Two Testaments, One Story: The Journey to a Panbiblical Theology

By Michael Eberhardt-Sturm

Traditionally, the fault lines in biblical theology run between the understanding of whether the field is a purely descriptive endeavor, produces a normative theology, or tries to achieve both. However, is this the only grid we should use to approach biblical theology? Should practicing it not rather foremost result in a transformative experience that encompasses and integrates both Testaments?
Two Testaments, One Story explores the foundation for a transformative panbiblical theology that empowers believers to live a consistent and compelling life as Christ-followers and global Christians in a pluralistic world.
Join the author in this journey, from the preparation work at the drawing board through the extensive study of scripture to constructing the biblical story world’s literary and theological framework. Central to this quest are the concepts of cultural memory and remembrance culture and identifying the Bible’s critical root stories. Their workup establishes the road to unlocking scripture’s story world.
Discover the path to a transformative panbiblical theology in Two Testaments, One Story.

• Language: English
• Publisher: WestBow Press
• Release date: Dec 23, 2022
• ISBN: 9781664281592

Michael Eberhardt-Sturm

Michael Eberhardt-Sturm earned a Bachelor of Science in pharmacy from the Julius-Maximilians-Universität in Würzburg, Germany, and a Master of Divinity in academic ministries from Columbia International University, Columbia, South Carolina. Since his call to ministry, he has been involved in national and multicultural church settings in Canada, Germany, and the United States of America. He lives with his family in Alberta, Canada, where he serves in a local church and practices as a clinical pharmacist.

Book preview

Copyright © 2022 Michael Eberhardt-Sturm.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

This book is a work of non-fiction. Unless otherwise noted, the author and the publisher make no explicit guarantees as to the accuracy of the information contained in this book and in some cases, names of people and places have been altered to protect their privacy.

WestBow Press

A Division of Thomas Nelson & Zondervan

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.westbowpress.com

844-714-3454

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Scripture quotations taken from the (NASB®) New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. All rights reserved. www.lockman.org

ISBN: 978-1-6642-8157-8 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-6642-8158-5 (hc)

ISBN: 978-1-6642-8159-2 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2022919223

WestBow Press rev. date: 12/20/2022

Contents

Chapter 1Introduction

Stage 1PLANNING THE JOURNEY

Chapter 2The Challenge of Writing a Panbiblical Theology

Chapter 3Lessons from the Philosophy of Science

Chapter 4Cultural Anthropological Insights

Stage 2DOING THE FIELDWORK

Chapter 5The Critical Root Stories of the Biblical Canon

Chapter 6The Central Character of the Biblical Root Stories

Chapter 7The Central Longitudinal Theological Themes and Biblical Motifs in the Biblical Root Stories

Chapter 8Remembrance and Reverberation of Memory of the Biblical Root Stories

Stage 3VISUALIZING THE FEATURES

Chapter 9The Literary and Theological Framework of the Biblical Story World, One

Chapter 10The Literary and Theological Framework of the Biblical Story World, Two

Chapter 11The Biblical Story World and the Biblical-Theological Subresearch Traditions

Chapter 12Summary and Outlook

Bibliography

Dedication

To my wife Susanne

And our daughters Edda, Freya, and Joana

Introduction

During my work-related drives through the prairies of east-central Alberta, I occupy myself by listening to courses covering a vast array of topics. In one of my favorite courses, Sacred Texts of the World, the lecturer, Dr. Grant Hardy, opens the first lesson with two challenging scenarios. In the first one, he asks his audience to imagine a world in which the printing press had never been invented. He then dares his listeners to consider which books they would be willing to reproduce longhand to obtain a copy for themselves. Yet I find his second scenario even more challenging: If there were a fire, which books would you try to save? Dr. Hardy refers subsequently to an incident in which the Cotton Library in the Ashburnham House in London, a precursor to the Royal and British Library, went up in flames during a night in 1731. The librarian, Dr. Richard Bentley, who lived in the building at that time, managed to save many of the ancient manuscripts that were part of the library’s collection. Among these was the Codex Alexandrinus, which consists of invaluable and irreplaceable early manuscripts of the Greek Bible. Dr. Bentley escaped the flames with the Codex under his arm.¹ As I was contemplating this scenario, I asked myself, Which book from my library would I save if I had the only existing copies and had to choose one? Pressed into such a decision, without a doubt, I would take the Bible.

Given the Bible’s popularity, this appears to be the right decision. The Bible is the most printed book in the world, significantly ahead of the Qur’an, the second-most printed one. It is also the most widely translated book globally. It is far ahead of another frequently translated sacred text, Daoism’s Tao Te Ching. Fortunately, for these obvious reasons, our pondering is only a thought experiment. Millions, maybe even billions of people, possess a copy of the Bible. Many people even own several Bibles. The members of our household belong to this group of people. We keep different English language editions and Bibles in other languages on our bookshelves. We even have antique editions in German, Greek, and Latin. Why would people like us own a whole collection of this book? What warrants such attention, and consequently, what is the Bible all about?

In my evangelical tradition, a quick pat response to these questions sounds like this: It is all about Jesus, or it is all about how to get saved and go to heaven. However, what do these phrases mean in societies where the Bible as Kulturgut (cultural asset) is rapidly disappearing, and the Bible is more and more reduced to a source of folkloristic and secular moral storytelling? What does salvation even stand for in ever-more-secular and religiously pluralistic societies? Furthermore, a closer examination and observation of evangelical churches and believers reveals that the evangelical community finds itself, in many ways, in a state of what I call a Babylonian confusion of tongues. Willem VanGemeren calls this observation the church’s self-imposed Babylonian exile or its estrangement from scripture.² He states that evangelical Christianity reduced scripture to a thesaurus for proof-texting or inspirational thoughts.³ Biblical illiteracy, along with a demand for popular Christian teachings, is a widespread phenomenon. As a result, many evangelical Christians have unwittingly internalized and amalgamated a piecemeal of theologies and perspectives into firm convictions. Evangelicals would argue passionately for the Bible as God’s infallible and authoritative revelation to all humanity. They also would insist that scripture conveys a clearly identifiable central message. However, if probed, would the statements go further than it is all about Christ or it is all about how to get saved and go to heaven?

The answers to the question what it is all about have become increasingly diverse over the last 250 years. Following the changes in Western societies’ cultural, religious, and social makeup and historical criticism’s sweeping successes, a significant portion of the Bible’s historical credibility and integrity eroded. Along with that came a blurring of the biblical canon’s kerygmatic credibility, integrity, and clarity. One of these developments’ main casualties became scripture’s notion as a unified work with a clear and discernible central message.

Evangelical scholars have long recognized that the Bible’s unity, center, and central message take a pivotal place within the Christian faith. It is surprising that even evangelical scholars have yet to answer these concepts conclusively and unanimously. This seemingly unexpected finding arises because the evangelical world cannot universally answer the questions that solve these theological problems. For instance, who are the people of God? What is the relationship between the New Testament (NT) and the Old Testament (OT)? Is the kingdom of God already present or yet in the future? These issues coalesce into the controversy over dispensationalism, historical premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism. There are further unresolved questions. What are God’s plans and purposes? How relevant and applicable are the different parts of scripture for the Christian life in the twenty-first century?

Unfortunately, mainstream biblical scholarship offers even less relief for our discussion. Its atomistic and humanistic approach to scripture renders it incapable of explaining what holds the Bible together and what its message is. Worse, its professed religious relativism leaves it unable or unwilling to express clearly what scripture’s value and relevance are for today’s world. The results of the specialized disciplines of OT and NT theology do not speak much into the ordinary believer’s world of practical faith but rather undermine it. So, it is no surprise that the politicized mainstream traditions have difficulty explaining why a person of the twenty-first century should or would care to take a Bible from the shelf and read it.

This situation leaves any Christian who desires to live the Christian life, not just as an add-on but to live a compelling and consistent life as a Christ-follower and global Christian in our pluralistic world, in an unsatisfying situation, if not in a spiritual limbo. A conclusive, coherent, and convincing answer to our questions is not only necessary to appreciate the fullness of the Christian faith and the Bible as Christian scripture. Without these answers, one is left without a clear spiritual, moral, and ethical compass to navigate life successfully in a world in which many once-cherished certainties have broken away. Recognizing this predicament, German theologian Gisela Kittel promulgates cogently the case for a unified understanding of scripture that produces a central message or idea empowering Christians to live up to these aspirations:

Jeder Pfarrer, der im Verlauf des Kirchenjahres die biblischen Perikopen seiner Gemeinde auslegt, wird dies, will er sich nicht wie ein schwankendes Rohr im Wind einer jeden neuen Lehre hin und her bewegen, aus seiner von ihm begriffenen biblischen Mitte heraus tun, auf die er den jeweiligen Einzeltext unbeschadet seiner besonderen Zeugnisgestalt bezieht. Jeder Lehrer, der mit jüngeren oder älteren Schülern alt- und neutestamentliche Texte behandeln will, wird die großen biblischen Zusammenhänge kennen müssen, die sich durch dieses einzigartige Buch hindurchziehen. Ja, noch mehr: Jeder mündige Christ, der heute angesichts der globalen Probleme zur Verantwortung und Rechenschaft über seinen Glauben und sein Bekennen herausgefordert ist, wird dies nur tun können, wenn er die biblische Botschaft als ein Ganzes vernommen hat.⁴

However, what is the precise idea, the Mitte (center) that keeps scripture together? What is the red thread that runs through it and instills meaning and coherence? What is the Bible’s Botschaft als ein Ganzes (the Bible’s message as a whole)? The quest to answer all our questions leads into the field of biblical theology.

American theologian Elmer A. Martens points out that the issues we are concerned with touch at the core of what biblical theology aspires to achieve. He states that biblical theology is that approach to Scripture which attempts to see Biblical material holistically and to describe this wholeness or synthesis in Biblical categories. Biblical theology attempts to embrace the message of the Bible and to arrive at an intelligible coherence of the whole despite the great diversity of the parts. Or, put another way: Biblical theology investigates the themes presented in Scripture and defines their interrelationships. Biblical theology is an attempt to get to the theological heart of the Bible.⁵ Gerhard Hasel, one of Martens’s American colleagues, highlights an additional perspective regarding this definition. Commenting on a final goal of any OT theology, he contends that it needs to show whether or not there is an inner unity that binds together the various theologies and longitudinal themes, concepts, and motifs.⁶

If the answer is yes, the ultimate object of a theology is to draw the hidden inner unity out of its concealment as much as possible and to make it transparent.⁷ All three scholars raise the questions and issues we need to find the answers to solve our predicament.

A particular problem that we need to address is the existence of the two Testaments. From Marcion in the second century until today, scholars and interpreters have repeatedly questioned the OT’s value and status as scripture. Any proposed solution must account for their presence, relationship, and role in the Christian church. We must ask: Why are there two and not one, and why both? Henning Graf Reventlow, another German theologian, expresses the challenge biblical theology faces in this way: For its concern is to present to Christian faith an account of how far and why the whole of the Bible, Old Testament and New, has come down to us as Holy Scripture. Biblical scholarship cannot refuse the church an answer to this question.⁸ Consequently, a projected biblical theology cannot limit its scope to one Testament and omit the other. Answering these questions and meeting the expectations we raise in our deliberations require the articulation of a Gesamtbiblische Theologie, a panbiblical theology that comprises both Testaments. Ultimately, according to our considerations, our study’s goal should not restrict itself to articulating a panbiblical theology but envision constructing the panbiblical theology of the Bible. Stating such a high-flying aim, though, is pure hybris.

How then should we formulate our ambitions for this project? What do we want to achieve with our panbiblical theology? Being inspired by Gisela Kittel, Elmer A. Martens, Gerhard Hasel, and Henning Graf Reventlow, we aspire to construct a panbiblical theology that penetrates to the theological heart of the Bible, brings—if there is—the hidden inner unity out of its concealment, and hears and presents the Bible’s Botschaft als ein Ganzes (the Bible’s message as a whole).⁹ Yet, as Gisela Kittel pointedly states, our planned panbiblical theology cannot be an end in itself. Our envisioned panbiblical theology needs to enable us to live a compelling and consistent life as a Christ-follower and global Christian spiritually, morally, and ethically.

Such an endeavor is admittedly a daunting task. How do we plan to approach our project? I suggest we pursue this endeavor as a two-part journey. In the first part, we go back to the drawing board, start from scratch, and lay the foundation. We do the groundwork by creating a framework for constructing a panbiblical theology, and this objective is the subject of our present work. In our book’s first stage, we are planning our journey. We begin by surveying the discipline of biblical theology and continue by drawing lessons and insights from the fields of philosophy of science and cultural anthropology. In stage two, we get out and do our fieldwork by conducting three synthetic studies in which we inductively scrutinize six well-known literary units of the Bible. Finally, in stage three, we visualize our panbiblical theology’s features. Emanating from these studies, we build the framework for writing our panbiblical theology and decide on our biblical-theological pathway. We then create our panbiblical theology based on these findings in a second and future part.

One final word before we embark on our journey: This endeavor calls for neither a denominational stance nor a faith commitment. I advocate only for two prerequisites: an open mind and the willingness to step into new territory, following our findings wherever they lead.

Stage One

Planning the

Journey

The Challenge of Writing

a Panbiblical Theology

In this chapter, we begin planning our journey toward a panbiblical theology. As a first step, we survey the terrain of biblical theology to familiarize ourselves with its pertinent and perennial issues, debates, and problems. We hope that this initial step helps us understand what we are letting ourselves in for when we take on this project and appreciate the challenges we face.

In our survey, we look at the nature of biblical theology and the relevant canon it works with. We also briefly discuss the relationship between the two Testaments, including the relationship between Israel and the church. Another sensitive subject that we touch on is the question of the unity and the centeredness of scripture. We close our overview with a brief look into the kaleidoscope of panbiblical theologies.

Defining Biblical Theology

The controversies start with the question of what biblical theology is. In the introduction, our handling of the discipline obscures the reality that there is no consensus on defining the field. Gerhard Ebeling defines the discipline by calling it the theology contained in the Bible, the theology of the Bible itself.¹⁰ Such a vague and open-ended characterization might explain some of the challenges biblical theology faces.

One way to understand its nature is by observing how scholars practice it. D. A. Carson, Edward W. Klink III, and Darian R. Lockett pursue this venue to elucidate the field. In the following, we summarize their identified categories briefly and mention their main proponents. Carson isolates six different schools of biblical theology that distinguish themselves in nature and practice of the discipline.¹¹ The first school he identifies either equates biblical theology and dogmatic/systematic theology or does not see the relevance of their distinctiveness. The former view prevails throughout church history until the 1700s. Karl Barth is a twentieth-century representative of this view, whereas Ben C. Ollenburger represents the latter in the twentieth century.¹² The second one he characterizes holds to the notion that biblical theology is the theology of the whole Bible, descriptively and historically considered. Carson describes three branches within this school: Johann P. Gabler, Philip Jakob Spener, and Johann Ch. K. Hoffmann are their respective protagonists. Geerhardus Vos, Willem VanGemeren, and Graeme Goldsworthy are the second school’s proponents in the twentieth century.¹³ The third school Carson points out regards the discipline as an endeavor to construct the theology of various biblical corpora or strata. It has brought forth numerous works on the theology of one of the Testaments and sections within the Testaments. Modern representatives of the third school are Hans Gese, Peter Stuhlmacher, and Hans Hübner.¹⁴ The fourth one pursues the theology of a particular theme across the scriptures—or at least across the corpora of a Testament. Works of Elmer Martens fall into this category.¹⁵ The fifth school he mentions understands the discipline as the theology that arises out of narrative theology or related literary-critical reading of the Bible. Carson mentions the works of Hans Frei and George Lindbeck as examples of this tradition.¹⁶ Finally, as the sixth school, Carson introduces the concept that biblical theology is simply the result of serious study of any part or parts of the Bible.¹⁷

Klink and Lockett identify five types of practiced biblical theology (BT). For their characterization, the two scholars place them along a continuum marked by the poles of history and theology. BT1 sees biblical theology as a historical description. Represented by James Barr, this approach treats biblical theology as a purely historical enterprise. It aims solely to delineate the scriptures’ meaning in their ancient contexts, excluding their meaning for our contemporary world. Proponents of BT1 treat the OT and NT as separate entities and rule out the possibility of a panbiblical theology.¹⁸ BT2 defines biblical theology as the history of redemption. Advocated by D. A. Carson, it historically traces the progress of redemption through the biblical record and uses preaching from scripture’s unfolding redemptive history to exert a normative power for the church. BT2 endeavors to identify longitudinal themes and concepts that give coherence to the scriptures, such as kingdom or covenant. It then traces their development throughout the Bible and, in this manner, enables the construction of a panbiblical theology. Further representatives of BT2 are, for instance, Elmer Martens, Gerhard Hasel, and Geerhardus Vos.¹⁹ BT3 looks at biblical theology as a worldview story promulgated by scholars such as N. T. Wright and Richard Hays. Characterized by the primary lens of narrative, this type intends to organize the biblical material as a cohesive narrative that bridges the two Testaments. BT3 intends to overcome the seeming what it meant—what it means dichotomy by inviting the reader to join the story. This move allows scripture to exercise a normative effect on the reader.²⁰ BT4 owes much of its prominence to Brevard Childs, who uses a canonical approach to embark on the practice of biblical theology. His work aims to reconcile the text’s contemporary meaning with the meanings of the historically layered biblical text. According to Childs’s concept, what holds all parts of scripture together is its subject matter, Jesus Christ. A canonical approach to scripture yields a theology that exerts both a descriptive and prescriptive effect.²¹ Finally, BT5, championed by Francis Watson, regards biblical theology as a purely theological undertaking that pursues a theological construction as its goal. For its workup, it applies a theological hermeneutic. This technique comprises several related presuppositions, such as emphasizing the Bible’s divine authorship and final form. BT5 also insists that the field is solely the confessional church’s domain. The resulting theology then can exercise a normative effect on the church.²²

Summarizing our observations, we can note that biblical theology consists of a hodgepodge of schools and movements while lacking a precise definition. For the remainder of our book, we work with Klink and Lockett’s categories when we deal with questions of the nature and practice of biblical theology.

The Scope and Basis of Biblical Theology

The question of the Christian canon constitutes an equally important yet even further stretching problem. Henning Graf Reventlow and Brevard Childs, among others, highlight this enduring issue within the Christian tradition.²³ Brevard Childs points out that Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches use the broader canon preferred by Augustine, and Protestant churches utilize the narrower canon presumably condoned by Jerome.²⁴ A consideration of the non-Chalcedonian churches’ canon complicates this question even further. However, even if a tradition delimits itself to the Protestant canon, it still needs to decide whether it follows the canonical order of the Christian OT or the Jewish Tanak.²⁵ For Childs, the decisive criterion is that the Christian Bible is held together and is accountable to its subject matter who is Jesus Christ.²⁶ His notion of a/the Christian Bible, though, sparks the question of what we should imagine a non-Christian Bible is. For instance, BT1 might introduce such a canon as it does not restrict itself to the Christian canon alone but broadens its source field to extrabiblical material.²⁷

Furthermore, on a fundamental level, which original language text is the basis for biblical theology? There might be a consensus to use the Novum Testamentum Graece as the Greek New Testament (GNT). However, for the OT, is it the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) or the Greek Septuagint (LXX), or both, or other ancient-language texts? Finally, our summary has not addressed the issue of including reconstructed biblical texts based on historical-critical research into biblical theology. Consequently, Childs might be correct when he states that the exact nature of the Christian Bible both in respect to its scope and text remains undecided up to this day.²⁸

The Relationship between the Old and New Testament

Another aspect of biblical theology’s dilemma is the relationship between the two Testaments. David L. Baker discusses several approaches of relating the OT and the NT in the twentieth century.²⁹ He suggests that we can generally classify the approaches into one of the following four categories: The NT as the essential Bible, the two Testaments as equally Christian scripture, the OT as the essential Bible, and the two Testaments as one salvation history. The first approach has been advocated, for instance, by Rudolf Bultmann, who regards the OT only as the NT’s non-Christian presupposition and looks at the Testaments in terms of contrast.³⁰ As the most prominent representative of the second approach, Baker discusses the work of Wilhelm Vischer.³¹ According to Vischer, the Christological nature of the Testaments, the Old Testament pointing to a conclusion beyond itself (the coming of the Christ), and the NT having its roots outside of itself (the promising of the Christ), make them two essential, indispensable parts of a whole.³² As an advocate of the third approach, Baker introduces Arnold van Ruler, who treats the OT as the intrinsic Bible (die eigentliche Bibel), with the NT representing only its interpretative glossary.³³ With that, he elevates the OT to have a historical and theological priority. The fourth and last approach finds its principal representative in Gerhard von Rad.³⁴ He describes the relationship between the Testaments in terms of tradition history, salvation history (Heilsgeschichte), and its actualization.³⁵

Baker observes that all four approaches need to deal with the phenomena of typology, promise and fulfillment, and continuity and discontinuity of the two Testaments. These features are essential to account for the two Testaments’ correspondence or analogy and interdependence and their tension.³⁶ His following summary provides us with succinct marching orders for our project:

So the relationship between the Testaments is marked by tension between continuity and discontinuity, unity and diversity. This tension should not be ignored or suppressed but recognized and welcomed. On the one hand, the sixty-six books of the Christian canon form one Bible, an account of salvation history that presents a unified and consistent picture of the nature of God and his plan for the world he created. On the other hand, the one Bible consists of two Testaments, and there is considerable discontinuity and diversity between and within those Testaments. We understand the Bible properly only if we grasp these two truths simultaneously and refuse to emphasize either at the expense of the other.³⁷

The Relationship between Israel and the Church

Closely connected to the previous topic is how the nation of Israel and the church relate to each other. Walter C. Kaiser Jr. singles out five ways scholars and denominations have made sense of this question by using the term covenant. The first way rests on the assumption that Israel forfeits the old covenant’s promises because of her unfaithfulness. Therefore, her behavior invalidates the old covenant and renders it void. The church replaces Israel as the carrier of the promises in the new covenant. Kaiser calls this arrangement the Replacement Covenant. The second way is associated with covenantal theology, primarily found in the reformed churches. The so-called Super Covenant comprises the extra-biblical concepts of covenant of grace and covenant of works. Israel and the church constitute the universal people of God, with the church having succeeded the nation of Israel. The Dual Covenant idea, entertained by Franz Rosenzweig, states that Israel and the church find themselves in two saving yet separate covenantal relationships with God. There is no need for Israel to accept the Christian gospel of Jesus Christ. The fourth option, the Separate Covenant position, is propagated by several dispensational theologies. Like the previous position, it argues for two distinct covenants. Jesus Christ is central to both, but Israel and the church follow separate trajectories and destinies. Kaiser himself favors the last option, the Renewed Covenant. He traces this notion back to Willis J. Beecher, who regards the old and new covenant as the progressive outworking of the same underlying idea of promise. Israel and the church show distinctive features within the progression of the promise, yet the undergirding concept unifies them.³⁸

Henning Graf Reventlow succinctly summarizes the fundamental predicament of this issue by saying:

Most Christian attitudes to the problem of the church and Judaism begin from a dialectical presupposition on the basis of the New Testament evidence: on the one hand the period of Old Testament Israel as the chosen people of God and bearers of the promise has come to an end through the testimony of Christ and the time of the church, in which the promises once made to Israel have been fulfilled … and a new community has come together made up of Jews and non-Jews (Gentiles). On the other hand (as is stressed with especial reference to Paul’s remarks in Rom. 9–11), the election of Israel, once made, is not simply done away with, since God faithfully keeps his promises, once made, despite all human disobedience (and after the rejection of the sending of Jesus).³⁹

The Question of the Unity and the Center of the Bible

The question of scripture’s unity and centeredness exemplifies the diverse and disparate approaches to biblical theology in a nutshell. While the scholarly community might agree that the NT’s center is somehow Jesus Christ (some doubt even that), a universally accepted center for the OT seems elusive. Scholars have suggested a whole array of single centers. For instance, covenant (Walther Eichrodt, G. Ernest Wright), election (Hans Wildberger), communion (Th. C. Vriezen), promise (Walter C. Kaiser Jr.), the kingdom of God (H. Schultz, G. Klein), the rulership of God (Horst Seebass), holiness of God (J. Hänel), the experience of God (Otto J. Baab), and God is Lord (L. K 51660.png hler). Other theologians have proposed twin centers in the form of combinations as the rule of God and the communion between God and man (Georg Fohrer), Yahweh the God of Israel, Israel the people of God (Rudolf Smend), and covenant-kingdom (R. Schnackenburg). The historical division of biblical theology into rigid OT and NT disciplines reveals its deficiencies in these observations. Some scholars have given up altogether the idea of a center and look only at the OT’s unity (Gerhard von Rad, Claus Westermann). Others question even this (R. N. Whybray).⁴⁰ Two statements, one of German scholar Gerhard Maier and one of American scholar Elmer A. Martens, underline the discipline’s predicament. Maier writes, It is difficult to speak of a ‘center’ of Scripture today, because the rubric ‘center of Scripture’ is often separated from the ‘unity of Scripture.’ While the two were closely identified at the time of the Reformation, the Enlightenment disengaged them. Indeed, the ‘center of Scripture’ practically replaced the lost ‘unity of Scripture.’⁴¹

Martens adds to Maier’s pronouncement the following assessment regarding the state of OT theology:

A vexed question for biblical theologians has been: Does the OT have a center? For the NT the answer is not really debatable: The center is Jesus Christ. One could say that God is the central figure in the OT, but that helps little in getting a handle on the material. The question of center is important, of course, for the structuring of an OT theology. But the question has a larger significance, for behind the question lies another: Is there unity in the OT, and if so, does it cohere around a theological center? Methodologically the question is whether the search for a theological center is legitimate, and if so, by what process? A significant number of theologians have identified a center, but because the centers vary, the problem is not resolved but sharpened.⁴²

The Apparent Stalemate of Biblical Theology

Martens imbeds the above appraisal in a broader evaluation in which he sees the discipline in general disarray. He describes a field that cannot even agree on a unanimous position on a biblical-theological methodology.⁴³ Worse, biblical scholarship cannot agree whether biblical theology is a legitimate endeavor in the first place. Some scholars, such as Georg Strecker, bluntly deny the possibility of writing a biblical theology.⁴⁴ A look into twentieth-century biblical theology reveals a discipline trying to find its place and wrestling with its legitimacy.⁴⁵ Biblical scholarship seems to be at an impasse with these questions. Gerhard Ebeling’s definition of the task of biblical theology tempts us to view it as the smallest common denominator biblical theologians might agree on: In ‘biblical theology’ the theologian who devotes himself specially to studying the connexion between the Old and New Testaments has to give an account of his understanding of the Bible as a whole (i.e., above all of the theological problems that come of inquiring into the inner unity of the manifold testimony of the Bible).⁴⁶

Despite this impasse, scholars have produced a plethora of suggestions. The scholarly community has articulated not only OT and NT biblical theologies. It has also produced panbiblical theologies. It comes as no surprise that most of these works originate in Christianity’s more conservative, evangelical camp, which insists on scripture as a unified work.

The Kaleidoscope of Panbiblical Theologies

We close our survey with a brief look into the kaleidoscope of panbiblical theologies. First, we look at the historical and contemporary influential schools of dispensationalism and covenant theology. Then we highlight several recent and more independent approaches that have predominantly emerged since the outgoing twentieth century.

Dispensationalism as a school of thought comprises a family of at least three dispensational theologies. These are the theologies of classic, reformed, and progressive dispensationalism. The theology owes its name to the premise that the scriptural record consists of discreet and distinguishable periods, so-called dispensations. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, a revised dispensationalist, is one of the most prominent scholars of this