhaps
the outstanding feature of Goldsworthy’s
lectures is his call for biblical theology
in every church, seminary, home, and
Christian life. Biblical theology deserves
prominence everywhere. He starts and
concludes his first lecture by insisting
on the necessity of biblical theology as
a corollary of the doctrine of Scripture.
His second lecture urges a prominent
role for biblical theology in Bible college,
seminary, and ministerial training gener-
ally. He writes, “I believe we need biblical
theology as one of the first courses in
Bible for all seminary students.” He is
“on a mission” to make biblical theology
an introductory component in “every
seminary and Bible college” and then
for biblical theology to be the integrating
vision of the whole of theological training
in subsequent years.10 His third lecture
extends the importance of biblical theol-
ogy to the local church and the home,
including child education. “The office of
pastor is first and foremost the office of
theologian,” and that means a biblical
theologian. Much that is necessary for
healthy Christian life and service has
been lost in evangelical circles, Gold-
sworthy feels; he concludes his lectures
by asserting, “I see biblical theology as a
vital part” of a much-needed “return to a
gospel-centered world view.”
What does Goldsworthy mean by
“biblical theology”? Actually he offers a
number of definitions, and they do not
always neatly mesh. But the general sense
80
is expressed with this:
Biblical Theology … involves us in
the two-fold exercise of analysis or
exegesis of individual texts, and the
synthesis of the individual texts into
a big picture or metanarrative. Once
we accept the overall unity of the
Bible we have to realize that every
single text is in some way supported
by every other text. No individual
part of Scripture stands alone. The
context of any text, which prevents
its misuse, is the whole canon.
Interpretation that takes up this ana-
lytic-yet-holistic approach to Scripture
with its focus on the unity of the Bible
and the fulfillment of the whole in Christ
is the essence of Goldsworthy’s “biblical
theology.” Elsewhere he defines it a bit
differently and more briefly: “We can
define biblical theology at its simplest as
theology as the Bible reveals it (that is,
within its historical framework and, thus,
as a process).”
I note three strengths in the approach
to the Bible to which Goldsworthy calls
readers. He is surely correct that an inte-
grated vision of the whole sweep of God’s
word, not just familiarity with cherished
verses, spiritual principles, or a random
collage of memorable stories, should be
at the core of healthy Christian life and
practice everywhere. The seminary in
which I teach has embraced this convic-
tion. As the result of curriculum revision
a few years back, every first-year ministry
student at Trinity Evangelical Divin-
ity School takes “Biblical Theology and
Interpretation,” a course which seeks to
achieve pretty much what Goldsworthy
calls for at the entry level. To keep this
vision before our students during the
three or four years of their M.Div. train-
ing, we try to recruit and retain profes-
sors who think and, therefore, teach in
theologically integrative ways from a
solid basis in the substance of biblical
revelation and with evidence of a gospel-
fired sense of God’s presence in their
lives. This greatly increases the odds that
students will grow in biblical theological
awareness and interpretive skill through-
out their course of study.
Another strong point is Goldswor-
thy’s insight into the dangerously thin
knowledge of the Bible that has come
to characterize many churches, in part
because for so long “the coherence of the
canon, its inner unity,” has been “left
largely to chance.” Related to this, he
sees that “doctrine does not seem to be
very highly regarded by a lot of evan-
gelicals, which is not only a pity; it is
perilous.” Revivalist individualism has
crowded out the overarching vision of
Scripture that “places personal regenera-
tion within the wider cosmic scope that
leads from creation to new creation.”
Stated positively, Goldsworthy insists
that “we don’t move on from the gospel
in Christian living, but with the gospel”
(his emphasis). The gospel is not only the
driving force in justification; “it is also
the matrix for sanctification.” Biblical
theology that unfolds the gospel, funds
Spirit-led life in God’s people, and refu-
els zeal for doctrinal truth is desperately
needed to revitalize the church. Biblical
theology could be a means of re-centering
God in the church. “The gospel is about
the transcendent God of creation doing
something to rectify the corrupted his-
tory of mankind, not about a self-centered
technique of personal self-improvement,”
as it has come to be marketed in recent
decades. Citing articles and books by
Scott Hafemann and David Wells that
point to the encroachment of pragmatism,
consumerism, and narcissism on theo-
logical education and evangelical religion
in North America, Goldsworthy observes,
“I do not really think we can avoid the
disasters that Wells and Hafemann warn
of without a return to serious exegesis of
the biblical text.” This means, of course,
biblical-theological exegesis.
A final strength of Goldsworthy’s call
for biblical theology is its pastoral use-
fulness. This can be broken down into
several components. (1) Biblical theology
enhances preaching. “When we apply
biblical theology to preaching, and do so
with prayerful humility before God, we
may expect that the power of the gospel
to convert and to change people’s lives
will be most evident.” (2) Biblical theology
enhances discipleship in the church as it
becomes a means for the light to go on,
so to speak, in people’s understanding of
what the Bible is about. “My experience,”
Goldsworthy writes, “is that adults, many
who have been Christians for a long time,
express some amazement that they have
never seen or been shown this macro-
structure of revelation before.” This is
not only the case with adults. Youth and
children too benefit from a conception of
the Bible in which there is meaning to the
whole. As Goldsworthy says with respect
to youth, “To teach biblical theology is
to teach [young] people to read the Bible
intelligently.” It is no longer an impen-
etrable thicket of complexities nor merely
an infinitude of burdensome imperatives.
(3) Biblical theology enhances pastoral
integrity. It serves this noble end in at
least five ways.
First, it promotes a high view of the
Bible. Pastoral and congregational focus
on Scripture is not in itself sufficient for
God’s fullest blessing, but it is undoubt-
edly necessary. Biblical theology gives a
framework for teaching and understand-
ing Scripture that can make it likely and
81
 indeed inevitable that God’s word and
thereby the Lord himself, not human
agendas or contrivances, will be exalted
by God’s people. We are witnessing a
fresh wave of defection (there are some
who drift in every generation) from the
notion of God’s inerrant word currently,
led by scholars who used to affirm iner-
rancy but are now castigating the church
for its narrowness and calling for relax-
ation of former convictions.11 Goldsworthy
writes, “One of the greatest antidotes to
destructive critical views is the biblical-
theological perspective on the coherence
of the whole canon.” In my own many
years of academic study and teaching, it
would often have been easy (and perhaps
professionally advantageous) to abandon
the Bible’s own high view of its complete
and utter veracity. But, in my young
adult years before beginning technical
study of Scripture, repeated readings of
Scripture and the intuitive development
of a covenantal, biblical theological view
of the whole have always made the vast
and deep indubitable truth of God’s word
written loom decisively larger than the
questions raised by the Bible’s detractors.
Second, biblical theology enhances
pastoral integrity by promoting a high
Christology. “God is the central character
of the Bible [who] makes biblical theology
viable,” and God has shown himself to us
ultimately in his Son. But “the only access
to the Word incarnate,” Jesus Christ, “is
through the word inscripturate.” Any-
thing that renders Scripture more intel-
ligible, memorable, and comprehensible
as a whole (not just in bits) promotes
the teaching of Christ, the knowledge of
Christ, and finally the presence of Christ.
In that sense, we could say that biblical
theology, through its promotion of the
Lord’s living presence with his people,
82
promotes healthy ecclesiology, too.
Third, biblical theology promotes a
high view of the gospel and of the min-
isterial task in administering that good
news. Goldsworthy states, “I want to be
bold here and claim that biblical theol-
ogy can have real and observable effects
in our lives and ministries.” Not least
among these effects is a sense of com-
mon labor and purpose, as minister and
people deepen in the perspective that col-
lectively as well as individually they are
“heirs to the whole wonderful process of
salvation-history that culminates in Jesus
Christ. That is what makes the ministerial
task worth doing.” It is notoriously easy
for pastor and sizable (or powerful) blocs
in the congregation to become estranged.
There is no sure-fire prevention of this.
But one very good defense is the offensive
strategy of joint pursuit, church instruc-
tional staff and congregational learners
united, of ever deeper insight into the
majestic sweep of God’s saving work in
Christ as Scripture witnesses to it, and
growing forth from that worship and
service as one body in his name. This is a
significant potential positive effect of an
effective biblical theological focus.
Fourth and last, biblical theology
enhances pastoral integrity by “promot-
ing a high view of the people of God.”
Steadfast seeking after God in his word,
on the scale and in the form that biblical
theology calls for, dignifies what can eas-
ily seem the marginalized and trifling
activities of most congregations, which
are not large and wildly successful but
modest in size and typically working
hard to maintain current attendance,
offerings, and ministries. Goldsworthy
explains that biblical theology, both its
practice and its fruit, serves to remind
that “the ordinary, small, unremarkable
congregations, as much as any other, are
in the front line of God’s action in this
world to redeem and judge the whole
universe.” This is, in a sense, a manifes-
tation of Jesus’ promise to be with even
two or three gathered in his name (Matt
18:20)—so, even a very small congrega-
tion. But what would that congregation
be doing in Jesus’ name? One priority
would surely be worship, and at the heart
of worship is Scripture proclamation, and
in Goldsworthy’s proposal the teaching of
God’s word in a biblical theological mode
would be the primary modus operandi
of the teaching pastor and those laboring
under his oversight. Where even small
numbers are gathered, dutifully hearing
and learning the whole counsel of God
as a means to know, worship, and serve
him, Christ by his Spirit is there, and the
eternal work of God’s kingdom through
the church is underway. Biblical theology
reverently pursued may demonstrate
a truth preached years ago by Francis
Schaeffer: in the kingdom economy, there
are “no little people.”12 This is not because
we set out to exalt ourselves, but because
in our disciplined attentiveness to God’s
word in its fullness, God orders the think-
ing, willing, and behavior of Christ’s fol-
lowers, uniting us with him and making
us no longer subject to the law of sin and
death (cf. Rom 8:2). God himself lifts up
those who seek him where and as he may
be found (cf. Isa 55:6; 66:2).
Tensions and Liabilities
No set of lectures or essays on so large
a subject as biblical theology can say
everything. As indicated above, on the
whole I have no fundamental criticisms
of Goldsworthy’s call to the particular
way of reading, living, and ministering
Scripture that he describes, admittedly
in sparse outline. Yet there are always
concerns that emerge, because no single
approach to Scripture engineered by
humans can possibly constitute the only
perfect way, and any articulation of an
approach will admit of improvement and
profit from qualification. I would like to
conclude by setting forth some tensions
and liabilities of Goldsworthy’s proposals
that occurred to me as I pondered with
great appreciation what he had to say.
(1) There may be a tension between
strong insistence on the necessity of a
biblical theological emphasis, on the one
hand, and the indubitable truth that many
believers, across the generations and
around the world, come to a grounded,
holistic, balanced, and theologically acute
grasp of Scripture more or less on their
own, by intuition and the work of the
Spirit, as they read Scripture daily and
serve Christ faithfully over the years.
Yes, in many cases we may be able to
speed up the process of synthetic grasp
of Scripture by furnishing a big picture
for people, helping them to see where
the pieces fit. But if people are not read-
ing Scripture avidly and internalizing
it consistently “from below,” we may
actually be harming them by creating
the impression that the most important
thing is the synthesis we aim to teach
“from above.” Biblical theology ought
never take the place of the hard work of
mastering, and being mastered by, the
details of the texts themselves. This is not
to suggest that Goldsworthy thinks that
it should. It is to remind ourselves that
it would not be healthy for overarching
synthesis to replace detailed analysis.
Calls for biblical theology must avoid
encouraging that effect. Scripture calls
for full attention from both analytic and
synthetic directions.
83
 (2) A possible liability of biblical theol-
ogy is that its systematic advocacy could
encourage the rise of doctrinaire biblicists
who are confident in their beliefs, not
because they are grounded in a personal
appropriation of Scripture, but because
they have learned from “biblical theol-
ogy” what everything in the Bible means,
in the end. Call it biblical theological
reductionism. It is not hard to imagine a
new kind of anti-dogmatic dogmatism, a
dogmatism dismissive of systematic the-
ology or the theological heritages of, for
instance, Lutheran or Baptist or Reformed
or Anglican churches. What “the church
teaches” or what is “traditional” (which
are in fact often true and good things) are
jettisoned for a new manifestation of the
“back to the Bible” impulse which at its
worst has worked much woe in the church
repeatedly in its North American history.
Clearly Goldsworthy intends nothing of
the sort; he seems to envision a sort of
trans-denominational approach to the
Bible that will unpack biblical revelation
in its own terms and render it into our cur-
rent settings in ways that will not under-
mine healthy denominational distinctives
but rather strengthen and renew them.
But care might need to be taken to avoid
nasty unintended consequences from this
salutary biblical theological summons.
(3) There may be a tension between
ebullience in knowing the explanatory
power of our biblical theological synthe-
sis, on the one hand, and sober conscious-
ness that our systems and knowledge
are nevertheless provisional. I am not
succumbing here to the postmodern error
of declaring everything unknowable
because we can know nothing compre-
hensively.13 Much of what Scripture says
and what biblical theology sets forth
is eminently knowable and is no more
84
subject to doubt or change than is the
God who did and spoke the things that
Scripture records. I am rather noting the
truth voiced by E. Earle Ellis with respect
to God’s revelation in Christ and the gos-
pel being “a secret and hidden wisdom”
(1 Cor 2:7). Everything is not immediately
clear and transparent, even with the
considerable illuminating advantage of
biblical theological synthesis:
From the perspective of the biblical
writers, and of Jesus as he is repre-
sented by them, the essential mean-
ing of the Scriptures is revelation,
also in their historical and literary
dimension. As such, the meaning
is understood to be either hidden or
revealed to the reader at God’s dis-
cretion and is never viewed as truth
available, like pebbles on a beach.14
Practitioners zealous for biblical theol-
ogy’s potential for making Holy Scripture
clear and rendering God’s ways in this
world explicable must at the same time
employ measures to head off hermeneuti-
cal triumphalism in matters that remain
the sacred province, for us in this life at
any rate, of divine comprehension alone.
Doxology pertains at least as much to
what we predicate of God but cannot
fathom as it does to what we are con-
vinced he has made transparent to us.
(4) If I had one serious misgiving
about the way “biblical theology” was
described and summarized in Goldswor-
thy’s lectures, it was the way in which
the cross seemed to receive short shrift.
I have no doubt of Goldsworthy’s inten-
tion for it to be central. But repeatedly in
various formulations throughout these
lectures, other aspects of God’s redemp-
tive work, or our study of it, occupy center
stage: creation-new creation, incarnation,
promise-fulfillment, Christology, unity
of the Bible, coherence of the canon,
relationship of Old Testament and New.
One could get the impression that to get
all these things (and more) right is really
what biblical theology is about. The
seven-point taxonomy by Donald Robin-
son (presented at the beginning of lecture
two) says nothing explicit about the cross.
Robinson’s structure may indeed be,
as Goldsworthy declares, “the one that
best lays bare the matrix of progressive
revelation,” but don’t we want the central
saving act of God to be explicit in the
matrix? In the third lecture Goldsworthy
states he wants “to emphasize that there is
much, much more to Jesus than his being
the Son of God who died on the cross for
our sins.” Well, yes and no. It will not do
to make our functional biblical theology
John 3:16 and an altar call. Yet there is
that narrow gate through which all must
have entered, and I thought repenting of
our sins and coming to God through the
one who died for us, to bring us to God
(1 Pet 3:18), was the start of all new cov-
enantal knowledge of God. Goldsworthy
essentially affirms this in the first lecture,
stressing “the need for regeneration and
the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit if
one is to grasp both the authority and the
meaning of Scripture.”
Once we know cross-mediated en-
trance to the kingdom, the panoramic
sweep of God’s redemptive work as
biblical theology so wonderfully ren-
ders it becomes light and life. But any
theological enterprise or interpretive
method that claims to grasp the center,
but centers something other than the
cross,15 seems out of sync with Scripture
itself seen as a whole. Given the sagac-
ity, spiritual discernment, and scriptural
heft of what Goldsworthy proposes
overall, it would not require major adjust-
ments to assure that Christ’s saving
death and its very explicit implications for
Christian life, mission, and yes theologiz-
ing today receive a more central role.
ENDNOTES
 1
Editor’s note: The article by James Ham-
ilton to which Dr. Yarbrough refers is
not the article published in this issue of
SBJT. We have published another article
by Dr. Hamilton, “Was Joseph a Type of
the Messiah? Tracing the Typological
Identification between Joseph, David,
and Jesus.” In the currently published
article, Dr. Hamilton is doing something
similar to the original article to which
Dr. Yarbrough refers, except in this case
Dr. Hamilton is applying a typologi-
cal interpretation to Joseph. Thus, Dr.
Yarbrough’s comments are appropriate,
even though the article is not the same.
Dr. Hamilton’s original article, “The
Typology of David’s Rise to Power: Mes-
sianic Patterns in the Book of Samuel,”
is available at http://www.sbts.edu/pdf/
JBGay/the_typology_of_davids_rise_
to_power2008-03-101.pdf.
 2
Apart from a couple of passing refer-
ences to Patrick Fairbairn (1805-74),
author of the classic The Typology of
Scripture: Viewed in Connection with the
Whole Series of the Divine Dispensations
(5th ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870).
 3
Subtitled die typologische Deutung des
Alten Testaments im Neuen and later
reprinted (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftli-
che Buchgesellschaft, 1973).
 4
For a helpful compact survey of the data
see John E. Alsup, “Typology,” Anchor
Bible Dictionary (ed. David Noel Freed-
man; 6 vols.; New York: Doubleday,
1992), 6:683f.
 5
The section in the essay called “Typol-
ogy: Significance and Definition” cites
characteristics of typology proposed by
Ellis, Fishbane, Evans, and others but is
85
 mainly concerned to establish that
typology is a legitimate method
and is not pesher. I did not find a
clear and definite definition given.
Editor’s note: The section to which
Dr. Yarbrough refers is found in Dr.
Hamilton’s article, “The Typology
of David’s Rise to Power: Messianic
Patterns in the Book of Samuel,”
under the subheading, “Typology:
Significance and Definition.” See
http://www.sbts.edu/pdf/JBGay/
the_typology_of_davids_rise_to_
power2008-03-101.pdf.
 6
William G. Moorehead, “Typology,”
in The International Standard Bible
Encyclopaedia (ed. James Orr; vol. 5
(Chicago: The Howard-Severance
Company, 1915), 5:3029.
 7
One extreme is when almost every-
thing found in the Old Testament is
taken to point to Christ, a view that
Moorehead attributes to certain
church fathers and Andrew Jukes
(in The Law of the Offerings [Grand
Rapids: Kregel, 2004]). The other
is that the only types in the Old
Testament are the ones explicitly
asserted somewhere in the New
Testament, a view he attributes to
Moses Stuart.
 8
E.g., in a very different vein from
Hamilton, Seifrid says typology
is not “a method by which [Paul]
discovers . . . historical analogies
to the narratives that appear in the
biblical text” (“The Gospel as the
Revelation of Mystery: The Wit-
ness of the Scriptures to Christ in
Romans,” The Southern Baptist Jour-
nal of Theology 11, no. 3 [Fall 2007]:
99). Typology is rather “a theology
of history” (ibid.). In the same
issue of that journal, Douglas Moo
86
(“Paul’s Universalizing Herme- 13
Cf. D. A. Carson, “Systematic and
neutic in Romans”) points out that Biblical Theology,” in New Diction-
“typology is easier to talk about ary of Biblical Theology, 100; idem,
than to describe” and notes that The Gagging of God (Grand Rapids:
“those who have attempted defini- Eerdmans, 1995), passim.
tions do not always agree” (81). On 14
E. Earle Ellis, History and Interpre-
the whole, Moo’s definition (cf. ibid., tation in New Testament Perspective
81-82) seems closer to Seifrid’s than (Atlanta: SBL, 2001), 15. Ellis speaks
to Hamilton’s. specifically of typology. For a simi-
 9
C. A. Evans (“New Testament Use lar observation see Alsup, “Typol-
of the Old Testament,” in New Dic- ogy,” 6:685.
tionary of Biblical Theology [ed. T. D. 15
With all due regard for other verities
Alexander and B. Rosner; Down- without which the cross remains a
ers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000], 73) torso, like Christ’s incarnation, his
concedes the presence of typology perfect life, the hypostatic union,
in the New Testament, though he his resurrection, his ascension, his
subsumes it under “analogical” return, and so forth.
interpretation. It is striking that
in this magisterial volume overall,
“typology” receives no separate
treatment and in fact little attention.
10
Throughout the rest of this article,
quotations without footnotes refer
to Goldsworthy’s lectures.
11
Examples: Kenton L. Sparks, God’s
Word in Human Words: An Evangeli-
cal Appropriation of Critical Biblical
Scholarship (Grand Rapids: Baker,
2008); Peter Enns, Inspiration and
Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Prob-
lem of the Old Testament (Grand Rap-
ids: Baker Academic, 2008); A. T. B.
McGowan, The Divine Authenticity
of the Scripture: Retrieving an Evan-
gelical Heritage (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 2007). Commenting on
this shift, especially with respect
to Peter Enns, is G. K. Beale, The
Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelical-
ism: Responding to New Challenges to
Biblical Authority (Wheaton: Cross-
way, 2008).
12
Cf. Francis Schaeffer, No Little People
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1974).
87

Mark A. Seifrid is Ernest and Mildred
Hogan Professor of New Testament
at The Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary. He has served as Visiting
Lecturer at Wheaton College and at
Trinit y Evangelical Divinit y School.
Along with many articles, Dr. Seifrid is
the ­author of Justification by Faith: The
Origin and Development of a Central
Pauline Theme (Brill, 1992) and Christ
Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of
Justification (InterVaristy, 2001). In addi-
tion, he has co-edited (with D. A. Carson
and Peter T. O’Brien) the two-volume
work Justification And Variegated No-
mism (Baker, 2001, 2004).
88
Story-Lines of Scripture
and Footsteps in the Sea
He also has placed eternity in their
heart, yet not so that they can find out
what God has done from the beginning
to the end (Eccl 3:11).
1. Story-Lines and God’s
Mysterious Way
Theologians of all sorts, both systema-
ticians and exegetes, have been gripped
by a fever of story-telling. Everyone in
their own way wants to tell the old, old
story. This drive to narration derives from
diverse concerns. For many the appeal
lies in the alternative “salvation-history”
traditionally has provided to the negative
effects of historical-criticism, especially
its atomization and subsuming of the
text into a modern narrative of the world.
Over against the standards of enlightened
historical judgment, the Scriptures, it is
contended, have their own story-line that
holds its validity and truthfulness over
against the modern, secular vision. This
interpretation of Scripture as a unified,
overarching story seems all the more
urgent in the face of postmodern rejection
of all-encompassing “metanarratives.”
Not only outside church walls, but also
within them, each and everyone wants to
have their own story of the world, a story
that “works” for them. This swallowing
up of the objective by the subjective—if it
were finally possible—would be the end
of Christian faith. The concern to rein-
force the biblical story is therefore quite
understandable.
This first concern overlaps with
another, one that is perhaps more strongly
Mark A. Seifrid
felt by the evangelical left, and yet is
certainly not absent from the right. The
appeal to “story” allows for emphasis on
moral exhortation, the call to find one’s
location within that story and to live
out the divine purpose that it narrates.
It diverts attention from the salvation of
the individual to the redemption of the
people of God. Narrative interpretation of
Scripture thus serves as a useful weapon
against quietism and privatism by giving
the community of faith priority over the
individual believer. It is not surprising
that those who contend for a missional
theology nearly always embrace a com-
prehensive narrative interpretation of
Scripture.
The aim of furthering Christian living
in mission and community is entirely
valid, provided it does not take upon
itself ultimate goals. Nor is there is any
question that the Scriptures tell us of
God’s purpose for the world, its begin-
ning and its end: God created the world
out of his own goodness; God yet rules
the world despite humanity’s fall into sin;
God will bring the world to its consum-
mation through a final judgment; God
has acted decisively for our salvation in
Jesus Christ, in whom all things shall
be consummated. Most of us learned
the basic stories of Scripture already in
Sunday School: creation, fall, flood, Babel,
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Egypt, Exodus and
so on, all the way to Christ’s return. In
this sense, the Scriptures clearly present a
universal history with a definite goal. Yet
the “story” of Scripture is given to us in a
fragmentary manner and in the form of
promise so that the “why” and “how”—
the true mystery of salvation and its con-
tinuity—is reserved for God alone. We are
called to faith and hope in the God who
“moves in a mysterious way, his wonders
to perform” (William Cowper). Biblical
faith thus stands between the optimism
of modern epistemology, with its blind
certainty of discovery, and the unseeing
incredulity of postmodernism, with its
unresolved multiplicity of perspectives.
Jesus Christ himself, the Alpha and the
Omega, the beginning and the end, is
the key to the interpretation of the whole
of God’s purposes, not as a “principle”
(the possession of which makes us judges
of the text), but as the incarnate God, in
whose living, suffering, dying and rising
again all the promises of God—and thus
all the stories of Scripture—find their
fulfillment (2 Cor 1:20).1 As the risen Lord,
he is the true and final interpreter, who
again and again calls us afresh to faith in
him by opening the Scriptures to us, as he
did to the disciples on the Emmaus road.
In another context we might pursue
the question as to whether redemptive-
historical interpretation together with
all attempts at a comprehensive narra-
tive of Scripture do not fall prey to the
quest of the Enlightenment for a unified,
comprehensive knowledge of the world,
discernible, readable, and bound up with
the ideal of the progress. Although it
had its precedents, salvation-historical
interpretation is largely a product of the
nineteenth century. Its flowering came
about not only as a reaction to the ideal-
ism of Hegel and the historicism of von
Ranke, but also as an outgrowth of these
forces, rooted in similar perspectives on
the progress of history and the nature of
the historical task,2 as is especially appar-
ent in its concern to overcome historical
distance.3
Here we must raise the question as
to whether the drive for a unified and
comprehensive narrative of redemptive-
history—in which God’s footsteps may be
traced—imposes an alien framework on
the Scriptures. In the construction of such
metanarratives, rebellion and transgres-
sion, wrath and judgment, disaster and
salvation, death and life—which appear
as unqualified breaks within the biblical
narrative—are bridged over by a larger,
coherent scheme. Discontinuity is over-
looked or reduced to a “tension” that is
resolved in the progress of the narrative.
This bridging of the gaps comes at
the cost of abstraction and distance from
life.4 The lines of a unified history of
redemption are drawn out from a bird’s
eye view of the whole of God’s work.
So long as we remain in this body and
life, however, this tracing of God’s way
is not possible. God’s work—unlike our
own—appears only in retrospect.5 God’s
remarkable “yes” to all his promises is
not yet established in an outward course
of events that we may follow, but found
in the crucified and risen Christ, whom
we possess in faith (2 Cor 1:20). To imag-
ine that we already can see the whole of
God’s plan is to overlook the distinction
between faith and sight, and thus to privi-
lege abstract knowledge over wisdom rooted
in life.6 The metaphor of a “story-line”
as a way of understanding Scripture is
itself misleading, in that it threatens to
overlook the heights and depths of God’s
ways, namely, God’s condescension into
the miseries of our fallen condition and
the heights of the triumph that emerge
from that condescension. It is worth
remembering that the knowledge prom-
89
 ised to us in the eschaton is not merely
that of the story, the reading of which
the Lamb alone may enact by breaking its
seals. It is seeing God’s righteousness. It is
God’s wiping away the tears from every
eye.7 It is our beholding God’s face,8 our
knowing fully in the same manner as we
have been known by God (1 Cor 13:12).
The Scripture thus speaks of its own limits.
All interpretation of Scripture, therefore,
must provide a concrete account as to how
we presently see only “through a glass,
darkly.”9 It is questionable whether that
accounting is possible within the plan of
a comprehensive and unified narrative
of Scripture. The construction of such a
narrative involves a forgetfulness that we
do not speak from above, but from within
the ongoing story of God’s dealings with
the world.
The descriptive form of redemp-
tive-historical interpretation and other
comprehensive narratives of Scripture,
legitimate though it is, remains deriva-
tive and secondary. All our theological
discourse, all our God-talk, is in the
first instance not a speaking about God,
but a speaking to God, a response to God
which is fundamental to us as human
creatures. Whether we are conscious of it
or not, we constantly are giving answer
to God, in concrete and irreducibly narra-
tive forms, either those of faith (thanks-
giving, praise, petition, confession, and
lament), or those of unbelief (boasting,
self-justification, blasphemy, cursing
and complaint).10 It is no accident that
in Romans the apostle Paul concludes
his massive exposition of his Gospel
(and thereby of the whole of Scripture)
with a hymn of praise—a celebration
of God’s unsearchable judgments and
untraceable ways (Rom 11:33-36)! Compre-
hensive narratives of Scripture seek a pre-
90
mature transcendence of narrative form.
Consequently, such narratives reduce
the intersection of past, present, and
future that is characteristic of God’s work
to a historical (and often moral) line of
progress. Even redemptive-historical
interpretation, to the extent that it locates
God’s purpose within a temporal stream
of development cannot do justice to the
intersection of the times. The biblical
typology to which it appeals stands at
odds with the line of progress that it
proposes: in biblical typology—as in
all Christian living—progress is always
a return to the Creator’s prior work, a
return to the beginning in Jesus Christ,
who as the Alpha and Omega is also the
end of God’s work: progress is progress
into him.11
The biblical conjunction of the times
has at least two dimensions. First, the ful-
fillment of God’s promises in Jesus Christ
brings the reality of the new creation
into the present fallen world (2 Cor 5:17).
We already have come to the heavenly
Jerusalem, yet, like Israel before us, are
called to enter God’s promised rest (Heb
4:1-13; 12:18-24); we are simultaneously
the temple of God and God’s wandering
people (1 Cor 3:16-17; 10:1-13); we have died
to sin, yet we must not allow it to exercise
its lordship in us (Rom 6:1-2; 12); we have
overcome the Evil One, yet we must guard
ourselves from idols (1 John 2:13,14; 4:4;
5:21).12 We live in two times. To obscure
this reality in a line of progress is to lose
sight of the reality of sin and the tempta-
tions that surround us. It is also to lose
sight of God’s redeeming work in Christ.
Secondly, God’s address to us in judg-
ment and mercy within the biblical nar-
ratives itself has the power to bridge past,
present, and future. The interpretation
of biblical types does not depend on a
redemptive-historical framework that
we ourselves must construct in order to
overcome historical distance. On the con-
trary, God’s address to us in the figures
of Scripture interprets us and in so doing
provides the language and forms for
interpreting its narratives as they are ful-
filled in Jesus Christ. The whole of Scrip-
ture functions in the same way as did the
prophet Nathan’s parable told to David
(2 Sam 12:1-15): we find ourselves in the
text, addressed by God in judgment, in
the promise of mercy fulfilled in Christ,
and in the sufferings of all believers. In
their interpretation in Jesus Christ, God’s
words to us in the prophets—in many
portions and in many ways—lose noth-
ing of their particularity and content.13
The distinction between promise and
fulfillment remains. The time of waiting
plays an essential role. Together with the
figures who appear in Scripture (Noah,
Abraham, Israel, Moses, Joshua, David,
and all the rest) we are determined by
God’s dealings with the world in Adam
and in Christ in such a way that as Scrip-
ture speaks to the past it also speaks to the
present, and to the future as well.14
2. The Footsteps in the Sea
God’s saving purpose in the world,
the church, and individual believers
undoubtedly progresses. Yet its progress,
both in the past and in the present, is not
such that it may be discerned outwardly
and visibly, and traced in a story-line.
God’s work instead takes the form of
promise, which—by virtue of the Cre-
ator’s power—performs its work in the
world and comes to pass, contrary to
all appearances and expectations. God
plants his footsteps in the sea.
The breakdown of continuity in the
biblical story of God’s dealings with
human creatures appears already in the
fall. Where does evil come from? How did
the “crafty” serpent—which the Scripture
names a creature of God—arise? Where
did the serpent obtain its remarkable
power to seduce the first human beings?
Here, too, we should remind ourselves,
past, present and future intersect: the fall
of humanity does not remain in the past,
but is the story of every human being and
of the entire world: all of us are children
of Adam and Eve. Their transgression is
recapitulated in each of our lives daily, as
the apostle Paul reminds us in Romans
7. This sad narrative is also the story of
Israel: “like Adam they transgressed the
covenant” and “dealt faithlessly” with
the Lord (Hos 6:7). Unbelief and rebel-
lion interrupt the story of Israel at its
pivotal points: the giving of the Law at
Sinai is answered by the worship of the
golden calf; the call to enter the prom-
ised land is met with the refusal to do
so; the incomplete conquest of the land
culminates in the worship of the Baals
and Asherahs. The introduction of a
king within Israel appears not merely as
a divinely-ordained development within
Israel’s life, but as radical disobedience:
it is nothing other than the rejection of
Yahweh as king.15 From its very start, the
Davidic kingship—which follows God’s
repentance over his choice of Saul (1 Sam
5:11,29,35)!—is the incalculable wonder
of the Lord using human sin as a tool for
his purposes. For all the developments
that take place within Israel’s life, one can
hardly describe Israel’s story as progress.
It is largely characterized by strange acts
of rebellion: “the heart is a perverse thing
and incurably sick: who can understand it?”
(Jer 17:9). To attempt to unify the narra-
tives of these misdeeds within a single,
coherent story obscures the depths of
91
 guilt and tragedy with which they appear
in Scripture. The penitential confession
of Psalm 51 thus defies all explanation
and fractures all story-lines: “I was born
in guilt and in sin my mother conceived
me (Ps 51:6).16 To narrate sin comprehen-
sively—and thus to comprehend it—is to
overcome it. This metanarrative belongs
to the depths of the cross alone, namely,
to the wondrous battle and exchange
between God and the human being that
took place in it. It becomes ours only in
the confession of sin.
In the attempt to fit the whole of
Scripture within a rationally-unfolding,
progressive plan, comprehensive narra-
tives not only flatten out the reality of
sin, they also tend to level the depths of
divine judgment and mercy. God’s wrath
does not appear within Scripture in mea-
sured terms, aimed at nothing other than
furthering a larger, coherent good, as Lac-
tantius argues.17 Where the wrath of God
is unleashed according to Scripture, it is
immanent and immeasurable, charged
with a justice that we cannot calculate.
So, for example, in the Song of Moses,
God—whose anger “burns to the depths
of Sheol”—hides his face from his rebel-
lious children to “see what their end will
be” (Deut 32:20,22). What restrains him
from “blotting out the memory of them”
according to the text is not his commit-
ment to a larger, unfolding purpose, but
his vexation with his enemies whom he
uses as tools for Israel’s punishment (Deut
32:27). In other contexts, of course, the
Lord is said to “remember” his covenant
with Israel and his mercy, and so restrains
his judgment so as not to destroy them
(e.g. Lev 26:42-45; Ps 106:45; Jer 14:21; Hab
3:2). But do we rightly and adequately
interpret such texts if we claim that God
necessarily “remembered mercy in judg-
92
ment” so as to further his larger plan
(Hab 3:2)? The impassioned pleas of the
psalmists and the prophets suggest oth-
erwise. Furthermore, no line of develop-
ment emerges: even where God’s wrath
arrives as understandable judgment upon
evil, its measure remains incalculable as
it meets mortals and sweeps them into
dust (Ps 90:3). “Who knows the power of
your anger, and the wrath that accords
with the fear of you?” (Ps 90:11). Neither
Israel’s place nor ours can be secured
by a location within a story-line: God is
able to raise from the stones children for
Abraham (Matt 3:9). Indeed, Israel comes
to a “null point” within the “story” of
Scripture. Judgment brings an end to Israel
(e.g., Hosea 1:6-8; Amos 8:1), to Judah and
Jerusalem (e.g., Isa 6:1-13), an end to the
line of Davidic kings (e.g., Jer 22:24-30).
The potter’s jug is shattered so that it can
never be mended (Jer 19:10-13). Radical dis-
continuity such as this can be overcome
only by a resurrection from the dead. As
the prophet recognizes, the answer to the
question, “Shall these bones live?” rests
with God alone (Ezek 37:3).
It is not only the wrath of God against
sin that interrupts the story-line of Scrip-
ture. We must also reckon with the wrath
of God that does not come in response to
sin and remains incomprehensible to us.18
The Lord who promises Abraham descen-
dants through Isaac and who forbids
child-sacrifice19 nevertheless himself tests
Abraham by calling him to sacrifice his
beloved son.20 The Lord who sends Moses
to announce deliverance to Israel in Egypt
seeks to kill him on his way (Exod 4:24-
26). Who was it, who provoked David to
take a census and bring disaster on Israel?
Was it Satan (1 Chr 21:1) or was it the Lord
(2 Sam 24:1)? Can we create a single, unified
narrative out of the two accounts without
speculation and rationalization? In the
face of defeat and disaster, the psalmist
laments that the people of God are “put
to death all day long” because of God alone
(Ps 44:20-22; Rom 8:36). Although they
have not forgotten God’s name or lifted
up their hands to another god, God has
abandoned them as sheep for the slaugh-
ter. The present world is not the world of
Job’s friends. God’s righteousness—the
revelation of the omnipotence and love of
the one true God—awaits its final revela-
tion in the light of glory.21
The attempt to draw a story-line
through the whole of Scripture not only
obscures the way in which human beings
encounter God’s wrath, but also—and
even more—the wonder of God’s mercy
and love. Creation itself and our very
existence within it cannot be grounded
in anything other than the free and
unfathomable goodness of God.22 There is
likewise no a priori reason why the course
of God’s dealings with Israel and with the
world had to culminate in the triumph
of God’s love and the gift of salvation in
Christ’s cross and resurrection. If that
were so, Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane
and his cry of dereliction on the cross
(“Why have you forsaken me?”) would
be nothing other than rebellion and blas-
phemy. Just as we dare not dilute biblical
affirmations of divine immutability, so
we dare not dilute biblical descriptions
of divine condescension. We do so at the
cost of confessing the wonder of God’s
love. The necessity of all things within
the divine purpose does not diminish the
absolute freedom of God. Nor does divine
necessity, as we meet it, for example, in
Luke’s Gospel, issue in fatalism on Jesus’
part. Nor should it issue in monothelitism
on ours, as again Jesus’ prayer in Gethse-
mane makes clear. God’s wrath at Israel’s
worship of the golden calf might well
have consumed them once and for all.
Moses only barely averts the judgment by
his petition: God repents! (Exod 32:7-14;
30-34). According to the book of Judges,
it is sheer pity and no other consideration
that moves the Lord to deliver his way-
ward people from their oppressors (Judg
2:18). As we have noted, in Scripture the
Lord again and again remembers his cov-
enant when he heard his people’s cry of
distress (Ps 106:44-46). Might he not have
forgotten it forever? To dismiss this ques-
tion is to dismiss the questioning lament
of the psalmists, who use this very lan-
guage.23 According to the prophet Hosea,
although the Lord has surrendered his
people to judgment and destruction, the
Lord’s heart suddenly overturns within
him—or, indeed, perhaps, against him
( yBili yl;[' %P;h.n<)—so that he is filled with
compassion for them (Hos 11:8). Nothing
need have turned out so well as it did:
“It is of the Lord’s mercies that we are
not consumed” (Lam 3:22). The continu-
ation of Israel’s life does not constitute a
true continuity: the wilderness genera-
tion, including Moses himself, perished
without entering the promised land. The
remnant that emerges from the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem marks a new beginning,
like a shoot that rises from the stump of
a fallen tree.24 The promised return from
exile is a new Exodus, an act of creation,
just as the Exodus from Egypt itself is an
act of the Creator.25 Such continuity rests
solely in the wonder of the power and
love of the Creator, who brings life out
of death.26 Progress here is no straight
line, but a return to the Creator’s love,
and thus a return to the beginning. Thus
the Lord calls his people in the book of
Isaiah: Look to Abraham! Look to Sarah!
(Isa 51:1-3). The promise of a new begin-
93
 ning remains even now for Israel, whose
present unbelief in the crucified and risen
Messiah introduces a break in the story of
Scripture that cannot be bridged. Israel’s
final salvation, as a matter of unseen
hope, shall arrive like a bolt out of the
blue (Rom 11:25-27). The ways of God in
wrath, judgment, and mercy—past and
present—remain an unsearchable and
inscrutable mystery (Rom 11:28-36). The
love of God is poured out within our
hearts by the Spirit in the face of outward
troubles, contrary to any calculable course
of events, and contrary to all that we
deserve. The “right time,” for Christ to
die for us was when we were weak and
ungodly (Rom 5:6). Our encounter with
the love of God in Jesus Christ is never
a matter of a necessary course of events,
but ever remains a sheer wonder. Is it
really the case that “linear history is the
obvious corollary of redemption”?27 Is it
not so, instead, that “The peace of God
passes all understanding, and so does
God’s plan of salvation.”28
For redemptive-historical interpreta-
tion and other comprehensive narratives
of Scripture, however, the continuity of
God’s dealings with humanity suffers no
end or break. On this point one cannot
avoid old debates. Is it the case that the
whole of the Scriptures, aside perhaps
from the first three chapters of Genesis,
may be interpreted in terms of one over-
arching covenant of grace in its various
forms?29 A covenant, as it is understood in
such theology, requires a partner, but that
partner must first be created and—where
there is judgment and death—recreated.
The Creator’s work suffers no partners.
As the gift and promise of life, it does not
remain in the past, but continues in all
God’s saving deeds and culminates in the
resurrection of the dead, the new creation
94
in Jesus Christ. The God who speaks in
promise to Abraham—and thus enters
into covenant with him according to Gen-
esis (Gen 15:17-21)—does so as the One
who “justifies the ungodly” (Rom 4:5),
“makes the dead alive,” and “calls into
being that which is not” (Rom 4:17). This
covenant, in which the Creator speaks in
unconditioned giving and promise, stands
in stark contrast to the covenant at Sinai,
which God commands and on which
blessing is conditioned. 30 The goodness
of the Law not withstanding, no line of
continuity may be drawn between the
demands of the Law and the promise of
the Creator that brings life and blessing.31
Yahweh will be who he will be (Exod
3:13-15). Between the Law’s curse and its
fulfillment in the new creation stand the
unfathomable depths of God’s judgment
and mercy in the cross and resurrection
of Christ.32
Something similar may be said with
respect to the kingdom of God, which
plays a large role in all comprehensive
narratives of Scripture. It is not clear
that such readings sufficiently take into
account the abiding distinction between
the mediated rule of God through earthly
rulers—of which the Davidic kings are a
special instance—and the anticipation of
immediate divine rule that is heightened
by the failure of the Davidic kings. In
varying ways, the psalms (e.g., Ps 72:1-
20), the prophets (e.g., Isa 11:1-9), and the
apocalyptic writings (e.g., Dan 7:13-18)
anticipate this direct rule of God—namely,
the removal of all enemies, including
death, and the advent of the new cre-
ation.33 According to the witness of the
New Testament, this promised kingdom
has arrived here and now in Jesus, and
is present as an undivided whole within
the midst of the old, fallen world.34 The
Risen One who sits at God’s right hand
rules in the midst of his enemies.35 The
kingdom is thus present, here and now
within the world, so that we already
may share in it.36 Yet we still must pray
that it might come, and strive to enter it.37
Indeed, although it is present, we receive
and inherit it only at the resurrection of
the dead.38 It grows and makes its own
progress in the world, but never accord-
ing to outward standards, and always in
the face of opposition.39 It is proclaimed
within the world as good news and thus
remains inseparable from Jesus Christ,
who is not subject to division or a gradual
parceling out.40 Christ’s brothers and
sisters shall inherit the kingdom that was
made ready for them from the foundation of
the world (Matt 25:32). They are not placed
at a point in a story-line of progress, but
in the intersection of two times: they live
simultaneously in the old, fallen creation
(and therewith in one earthly kingdom
or another), and in the new creation, the
kingdom of God that is present in Jesus.
3. The Interpreter in the Storm
As we have noted already, the attempt
to interpret Scripture as a comprehensive
and unified story presupposes that the
reader is in a position to discern God’s
work as a rational plan, from the cre-
ation to the eschaton. Such a position, set
above the fray, is not ours. We are not yet
beyond the battle between unbelief and
faith, between the worship of the idols
and the worship of the one, true God.
We remain simultaneously sinners and
saints, and therefore do not yet possess
a whole and unified identity, but await it
in hope.41 It is the Scripture that interprets
us, tells us who we are in our present
state, as in the apostle’s penetrating narra-
tive of the human encounter with the Law
and recognition of the Gospel in Romans
7. So long as we remain in this body and
life, we find ourselves in that wretched
person, who cries out for deliverance and
finds it in Jesus Christ.
The Scripture tells not only our story
as sinners and saints, but also the story
of the church—within which the battle
for the Gospel constantly takes place on
various fronts. The New Testament writ-
ings are nothing other than documents of
this conflict. So long as sinners and mor-
tals remain within it, the visible church
cannot be identified with the kingdom
of God. Indeed, Paul battles against the
danger of reading the Scriptures in such
a way that the story-line leads to us here
and now.42 We must still learn to pray,
as our Lord has taught us, for the king-
dom to come and for God, our Father, to
forgive us our trespasses. Penitence and
lament belong to our common worship.
Where they are absent, where worship
becomes merely celebratory, it threatens
to become self-celebration. The church
remains the community of justified sin-
ners, who find their fellowship with one
another in Jesus Christ, and wait for the
hope of righteousness.
Here we again touch upon the differ-
ence between wisdom and knowledge
that is largely overlooked in redemptive-
historical interpretation and other com-
prehensive narratives of Scripture. To
the extent that such a narrative becomes
the framework for interpretation, we
necessarily go behind the text, to this
preconstructed framework, in order to
understand the text.43 The preaching of
Christ from the Old Testament may then
begin to look like the clever trick of the
interpreter, who pulls Christ out of the
text as a magician pulls a rabbit out of
a hat. Conversely, in narrative construc-
95
 tions such as that of N. T. Wright, the
straightforward preaching of repentance
and faith that we hear in the New Testa-
ment may turn out to be unexpectedly
different from what we can see on the
surface: the good news of the forgiveness
of sins, the return of the prodigal, and
the resurrection of Christ turn out to be
all about Israel’s return from exile and
the call to live within a new humanity.
On the one side, there is the danger of an
arid intellectualism, that speaks to the
head, but not the heart. On the other side,
there is the danger of a moral idealism,
in which Christ functions primarily as a
moral example and not as Savior. As dif-
ferent as the concerns that generate such
readings may be, they both derive from
the appeal to a prior narrative construc-
tion that guides the reading of the text.
Despite their concern to remain historical,
they will tend toward allegory, since in
transcending narrative form they appeal
to a known pattern in order to interpret
the unknown matter of the text. Regard-
less of how well we know the Gospel, it
remains alien to our practical and actual
thought in life. Faith lives from hearing
ever afresh the strange and wonderful
word of God’s grace in the Gospel, a word
that springs apart every story-line that we
might imagine. That word comes not to
detached interpreters, but to those in the
midst of storm and battle, in the midst of
all the trials and temptations of earthly
life. In this storm, neither a mere map
nor a model is sufficient. Only God’s sure
word of promise, fulfilled in Jesus Christ,
can carry us safely to shore.
4. Getting the Story (W)Right
The most influential attempt at a
comprehensive narrative of Scripture on
the current scene is N. T. Wright’s large
96
project in biblical theology, supplemented
by his continuing stream of popular
works. His metanarrative represents the
new wave of New Testament studies that
follows the “new perspective on Paul”
and its claim that first-century Judaism
was largely a religion of grace, based on
God’s unconditional election of Israel.44
As Wright tells the story, the plight from
which the majority of Jews sought deliv-
erance was not that of individual guilt,
but Israel’s continuing exile of social and
political oppression under Roman power.
The problem of evil thus takes priority—
materially, if not chronologically—over
the problem of sin, the standing of the
individual person before God. Jesus deliv-
ers Israel from exile in an earthly and
concrete way. He does so not in rebellion
and violence, but in meekness, suffering,
and death, a way which God has brought
to victory in his resurrection. This narra-
tive subtext drawn from the Scriptures
runs through the New Testament and
binds the whole into a unified story. In
Jesus the one true God has come to his
people and brought his covenant with
them to a climax. In Jesus God fulfilled
the calling at which Israel failed: Jesus
is God’s true Servant and the light to the
nations.45 Through this risen Lord, God
now rescues human beings, “in order that
humans might be his rescuing stewards
over creation.” That, according to Wright,
is the good news of the Gospel and “the
inner dynamic of the kingdom of God.”46
As with nearly all comprehensive nar-
ratives of Scripture, the idea of a single,
overarching covenant between God and
the community of faith is fundamental to
Wright’s program. Wright further takes
the view, common since Barth, that the
Gospel is not distinct from the Law, but
merely its fulfillment.47 In Wright’s case,
there’s a bit of wanting to have one’s cake
and eat it too. On the one hand, Israel’s
guilt and exile are integral elements of
Wright’s narrative, which God in Christ
comes to remove. On the other hand, the
Law was God’s covenantal gift to Israel,
intended to make her to be a light to the
nations. Israel was to be the means by
which God righted the wrongs in the
fallen creation. The question then inescap-
ably arises: Had Israel fulfilled its calling,
would Israel then have died for the sins
of the world? Wright provides no answer.
Demand and promise, conditional bless-
ing and unconditioned grace, Law and
Gospel stand side-by-side in an unre-
solved contradiction within a supposedly
coherent conception of “covenant.”
Or perhaps t he cont radict ion is
resolved after all. Jesus enters into the
story of Scripture as the one, faithful
Israelite, who fulfills the divine purpose,
the true image of God in whom God’s
purpose for humanity is embodied.48 The
in-breaking of the Creator is so subsumed
into Jesus’ humanity, that the covenantal
narrative retains its continuity and
indeed, is brought to its fulfillment. This
resolution of ambivalence in the concept
of “covenant” comes at a cost. To the
extent that Jesus is identified as “the one
faithful Israelite” and merely does what
Israel was called to do, the “wonderful
exchange” between God and the human
being that has taken place in Christ’s
cross and resurrection recedes into the
background.49 The forgiveness of sins
becomes the mere means of implementing
God’s larger purpose. Jesus is no longer
properly the fulfillment of the story of
Scripture, but merely the agent who fur-
thers that story.
Consequently, Wright’s scheme bears
a tendency—one might, perhaps, call it
Eutychian—to reduce Christ’s humanity
and deity to a unity in the manifestation
of the divine image. In his affirmation
that Jesus died for the guilt of Israel (and
with it of all humanity), in order to bring
the forgiveness of sins, Wright follows
traditional Christian understandings. As
we have just noted, however, for Wright
this moment within the divine narrative
is no longer final and decisive, even if it
was necessary. As the true image of God,
Jesus embodies “the genuine humanness”
that is God’s will for all of us. In seeing
him, as the one in whom God’s purpose for
us has been realized we are transformed by
the Spirit.50 Wright’s conception of salva-
tion so closely identifies Jesus with Israel
and with ideal humanity, that corporate
identity threatens to swallow up Jesus’
personal identity. Here we no longer
encounter Jesus as a distinct person, who
entered into his own unique and unre-
peatable experience of the human condi-
tion. Wright’s Jesus cannot finally utter
the cry of dereliction: “My God, my God,
why have you forsaken me?” (Mk 15:34; Ps
22:2).51 In contrast, in the Gospels Jesus’
suffering remains distinctly his own, not
that of Israel, not that of humanity, even
though, of course, his cry takes up the
lament of the psalmist. The same is true
of his triumph: power, wealth, wisdom,
might, honor, glory and blessing belong
to the Lamb who was slain, and to no other
(Rev 6:11). Jesus’ victory is not imparted
by a mere vision, but communicated by
the address of God in the Risen One.
That is true even for Paul himself accord-
ing to the reports of Acts, and is implicit
to Paul’s own accounts of his vision of
the risen Christ (2 Cor 4:6; Gal 1:16). The
same holds in the Gospel accounts of the
appearance of the Risen Lord: “Peace be
with you! As the Father has sent me, so
97
 I send you” (John 20:21). Unlike a vision,
an address necessarily comes from an
individual and speaks to individuals,
no matter how many ears it reaches.52 It
establishes not a representative (or ideal)
relation, but a communicative one, in
which persons are not identified, but
remain distinct: “I shall announce your
name to my brothers (and sisters), in the
midst of the assembly, I shall praise you”
(Heb 1:12; Ps 22:22). Corporate identity
thus does not have priority over the indi-
vidual. Nor does the individual have pri-
ority over the community. Each one of us
is addressed by Christ our brother, within
the midst of our brothers and sisters. The
community is created by the word of the
risen Christ, which binds us together
in our relation to the Father. Wright’s
“divine image christology” obscures the
distinct and individual humanity of the
Risen Christ who speaks and who thus
creates the community of faith.
This idealistic christology of the divine
image also obscures at least one dimen-
sion of the way in which the New Testa-
ment speaks of Jesus as God.53 According
to Wright’s narrative, Christ acts savingly
entirely in reference to the larger plan
and purpose of God: he determines
to “embody in himself the returning
and redeeming action of the covenant
God.”54 While we must not ignore the
way in which Jesus’ deity is manifest in
his imitation of the Father according to
the Johannine witness, it is questionable,
whether Wright deals adequately with
the full christology of John or of the New
Testament. In varying ways the New
Testament speaks of Christ’s saving work
as a spontaneous act of his own. Thus, for
example, we read in John’s Gospel: “No
one takes my life (individual life; yuch ),
from me, but I give it of myself. I have
98
authority to give it, and I have author-
ity to take it again. This commandment
I have received from my Father” (John
10:18). The Father loves Jesus for freely
laying down his life, and in fact has
given him commandment to so act with
free, divine authority. The Son fulfills
his divine vocation in that he acts with
sovereign freedom: “my Father is work-
ing until now, and I also am working”
(John 5:17). Divine freedom and obedient
imitation are simultaneously present and
interpenetrate one another.55
Wright’s construal of salvation and of
the human being correspondingly suffers.
As the divine image, Jesus serves as noth-
ing other than the agent who implements
the divine purpose for humanity—and
thus is functionalized within the grand
narrative. That is also true of those
who come to share in salvation. As we
have noted, according to Wright we are
rescued “in order that we might become
rescuing stewards of creation.”56 Human
beings are saved “not for themselves
alone, but for what God now longs to
do through them.”57 “Atonement, redemp-
tion, and salvation are what happen on the
way because engaging in this work (sc.
of the kingdom) demands that people
themselves be rescued from the powers
that enslave the world in order that they
can in turn be rescuers.”58 God thus deals
with us in a utilitarian manner: he does
not so much seek us, as he seeks to use
us for his larger purposes.59 Does God
will to have us not merely for ourselves,
but for what he wants to do through us?
If so, shall we not regard and treat oth-
ers in the same utilitarian manner? Are
other persons significant to us only to the
extent to which they might contribute to
the furthering of God’s purposes as we
conceive them?
 Wright’s scheme at the same time
assigns to the human being a role that far
exceeds that to which the Scriptures call
us. We ourselves are rescuers, “colleagues
and partners” of God in God’s larger
project of renewing creation.60 Through
our stewardship—and finally at our
unveiling as God’s children—“creation
will be brought back into that wise order
for which it was made.”61 Now burdens
are placed on us that do not belong to
us. Now we are no longer merely God’s
co-workers, but his co-creators. Now the
human being threatens to become “god”
writ small.
Not surprisingly, a note of conditional-
ity also enters into Wright’s understand-
ing of salvation: “[I]f you want to help
inaugurate God’s kingdom, you must
follow in the way of the cross, and if you
want to benefit from Jesus’s saving death,
you must become part of his kingdom
project.”62 Now our works—no matter
that they are aided and empowered by
the grace of God—determine our persons,
and indeed our salvation. Our “genuine
humanity” is dependent on the degree to
which we participate in the kingdom. All
of us are human, but some of us are more
human than others. Are some of us then
of lesser worth?
Such an understanding of salvation
entails a forgetfulness of our creature-
liness, and thus an inversion of the
biblical relationship between faith and
love, between receiving and giving.63
We cannot create ourselves, nor can we
recreate ourselves and our world, nor
can we preserve ourselves and the world
in the meantime. These denials do not
at all mean that God does not call us to
significant tasks in the world. They do
mean, however, that each and every one
of us is an end of God’s purposes in our-
selves, and not a means to something else.
We are not thereby left to the perversion
of our self-seeking hearts! We are rather
liberated from ourselves by the Gospel,
and by the response of faith and thanks-
giving which God’s word of forgiveness
creates within our hearts. As Paul reminds
us, the God who saves remains the
unqualified Giver, the source of all good:
“From him, through him, to him are all
things.” Consequently all praise belongs
to him, “To him be the glory forever!
Amen” (Rom 11:36). As Paul reminds the
Corinthians, in the gift of salvation we
receive the Giver of salvation (e.g., 1 Cor
1:13, 30; 2 Cor 13:5). Consequently, all our
giving forth to others is only a further
thankful reception of the Giver himself:
his gifts to us freely overflow to others.64
The unconditional gift of salvation thus
remains undiminished and unqualified.
So, for example, Paul ends his appeal to
the Corinthians to participate in the gift
for Jerusalem with the exclamation of
praise: “Thanks be to God for his inde-
scribable gift!” The gift and the giving of
the Corinthians is nothing other than the
gift and giving of God in Christ (2 Cor
9:15). This dynamic of receiving and giv-
ing forth also becomes clear, for example,
in the Gospel of Matthew, particularly in
the fifth petition of the Lord’s Prayer and
in the parable of the unforgiving servant
(6:12, 14-15; 18:23-35). The free gift of for-
giveness from the one true Giver reaches
its goal, in our forgiving others. God’s
love toward us, unqualified by any goal
beyond us, comes to perfection in us in the
new reality of love (1 John 4:16-21). As is
especially apparent in Jesus’ parable, the
indissoluble connection between gift and
giver exists at even the earthly level: it is
only as we recognize the giver and the
giver’s action for us, that we receive that
99
 which has been done and given as a gift.
Mercy is spontaneous and (in this sense)
pre-ethical.65 This spontaneity becomes
apparent, for example, in the parable of
the good Samaritan: the Samaritan, the
foreigner and outsider, upon seeing the
miserable victim of a beating is “moved
with compassion” (Lk 10:30-37). Our acts
of mercy arise solely from the reception—
first in creation, and then even more so
in new creation—of God’s spontaneous,
free mercy toward us, which seeks nothing
beyond each of us and our good. In giving
forth what we have received, we do not
become genuinely human, as Wright imag-
ines, but we return, or more properly, are
brought back from our proud imaginations
to the true humanity, that we already
share with all other human beings.66 As
important as all large-scale endeavors
at social good remain, their structures
of delivering aid and assistance cannot
engender or replace the warmth of mercy
and compassion.67 Very often, in fact, it is
the warmth of mercy that first puts these
structures in place. Unless it continues
to fill them, they grow cold and preoc-
cupied with their own power. Nor should
we think of the spontaneity of mercy as
merely momentary: it has the power to
endure all things, and often manifests
itself in ongoing, and even life-long
endeavors. It is not this love, however, nor
“loving knowledge” (as Wright puts it)68
that is primary in Christian living, but it
is rather the faith that in Christ finds God
the Creator in his immeasurable, saving
goodness and love. This discovery is the
well-spring and source of Christian liv-
ing. “In Christ Jesus, nothing but faith
working through love has power” (Gal
5:6). The priority of faith over love liber-
ates the individual from being function-
alized and exploited by the community.
100
The activity of faith in love means that
the one who believes, addressed by God
in the midst of others, cannot remain in
an isolated, private piety.
The remarkable continuity that Wright
presupposes between present Christian
endeavor and the arrival of the kingdom
in its fullness stands and falls together
with his unified conception of righteous-
ness and justice.69 The converse is true
as well: Wright’s unified conception of
righteousness cannot stand apart from
the way he conceives the continuation of
our works from this age into the one to
come. Wright employs the metaphor of
building “for the kingdom” as a craftsper-
son performs a task for the construction
of a cathedral to summarize the tension
between continuity and discontinuity.
The construction of the whole lies in
the hands of the architect. The smaller
tasks belong to the laborers. But Wright’s
figure merely distinguishes between the
partial and the complete, the envision-
ing of the work and the execution of that
work through others.70 Consequently,
the transition between the present and
the eschaton is merely a “fresh gift of
transformation and renewal from the
Architect himself.”71 This scheme and its
radical continuity overlook the testing
of all our works by fire.72 Admittedly,
Wright does not ignore the prospect of
the final judgment, and in fact points to
1 Cor 3:10-17. Nevertheless, his acknowl-
edgment that the parousia brings a “note
of judgment” stands in an unresolved
relation to his affirmation that, “All that
we do in faith, hope, and love in the pres-
ent … will be enhanced and transformed
at his appearing.”73 According to Wright,
the final judgment brings the vindication
of the “true covenant members,” whose
covenant faith(fulness) already can be seen
in the present—that is to say, it can be read
off of what they have done in obedience
to God, in conformity to the divine image
made visible in Jesus.74 Present righteous-
ness thus continues into the eschaton.
Various problems are attached to this
judgment. In the first place, it underesti-
mates the enormous challenge of discov-
ering earthly justice, especially within the
political realm.75 Contention over earthly
rights will remain until the eschaton.
Righteousness and the discernment of
it come as an unqualified gift from God.
When and where they appear in this
world, as legal enactments put in place by
force or the threat of it, they remain mere
anticipations of the eschaton: “Give your
judgment to the king, and your justice
to the king’s son!” (Ps 72:1-2). It is not at
all clear that Christian transformation of
social structures will be unerringly right
and representative of the wise and just
rule of God. Where it is wrong, it must
and shall be judged impartially at the last
Day.76 It is not clear, either, how Christian
commitment to Jesus’ path of meekness
and mercy can possibly further justice
in a fallen world in which the exercise of
force remains necessary in the face of bru-
tal evil. Wright’s scheme is in danger of a
naiveté that makes a theology of the cross
into a principle that triumphs everywhere
and at all times.77
The most serious problem, however,
with Wright’s unified understanding of
righteousness is that it overlooks the cor-
ruption of the human heart that perverts
all our works. We have already touched
on the way in which comprehensive
narratives of Scripture overlook the
radical nature of evil. Wright’s program
is no exception. All that we do in “faith,
hope, and love” shall surely endure into
eternity, but nothing that we do is done
without reserve in faith, hope, and love.
Helmut Thielicke, a pastor and theologian
active in the oppositional, Confessing
Church during the period of Nazi rule,
preaching in Stuttgart in the final days
of the Third Reich, comments profoundly
on the fifth petition of the Lord’s Prayer:
I must begin with myself and my
own guilt whenever there is any-
thing to be said about the world’s
guilt. I cannot simply look out the
window and be morally indignant
over the great Babylon that lies
spread out before me in all its god-
less darkness. No, what I see out
there in global proportions must
only remind me of my own “Baby-
lonian heart” (Francis Thompson).
And quite involuntarily I will be
reminded of the prophet Nathan’s
hard rebuke to David: “Thou art
the man!” I am the one who needs
forgiveness, and the sanitation of
the world must begin with me.78
When and where this truth concerning
our condition is overlooked or ignored,
when and where we thus deceive our-
selves (1 John 1:8), when and where our
attention is directed primarily to outward
and visible acts of righteousness, the cor-
ruption that is present within our hearts
and our actions only becomes worse.
When evil is thus submerged behind out-
ward good, it secretly brings the greatest
evils into the world. As Luther comments,
the real devil is not the one dressed in
black, but the one dressed in white, who
appears as an angel of light.79 The worst
evil that takes place within the world—
and within the church—takes place
under the claim of justice and morality.80
True deliverance from Israel’s exile
in Babylon, an image fundamental to
Wright’s understanding of salvation, is no
mere deliverance from oppression or the
physical evils of this world, or even from
death itself. It includes all these, but it is
101
 much, much more. In this sense, it must
be said against Wright that God not only
saves “wholes,” he also saves “souls.”81
True deliverance from Babylon is a deliv-
erance from our own “Babylonian heart”:
Our towns are copied fragments
from our breast;
And all man’s Babylons strive but
to impart
The grandeurs of his Babylonian
heart.82
This deliverance cannot come by
means of a retributive justice that rewards  
the works of those who are genuinely
human, and punishes the rest. Deliv-
erance from our “Babylonian heart”
requires another kind of righteousness that
transcends all earthly justice. It requires
a spontaneous and incalculable love that,
transcending all story-lines, “does not
find, but creates that which is pleasing to
it.”83 It requires an act of the Creator, who
just as he gives life to the dead, justifies
the ungodly (Rom 4:5,17). According to
Scripture, that deliverance has been given
to us in the resurrection of Jesus, our
Lord, from the dead (Rom 4:24-25). In the
form of promise, we know and experience
it already here and now (Rom 6:1-23). In
a way that transcends all story-lines, we
groan and wait by the power of the Spirit  
for the hope of righteousness (Gal 5:5).
This new, unheard of kind of righteous-
ness, which (contrary to all our calcula-
tions) works the new reality of love in our
hearts and lives, springs from faith alone.
ENDNOTES
See Bonhoeffer’s reflections on this text
 1
in a letter from Tegel prison, August
21, 1944 in Widerstand und Ergebung
(16th ed.; KT 100; Munich: Chr. Kaiser,
1977), 209-10. Against G. Goldsworthy,
Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Founda-
102
tions and Principles of Evangelical Bibli-
cal Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVaristy, 2007), 48: a “principle” (i.e.,
an a priori necessity) cannot be joined
to the contingencies of history. Christ
cannot be made into a “hermeneutical
principle,” as Goldsworthy wants to
make him, unless he is placed within
a redemptive-historical scheme (not his-
tory itself), which scheme then serves as
the decisive criterion for interpretation,
rather than Christ.
2
See, for example, G. W. F. Hegel, “Chris-
tians, then, are initiated into the myster-
ies of God, and this also supplies us with
a key to world history. For we have here
a definite knowledge of providence and
the divine plan. It is one of the central
doctrines of Christianity that provi-
dence has ruled and continues to rule
the world, and that everything which
happens in the world is determined
by divine rule commensurate with the
divine government” (Lectures on the
Philosophy of World History: Introduction:
Reason in History [trans. H. S. Nisbet;
Cambridge: Cambridge University,
1975], 41). I owe the reference to O. Bayer,
Zugesagte Gegenwart (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2007), 116.
3
Hofmann’s attempt to deal with histori-
cal distance through appeal to the his-
tory of Scripture’s effects is not entirely
false, even if it is highly problematic.
On Hofmann see Matthew L. Becker,
The Self-Giving God and Salvation History:
The Trinitarian Theology of Johannes von
Hofmann (New York: T & T Clark, 2004),
and despite Becker's criticisms, E. W.
Wendebourg, "Die heilsgeschichtliche
Theologie J. Chr. K. von Hofmanns in
ihrem Verhältnis zur romantischen
Weltanschauung," ZThK 52 (1955):
64-104.
 4
The bridging of the gaps thus cre-
ates its own gap, which cannot be
overcome by mere knowledge or
by moral exhortation—although it
is often attempted.
 5
See Martin Luther, Luther’s Works,
Vol. 25: Lectures on Romans (55
vols.; ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan et al.;
Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 1972), 367 (hereafter, Luther,
LW).
 6
O n t h i s d i st i nc t ion bet we en
“knowledge” and “wisdom” (which
is nearly the inverse of Augustine’s
distinction between the temporal
and the eternal), see Oswald Bayer,
Theology the Lutheran Way (trans. J.
Silcock and M. Mattes; Grand Rap-
ids, Eerdmans, 2007), 28-32.
 7
Rev 7:14-17; 21:3-4.
 8
Rev 22:4; cf. Ps 17:15; Exod 33:20, 23.
 9
The language of the text is even
more vivid than that of the King
James: we see through a mirror in a
riddle (di v e vsop, trou e nv aivni,gmati;
1 Cor 13:12).
10
On our speaking as a response
to God’s word to us, see O. Bayer,
Schöpfung als Anrede: Zu einer
Hermeneutik der Schöpfung (Tübin-
gen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990).
11
Martin Luther, D. Martin Luther’s
Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (69
vols.; Weimar: H. Böhlaus Nach-
folger, 1883),  56:486, 7-8 (hereafter,
Luther, WA). “Proficere, hoc est
semper a novo incipere.” Properly
understood, typology is not an
interpretive method, but a theol-
ogy of history, a theology of the
ways of God in wrath, judgment,
and mercy.
12
There is a third way in which the
times intersect in Scripture: God’s
words of promise, as acts of the
Creator, immediately bring to reality
what they speak in the form of faith
(Heb 11:1; cf. Rom 4:17-22). This time
of faith remains distinct from the
time of sight and fulfillment.
13
The distinction between the inter-
nal clarity of Scripture, in its imme-
diacy given by the Spirit, and the
external clarity of Scripture, which
may be established by histori-
cal means removes or at the very
least alleviates the problem of a
salvation-history detached from
the larger course of events in the
world that are subject to human
investigation.
14
Johann Georg Hamann (in response
to Moses Mendelssohn) speaks
of “historical truths not only of
the past, but also of the future,
proclaimed and announced in
advance” (Saemtliche Werke: III.
Band: Schriften ueber Sprache/
Mysterien/Vernunft 1772-1788  [ed.
Josef Nadler; reprint ed.; R. Brock-
haus/Antiquariat Willi, Wuppertal/
Tuebingen: 1991 (1951)], 305.).
15
1 Sam 8:1-22; cf. Deut 17:14-20; Judg
8:22-23.
16
Likewise, the forgiveness for which
the psalmist appeals takes the form
of a petition for a fresh act of the
Creator that transcends all calcula-
tion, “create in me a clean heart, O
God!”(Ps 51:10).
17
On Lactantius, see T. Reinhu-
ber, Kämpfender Glaube: Studien zu
Luthers Bekenntnis am Ende von De
servo arbitrio (Theologische Biblio-
thek Töpelmann 104; Berlin: De
Gruyter, 2000), 93-94.
18
On God’s incomprehensible wrath,
see Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther’s
Theology: A Contemporary Interpre-
tation (trans. T. H. Trapp; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 198-205.
19
Deut 18:10; Lev 20:1-5; cf. Jer 32:35;
Ezek 23:36-37; Ps 106:34-39.
20
The Lord “test s” or, i ndeed,
“tempts,” hS'nI; LXX: e vpei,raxen, Gen
22:1; cf. Jas 1:13.
21
On “the light of glory” and Luther’s
appropriation of the doctrine of
“three lights,” see LW 33:292 (“The
Bondage of the Will”).
22
The freedom and goodness of
the Creator expressed in creation
appears, for example, in Ps 104:1-35;
see Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther’s
Theology, 95-119.
23
E.g., Ps 44:23-26; 74:1-23; 89:38-52.
24
Isa 1:21-31; 6:13; 10:20-23; 11:1.
25
E.g., Isa 43:14-21; 48:20-21; 51:9-11; Ps
74:12-17; 77:11-20.
26
E.g., Isa 40:6-8; 43:14-21.
27
Thus Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered
Hermeneutics, 219. We may further
ask where then is there room for the
final judgment, in which all human
deeds are brought back, laid bare,
and judged? Likewise, if history is
strictly linear, how can the appear-
ing of Christ bring the restoration
of all things (Acts 3:21)? Is the new
creation in no sense a restoration of
the original creation?
28
E. Käsemann, “Justification and
Salvation History,” in Perspectives
on Paul (trans. M. Kohl; Philadephia:
Fortress, 1971), 63.
29
Thus Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered
Hermeneutics, 227.
30
E.g., Deut 4:13; 28:1-68; 29:1; Lev 18:5.
31
Though not a Barthian himself, on
this point Goldsworthy (Gospel-Cen-
tered Hermeneutics, 226–7) sounds
positively Barthian in his rejection
103
 of a distinction between the Law
and the Gospel: “To those who say
we need the law first—that is, we
need to perceive our problem before
we will flee to God for grace, we
must reply that such an assertion
assumes the ability without grace to
understand the law as natural law.
The gospel is the clearest explica-
tion of the law, both in its perfect
fulfillment and in the effects of its
being broken.” With regard to the
first assertion: Does any human
being who hears the Decalogue
fail to comprehend its goodness
(Deut 4:5-8)? Is there no room for
the common grace of the Creator?
With regard to the second: We may
freely admit that it is only in the
Gospel that we rightly comprehend
the condemning voice of the Law.
It by no means follows, however,
that the proclamation of the Law
is not necessary to the grasping of
the Gospel! Can one do away with the
message of Israel’s prophets? Can one
begin reading the book of Isaiah at chap-
ter 40 and still make sense of it? Does
John the Baptist represent an unneces-
sary aside in the larger divine drama?
None of us came to faith by internal
reflection, but only by another who
communicated the word of God to
us—as demand and gift, as Law
and Gospel.
32
Goldsworthy’s charge that “the
Lutheran dialectic between Law
and Gospel failed to remove a
medieval tendency to impose a
hermeneutical divide between
the Testaments” (Gospel-Centered
Hermeneutics, 240) widely misses
the mark. The distinction between
Law and Gospel did not constitute
104
a divide between the Testaments
for Luther, nor does it for Lutheran
interpretation generally. Gospel
appears in the Old Testament in the
form of promise, as for example in
the preamble to the Decalogue. Law
appears in the New Testament in
the form of demand, as for example,
in the Sermon on the Mount.
33
Even now within our fallen and
broken world, the Creator estab-
lishes his kingship in ever-new sav-
ing acts—which may indeed take
place through human agents—that
point to this final hope: e.g., Exod
15:18; Ps 74:12-17; Pss 93:1; 97:1; 98:6;
99:1; Isa 45:1-25.
34
E.g., Mt 12:28; 13:44-46; 21:31.
35
Ps 110:1-2; 1 Cor 15:24.
36
E.g., Rom 14:17; 1 Cor 4:20; Col 1:13;
Rev 1:9.
37
E.g., Matt 6:10; Acts 14:22; Gal 5:21;
1 Cor 6:9-10; 2 Pet 1:11.
38
1Cor 15:50.
39
E.g., Matt 11:12; 13:18-32; Rev 1:9.
40
E.g., Matt 4:23; 24:14; Acts 8:12; 19:8;
20:25; 28:23, 31.
41
See Bonhoeffer’s poem, “Who am
I?” which is included in the mem-
oir by G. Leibholz published in The
Cost of Discipleship (rev. ed.; New
York: MacMillan, 1963), 18-20.
42
This is one of the burdens of Ernst
Käsemann in his trenchant and
well-known response to Krister
Stendahl, “Justification and Salva-
tion History,” 60–78.
43
See H. W. Frei, The Eclipse of Bibli-
cal Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth
and Nineteenth Century Hermeneu-
tics (New Haven: Yale University,
1974),  179–82. So, for example,
Goldsworthy appeals to “epochs or
stages within salvation-history” as
“macro-analogies” by which types
are to be located (Gospel-Centered
Hermeneutics,  248). The concern to
tame typology is legitimate, but
the criterion for taming it is to be
found in God’s ways in wrath, judg-
ment, and mercy, not in these large
schemata.
44
Ironically, Wright himself regards
God’s covenant with Israel as in
some sense conditional, a condi-
tionality which he takes up into
his own reading of the Gospel. See
Mark Seifrid, “The Narrative of
Scripture and Justification by Faith:
A Fresh Response to N. T. Wright,”
Concordia Theological Quarterly
(2008): 28-31.
45
Cf. Isa 42:6; 49:6; Lk 2:32; Acts 13:47.
46
N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope:
Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection,
and the Mission of the Church (New
York: Harper One, 2008), 202.
47
Here, despite their differences,
Wright and Goldsworthy meet in
their common concern for a seam-
less reading of Scripture. See n. 31
above.
48
N. T. Wright, Paul in Fresh Per-
spective (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2005),  47: “Precisely as Messiah,
he offers God that representative
faithfulness to the plan of salva-
tion through which the plan can
go ahead at last, Abraham can have
a worldwide family, and the long
entail of Adam’s sin and death can
be undone.”
49
In his characterization of Jesus’ obe-
dience and Israel’s failure, Wright, it
seems to me, falls into the same pat-
tern of supersessionism that Adele
Reinhartz finds in Dorothy Sayers.
See her “Caiaphas’ Post-Canonical
 Career” (Paper presented at the
63rd Annual Meeting of the Stu-
diorum Novi Testamenti Societas,
August 4, 2008, Lund, Sweden).
50
Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective, 70.
51
Wright masks both Jesus’ unique
suffering and the depths of his
questioning lament, by subsum-
ing the cry of dereliction under
Jesus’ vocation: the kingdom comes
through the suffering of the righ-
teous (Jesus and the Victory of God
[Christian Origins and the Ques-
tion of God 2; Minneapolis: For-
tress, 1996], 600–01). Jesus’ suffering
thus becomes generic—and the cry
of dereliction is explained away.
52
The relation in Scripture between
“hearing” and “seeing” is worthy
of further reflection.
53
It is not clear that Wright accounts
fully for the way in which Pauline
texts such as 2 Cor 4:4 and Col 1:15
attribute the divine image uniquely
to Christ. Our conformation to that
image does not remove that distinc-
tion (2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10): Christ
appears in the former texts not as
a moral ideal, but in the role of the
Creator.
54
Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God,
653.
55
Paul, likewise, speaks of “the Son
of God who loved me, and gave
himself up for me” (Gal 2:20), and of
Christ “who, at the right time, died
for the ungodly” (Rom 5:6).
56
Wright, Surprised by Hope, 202.
57
Ibid., 200.
58
Ibid., 204.
59
The apostle, in contrast, writes to
the Corinthians: “I do not seek your
things, but you! (2 Cor 12:14). See
also Phil 4:17.
60
Wright, Surprised by Hope, 192.
61
Ibid., 200.
62
Ibid., 204–5.
63
Both in this phrasing, and in my
following comments I am taking
up the thought of Oswald Bayer,
especially as it represented in O.
Bayer, Freiheit als Antwort: Zur the-
ologischen Ethik (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1995), 13–9; and “Ethik der
Gabe,” Systematisch-theologisches
Symposion “Die Gabe--ein ‘Urwort’
der Theologie?”; Katholisch-soziale
Akademie (Akademie Fritz-Hitze-
Haus) in Münster i.W., 5 April, 2008.
64
I have borrowed this wonder-
ful image from Bayer, “Ethik der
Gabe.”
65
Ibid.
66
Luther, WA 5, 128, 38 - 129,1 (on
Ps 5:2): “Because we in Adam
ascended to the likeness of God,
he has descended to our image in
order to lead us back to the knowl-
edge of ourselves … to make out
of unhappy and proud gods true
human beings, that is, those who
suffer and are sinners.”
67
O. B a y e r, Zug e s a g t e G e g e n -
wart (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2007), 54–60.
68
Wright, Surprised by Hope, 239.
69
Ibid.,  207–12. In his refusal to
distinguish between justice and
justification, Wright again approxi-
mates the thought of Karl Barth. On
this topic, see O. Bayer, Theologie
(Handbuch Systematischer The-
ologie 1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher
Verlagshaus, 1994), 344–7. Likewise,
despite significant differences in his
understanding of the atonement
and the hope of the resurrection,
Wright’s program bears remarkable
similiarity to the Social Gospel in
its utilitarian conception of individ-
ual faith, its understanding of Jesus
as the initiator of the kingdom,
and its emphasis on the continu-
ity between present righteousness
and that of the kingdom come. See,
for example, W. Rauschenbusch, A
Theology for the Social Gospel (New
York: Macmillan, 1917),  95–166;
“The Brotherhood of the Kingdom”
(1893) in Walter Rauschenbusch:
Selected Writings (ed. Winthrop S.
Hudson; New York: Paulist, 1984),
71-94.
70
Paul’s picture of Christian labor
differs not least in that God remains
immediately at work: I planted,
Apollos watered, but God caused
growth, 1 Cor 3:1-17, esp 3:6.
71
N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope, 210.
As his metaphor already suggests,
Wright apparently regards even
this gift as one that will be medi-
ated through our stewardship. See
ibid., 200: “That is what Paul insists
on when he says that the whole
creation is waiting with eager long-
ing not just for its own redemption,
its liberation from corruption and
decay, but for God’s children to be
revealed: in other words, for the
unveiling of those human beings
through whose stewardship cre-
ation will at last be brought back
into that wise order for which it
was made.”
72
Wright frequently appeals to 1 Cor
15:58 in support of his claims, e.g.,
Surprised by Hope, 192–3. But this
text has in view this moment of
judgment, in which death is not
by-passed, but conquered by God
in Jesus Christ. The salvation of all
105
 things arrives by the power of the
Creator on the far side of death and
destruction. The psalmist likewise
hopes for the morning beyond the
night of God’s wrath and judgment:
only there shall the works of our
hands be established (Ps 90:13-17).
73
Ibid., 143.
74
Wright, The New Testament and the
People of God,  336; for further dis-
cussion see Seifrid, “The Narrative
of Scripture and Justification by
Faith,” 36-40.
75
M. Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A
Theological Exploration of Identity,
Otherness, and Reconciliation (Nash-
ville: Abingdon, 1996), 193–231.
76
It is not merely an abstract “note
of judgment” through which our
works must pass. The mercy of
God that comes at the final judg-
ment brings retribution on all the
wrongs we have done to others. The
vengeance for which the importu-
nate widow appeals, Jesus promises
to his disciples (Lk 18:1-8); divine
mercy is vengeance (Ps 62:13).
77
O. Bayer, Gott als Autor: Zu einer
poietologischen Theologie (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 255–65.
78
H. Thielicke, Our Heavenly Father:
Sermons on the Lord’s Prayer (New
York: Harper & Bros., 1960), 105.
79
Luther, LW 26:41.
80
“For all evils and seductions are
done under the guise of godliness.
Every calamity begins in God’s
name” (ibid., LW 16:245).
81
Wright, Surprised by Hope, 200.
82
Thielicke draws on this line from
Francis Thompson’s “The Heart
Sonnet.”
83
Luther, LW 31:58.

106