Systematic vs. Biblical Theology

Creating a system of beliefs can be intimidating enough. Reading the Bible casually can be overwhelming. Learning that there are numerous methods and approaches for these activities can stop anyone from attempting either one. This post focuses on general differences between "systematic theology" and "biblical theology." When someone first hears the terms, he/she may assume the terms imply systematic theologians are not being as biblical. This is not the case, but the approaches are distinct.

Systematic theologians gather all biblical texts that discuss a given topic and make conclusions on how the Bible understands that issue. Generally speaking, these questions are categorized under headings like sin, God, Jesus, humanity, end times, somewhat like my Theology and Big Questions page.

Biblical theology operates quite differently. (Note: both methods are necessary, and I have no intention here of mischaracterizing either one. I am definitely giving an overview). This approach does not begin with a question; rather, it allows the themes and emphases of the individual biblical authors to emerge naturally. These themes and theological ideas can often “fit” into prearranged systematic categories, but many times they cannot. 

Another facet of biblical theology that can cause frustration for students is when a biblical author contains themes or emphases that no other author does. Perhaps he discusses an idea with a slightly or quite distinct flavor than someone else. (Think the Gospels or even Paul vs the Gospels.) 

It’s okay. We understand each author was writing in a unique historical setting to an audience with particular needs (even the Gospels). Of course, there are going to be unique themes. 

My preference is to dive for the author’s intended meaning (best I can), allowing for his message to shine through, not my presupposed interpretation or theological disposition. Let him speak.

This is why I don’t do a ton of cross referencing. It’s important and can be done well. I do believe other texts can help us understand a passage in question (especially by the same author), but I don’t pull random passages to inform a word’s meaning.  

My brain doesn’t work systematically. I am not a philosopher (and systematic theologians do require philosophy, logic, etc at times to reach conclusions). Their work does provide an essential skeleton for belief systems. We need a fundamental understanding of God, the world, sin, humanity as we read the books. Yet, I choose to hold the essentials tightly (i.e., core fundamentals and what all biblical authors would wholeheartedly agree on), while allowing each individual author to use his book for whatever purpose he desires.  

Biblical theology works through a text as it stands. As we allow the author's message to surface, we may not receive answers to every question we have, but we can't impose our questions on the text while using this approach The authors weren’t writing to us (though their writings certainly benefit us). It can bring tension, but I appreciate this method more. It brings more confidence that I am seeing the text as it was intended (of course, within community and being open to my own biases and errant interpretations).