HISTORY OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY FROM ABD

OT theology may be defined as the exposition of the theological content of the OT writings. While
such a definition is simple and to the point, it masks a variety of understandings which have been
operative in the history of the discipline, as well as the complex range of problems associated with
it, which require further elucidation.

A. History of OT Theology
1. In the Service of Protestant Orthodoxy
2. Emancipation from Dogmatics
3. The Influence of Rationalism
4. OT Theology Eclipsed by the History of Israelite Religion
5. Rebirth of OT Theology
6. The “Biblical Theology Movement” and the Alleged “Crisis” in OT Theology
7. Summary: Two Fundamental Dialectics
B. Current Issues and Problems
1. Descriptive and Normative Dimensions
2. Methodology
3. Revelation through History, Tradition, and Story
4. Is OT Theology an Exclusively Christian Enterprise?
C. Conclusion

A. History of OT Theology
OT theology came into existence as a distinct discipline toward the end of the 18th century. Prior to
that time, it was subsumed, along with NT theology, under the larger discipline of biblical theology.
It should be noted, however, that within the context of the Jewish canon, OT theology is
synonymous with biblical theology, whereas in the context of the Christian canon, it is a
subdiscipline of the latter. See also THEOLOGY (BIBLICAL), HISTORY OF. An understanding of
the origins of biblical theology is essential for a proper understanding of fundamental issues in OT
theology today. Consequently we shall begin our historical survey prior to the time when OT
theology became a distinct discipline. At the risk of a certain amount of oversimplification, the
history of the discipline may be divided into five distinct periods.

1. In the Service of Protestant Orthodoxy (ca. 1550–1650). While the Bible has been read
theologically since its formation, biblical theology as a discipline has its roots in the Protestant
Reformation. The Reformers’ emphasis on Scripture as the sole source and norm for all matters of
faith provided the soil from which biblical theology sprang. While the term itself was not used by
the Reformers to designate a distinct discipline, it is clear that for them biblical theology meant a
systematic theology which was biblical in character, that is, for which the Bible was the primary, if
not the sole, source and norm. Insofar as the Reformers self-consciously sought to differentiate their
theology from Roman Catholic dogma, in which tradition played a major role, one may note a
polemic dimension in the birth of biblical theology. One could go on to observe that while the target
of the polemic changed periodically, the polemic dimension has been a constant feature of biblical
theology throughout its history, in the sense that it had to fight repeatedly for an unbiased hearing of
the theological witness of Scripture.
While the Reformers in their use of Scripture introduced a creative tension between the Bible and
dogmatic theology, the opposite was true of the proponents of Protestant orthodoxy who followed
them. In their hands the Bible became subservient to Protestant dogmatic, which determined the
selection, order, and treatment of biblical passages. The Bible came to be viewed as a uniform
source book of quotations whose primary task was to support the dogmas of Protestant orthodoxy
against the dogmas of Roman Catholicism. No distinctions were made in regard to time, authorship,
historical context, compositional purpose, or distinctive theological perspectives of the biblical
documents. The system of arranging biblical data was the traditional loci method known from
medieval scholasticism. That is, various Scripture texts would be listed and briefly commented upon
under the topical rubrics drawn from dogmatic theology. The understanding of biblical theology
reflected in Protestant orthodoxy may be characterized as “dogmatic biblicism” or proof-texting
(dicta probantia). Early in the 17th century, the actual words “biblical theology” began to appear in
the title of works of this kind. As far as we know, the first work to use such a title was W. J.
Christmann’s Teutsche Biblische Theologie published in 1629. While many other works of this
nature were published subsequently, a significant shift in the understanding of biblical theology
began to take place during the second half of the 17th century, thus ushering in a new era in the
history of the discipline.

2. Emancipation from Dogmatics (ca. 1650–1800). The more attentively Scripture was read
and studied during the course of the 17th century, the more it became apparent that the biblical
documents did not really contain a theological system of doctrines at all. Rather, Scripture was cast
into the form of a historical narrative. It told the story of God’s unfolding relationship with
humanity through a sequence of temporal events (oeconomia temporum). Furthermore, it was noted
that this relationship between God and humanity was given form through a series of covenants.
Hence this approach to Scripture came to be known also as “federal” or “covenant” theology (from
Lat foedus, “league, covenant”). One of the first and most influential proponents of this new
approach was Johannes Cocceius (1603–69), who was trained in OT and oriental studies, but
toward the end of his life became professor of dogmatic theology at the University of Leiden.
Cocceius abandoned the topical outline of the traditional dogmatics in favor of covenant as the
central concept around which the theological assertions of Scripture were organized. At the same
time he emphasized the notion of Scripture being the record of God’s redemptive activity in history,
thus becoming a forerunner of the later heilsgeschichtliche approach to biblical theology.
The shift from a dogmatic to a more historically oriented approach to biblical theology
accelerated during the course of the 18th century. Of particular importance in this development
were two cultural movements of the 18th century: German Pietism and the Enlightenment. Pietism
was a revolt within the German Church against Protestant scholasticism, which it considered to be
excessively preoccupied with dogmatic speculations and arid abstractions. Whereas Protestant
orthodoxy tended to equate the Christian faith with intellectual assent to sound doctrine, Pietism
stressed personal experience and awareness of the presence of God, as nourished through a life of
prayer, personal devotion, Bible reading, and moral living. Pietism’s emphasis on the reading and
study of Scripture by all brought about a greater familiarity with the contents of the Bible. It also
brought about an increasing awareness of the differences between biblical and dogmatic theology.
Biblical theology, which until now had been subservient to Protestant dogmatics, became
increasingly differentiated from and even opposed to the latter during the course of the 18th century.
In distinction from dogmatic theology, biblical theology was primarily concerned with the temporal
and sequential unfolding of revelation in the Bible. The religious teaching of the Bible must be set
forth in its own right and according to its own categories, rather than in the straitjacket of dogmatic
systems. It was to be practical as well as edifying for the ordinary believer. The meaning of
Scripture was to be ascertained with careful attention to the historical context out of which it arose
and to the specific nuances of biblical words and concepts. {Biblical Theology}
The increasing differentiation of biblical theology from dogmatic theology was also greatly aided
by the Enlightenment which swept across Europe during the 18th century. Rationalism’s aversion to
dogmatic religion, its belief in the powers of the human intellect to ascertain truth through
observation and inductive reasoning, as well as its belief in the existence of universal natural
religion which was in conformity with the demands of reason, exerted a powerful influence on
biblical studies and widened the gulf between biblical and dogmatic theology. Increasingly the
Bible came to be subjected to the same kind of critical and rational study as any other human
document of antiquity.
Thus under the impact of both Pietism and rationalism, biblical theology was liberated from the
dominance of dogmatic theology and became a distinct and independent discipline. The first major
biblical theology to be written from this new vantage point was G. T. Zachariä’s four-volume
Biblische Theologie oder Untersuchung des biblischen Grundes der vornehmsten theologischen
Lehren (1771–75). Mindful of the widening gulf which had been shown to exist between the
meaning of biblical texts as determined by critical exegesis and that alleged by dogmatic theology,
Zachariä set out to determine the theological teaching of the Bible free from the constraints of any
dogmatic system. The latter was, rather, to be tested and, if necessary, to be corrected by the former.
Whereas dogmatic theology had treated the Bible like a uniform textbook of theological doctrines, a
true biblical theology must allow for greater historical differentiation and individual treatment of the
biblical writings. Each book of the Bible has its own peculiar character and intent. Differences in
time, place, circumstance, and purpose must not be glossed over, but must be determined as
accurately as possible. Philological and semantic concerns were to be given due emphasis, so as to
penetrate the peculiar language and thought of the Bible. While Zachariä thus clearly emphasized
the historical and descriptive character of biblical theology, he believed that it had also a
constructive or normative function. Some of the assertions and beliefs of the biblical authors related
more to their own times than to ours; consequently, biblical theology must differentiate between that
which belonged to their own time and that which is valid or binding for all time. That which was
historically or culturally conditioned must be distinguished from that which is abiding or universal.
Biblical theology must not only expound the exegetical meaning of the Bible, but must also attempt
to translate the timeless biblical truths into contemporary garb, so as to allow us to appropriate
them. The results of such a biblical theology could then serve as the basis for a purified dogmatic or
systematic theology.
The emancipation of biblical theology from dogmatic theology found its clearest expression toward
the end of the 18th century in a programmatic essay by J. P. Gabler (1753–1826). Gabler has often
been credited as being the founder of biblical theology as a distinct theological discipline. That,
however, is not quite accurate, for many of the ideas he formulated had already found expression in
other 18th-century biblical theologians prior to him, such as Zachariä, W. F. Hufnagel, and J. G.
Hofmann. It would be more accurate to say that he took up ideas and impulses present in the work
of other 18th-century biblical theologians and formulated them into a coherent programmatic
statement which became formative for the entire subsequent history of the discipline. Gabler
himself never attempted to write a biblical theology, but his program for one was laid out in his
inaugural lecture at the University of Altdorf in 1787, as well as in subsequent occasional articles.
The rather lengthy title of his inaugural lecture was indicative of his program: “Concerning the
Proper Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Appropriate Definition of the
Respective Goals of Both.” Gabler proceeded to differentiate the two theological disciplines as
follows. Biblical theology is historical in character; that is, it sets forth what the sacred writers
thought about divine matters. Dogmatic theology, on the other hand, is didactic in character,
teaching what a given theologian thinks about divine matters in accordance with his ability, his
particular circumstances, age, locale, religious and intellectual tradition, and similar conditioning
factors. Gabler went on to differentiate two phases or distinct tasks of biblical theology. The first
task of biblical theology was to ascertain simply what the various biblical authors thought and
asserted about divine matters in their various contexts. This was to be accomplished by means of a
purely grammatical and historical exegesis. All allegorizing or spiritualizing was to be shunned.
Care was to be exercised in differentiating the various ideas of biblical writers, not to blur
differences but to arrange and compare these ideas in some suitable manner. The second task of
biblical theology was to sift these various biblical concepts and assertions in terms of their universal
and abiding value and to deduce some general concepts and ideas from these which could serve as a
basis for the construction of a dogmatic theology. In subsequent writings, Gabler referred to these
two stages in biblical theology as wahre (“true”) and reine (“pure”) biblical theology respectively
(Hayes and Prussner 1985: 62–64). It is clear from this distinction that for Gabler, biblical theology
thus entailed both a purely historical or descriptive and a constructive or normative dimension; and
this distinction has continued to occupy biblical and OT theology down to the present day. It is also
obvious that the second task involves the application of certain value judgments to the Bible which
are extrinsic to it. Usually these were drawn from Christian theology or contemporary philosophy.
For Gabler, for instance, one such norm was the concept of the spiritual evolution of the human
race, according to which spirit evolves in stages from the lower to the higher. The rationalism of the
age of Hume is clearly reflected in his thinking on this point. In the century following Gabler,
rationalism became a dominant influence in biblical theology.

3. The Influence of Rationalism (ca. 1750–1875). Initially rationalism, along with Pietism,
had been a constructive force in emancipating biblical theology from the stranglehold of dogmatic
theology and in establishing it as a distinct theological discipline in its own right. Many 18th-
century biblical theologians combined both currents in their life and their scholarship. That is, they
were both devout believers as well as rationalists, and this was reflected in their scholarly work on
the Bible. But toward the latter part of the 18th and especially during the first half of the 19th
century, these two currents more often than not stood in opposition to each other, as rationalism
became the more powerful of the two. Increasingly, rationalist philosophy penetrated biblical
theology and for a time forced it into a philosophical straitjacket which threatened to become as
rigid as the older religious dogmatism had been. The Bible was now understood in terms of an
evolutionary religious process leading from lower forms of religion to the absolute or universal
religion. The latter was usually defined as a religion of reason (deism) or morality (Kant).
Representative of this kind of 19th-century biblical theology were the works of G. L. Bauer, C. F.
von Ammon, and G. P. C. Kaiser. Only those teachings of Scripture which were in accord with
reason, or the universal religion as established by reason, were of abiding value. Everything else
was to be discarded as the outgrown ideas and practices of a particular culture or period in history.
Concomitant with such a rationalistic approach to biblical theology was an increasing devaluation
of the OT as the record of an inferior stage in the religious development of the human race, and
hence less suitable than the NT for the construction of a biblical theology.
Another important development during this period was the division of biblical theology into the
separate disciplines of OT and NT theology, a practice which has become customary down to the
present day. Several reasons may be cited for this development. One was undoubtedly the
increasing recognition of the diversity of Scripture, especially the distinct differences in content,
historical context, and outlook between the testaments, which made it more difficult to treat them as
homogenous documents. Another reason was the sheer increase in data and new discoveries
pertaining to the Bible, which made it more difficult for anyone to master the entire field of biblical
studies. Thus specialization became a necessity. But thirdly, it must also be said that the rationalistic
devaluation of the OT in favor of the NT undoubtedly contributed to this bifurcation in biblical
theology. At any rate, the work that marked the beginning of this division of the discipline, and thus
the beginning of OT theology proper, was G. L. Bauer’s OT theology published in 1797. The
subtitle of his work is indicative of Bauer’s understanding of the newly independent discipline of
OT theology: “Theology of the Old Testament, or Outline of the Religious Ideas of the Ancient
Hebrews from Earliest Times until the Beginning of the Christian Era.” That is, the task of OT
theology was to trace the religious ideas of the Hebrews in their historical development and against
the background of other ANE religions with whom the Hebrews came into contact. Already the
influence of comparative religion was beginning to make itself felt here in this first OT theology.
Bauer’s rationalistic orientation manifested itself in the manner in which he judged the religious
content of the OT. Miraculous and mythological elements in the Bible were dismissed by him as
superstitions of a primitive race.
While other OT theologians were even more rationalistic than Bauer, not all biblical theologians of
the late 18th and early 19th centuries were equally indiscriminate in their application of rationalistic
philosophical principles to the Bible. Others, like D. von Cölln and W. L. DeWette, were more
moderately rationalistic, seeking to bring into a creative confluence thought-forms of a modern age
with the historical revelation and faith of the Bible. However, in response to the excesses of vulgar
rationalism, a conservative reaction took place around the middle of the 18th century, leading to the
writing of OT theologies along more orthodox lines. Representative of this development were
scholars like E. W. Hengstenberg and F. Delitzsch. Other OT theologians of this period, like H.
Ewald, G. F. Oehler, and E. Schultz, took a more moderate or mediating position somewhere
between the rationalists and the orthodox Lutherans. Of these, the OT theology by Oehler,
published posthumously in two volumes (1873–74) and written from a heilsgeschichtliche
perspective, was a particularly influential work. It was also the first of the major German OT
theologies to be translated into English shortly after its original publication.

4. OT Theology Eclipsed by the History of Israelite Religion (ca. 1875–1930). During the
last quarter of the 19th century, another significant shift in emphasis occurred in the field of OT
theology. The systematic-conceptual presentation of the theological content of the OT, whether of
the rationalistic, conservative, or mediating variety, was replaced by a historical and genetic
approach to the religion of Israel. Several factors brought about this development. First and
foremost among these was the greater historical consciousness brought about during the 19th
century by the work of such distinguished historians as L. von Ranke. Of equal importance were
developments in the comparative study of religions. Israel’s religion was no longer viewed as an
isolated phenomenon sui generis, but as one among several other ancient religions, such as those of
Egypt, Babylon, Greece, or pre-Islamic Arabia. This development was hastened by a veritable flood
of archaeological discoveries from antiquity, which shed fresh light on the Bible and the religious
beliefs and practices contained therein. At the same time, revolutionary changes in the historical-
critical understanding of the OT, associated with the names of Vatke, Graf, Kuenen, and above all
Wellhausen, required new assessments in one’s understanding of the history of the religious ideas of
the OT.
 These developments brought about a shift in the understanding and definition of OT theology.
Even when scholars like B. Stade and E. Kautzsch continued to use the word “theology” in the titles
of their works, it was apparent that they were really writing histories of the religion of the OT or of
Israel. In recognition of this changed reality, most other scholars of this period abandoned the title
“OT theology” altogether when they wrote on the religious content of the biblical documents.
Reflective of this new outlook was a volume by R. Smend, Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen
Religionsgeschichte (“Textbook of the History of Old Testament Religion”). For the next four
decades or so, few people wrote OT theologies; most wrote histories of OT or Israelite religion.
The history-of-religion approach differentiated itself from OT theology as traditionally conceived
by the following characteristics: (1) an exclusive reliance on a historical-genetic, rather than a
systematic-conceptual, approach to the OT; (2) a concomitant de-emphasis on the OT as special
revelation, in favor of seeing it as a historical and human record of the evolution of Israelite
religion; and (3) greater emphasis and attention to Israel’s ANE environment. Increasingly, the OT
was seen as an integral part of that environment and only one particular form of religious
development among many.
Generally, the history of Israel’s religion was traced through several distinct stages. Not
infrequently, extrinsic value judgments were applied to these. Thus, for instance, postexilic Judaism
was usually compared unfavorably with the religion of the preexilic prophets (Hayes and Prussner
1985: 140–41). Evolutionary philosophical principles were evident in many presentations of
Israelite religion. The latter was usually described as evolving from primitive animism or nature
religion to ethical monotheism. The influence of Hegel and Darwin may be discerned here. Thus, in
spite of its claims to historical objectivity, the history-of-religions approach was not immune to the
philosophical assumptions and cultural presuppositions of its own age.

5. Rebirth of OT Theology (1930 to the Present). The dominant hold which the history-of-
religions approach had exercised over the discipline of OT theology began to wane during the
period between the two world wars. Several factors helped bring this change about. Among them
were the general change in theological climate following World War I, a reaction against the
extremes of 19th-century historicism and evolutionary developmentalism, and new developments in
the field of OT scholarship itself. Already during the twenties, there appeared a series of articles by
leading OT scholars, such as R. Kittel, C. Steuernagel, O. Eissfeldt, and W. Eichrodt, calling for a
revival of the discipline. Without surrendering the legitimate gains of the history-of-religions
approach, many increasingly felt and expressed the need to allow the OT to speak theologically in
its own right. In so doing, they hoped to defend the OT against its many detractors, as well as to
enable it to speak more immediately and in fresh ways to contemporary theological issues and
problems.
The year 1933 may be said to mark the beginning of a new era in OT theology with the
appearance of two such works, one by E. Sellin and the other by W. Eichrodt. By far the most
outstanding and enduring representative of the new era in OT theology is Eichrodt’s Theologie des
Alten Testaments, originally published in three parts between 1933–39 (Eng 1961–67). In spite of
legitimate criticisms and acknowledged shortcomings (Hayes and Prussner 1985: 277), Eichrodt’s
work so far remains unsurpassed in comprehensiveness, methodological thoroughness, and
theological acumen. From our vantage point in the late 20th century, one may safely say that it has
stood the test of time and may well turn out to be the most significant work of its genre in the 20th
century.
 A brief look at its structure reveals the nature of OT theology as the author understood it. In an
introductory chapter on methodology, Eichrodt defined the task of OT theology as constructing a
complete picture of the realm of OT belief in its structural unity. Such an exposition was to be done
with constant reference to two contextual realities: the world of ANE religion on the one hand, and
the realm of NT belief on the other. It should be observed, however, that in actual execution,
Eichrodt paid far more attention to the former than the latter. His methodology sought to
differentiate itself self-consciously from the systematic rubrics of dogmatic theology on the one
hand, and the genetic approach of a radical historicism on the other. The developmental analysis of
the history-of-religions approach he replaced with a systematic synthesis of OT religion, but in
rubrics and categories suggested by the OT itself. The biblical concept of “covenant” was chosen by
him as an overarching category or unifying center of OT theology, and the material was presented in
accordance with the following tripartite scheme: God and the People, God and the World, God and
Man. A look at the full table of contents reveals that the organizational principle operative in
Eichrodt’s theology was systematic or conceptual. It should be noted, however, that within this
systematic scheme, allowance was made for historically tracing changes in Israelite religion or in
the perspective reflected in the chief documents and tradition complexes of the OT.
The systematic approach to OT theology, in terms of presenting a cross section of the basic
structure of OT belief, continued to dominate the discipline for the next three decades. While there
were differences in the choice of organizational schemas and overarching concepts, nearly all OT
theologies were written from such a systematic-conceptual perspective. This methodological
consensus was shaken during the late 1950s by G. von Rad with the publication of his immensely
stimulating Theologie des Alten Testaments in two volumes (Eng 1961–65). Against the systematic-
conceptual approach to the OT, von Rad insisted that the theological task proper to the OT is not the
spiritual or religious world of Israel, nor the belief system of the OT, but simply Israel’s own
explicit assertions about Yahweh as reflected in the major tradition complexes of the OT. The latter,
however, presented Yahweh’s relationship to Israel as a continuing divine activity in history.
Consequently, it was this picture of Yahweh’s activity in the history of Israel as reflected in the
traditions of the OT which, for von Pad, constituted the proper subject of OT theology.
Methodologically, this meant for him that the retelling of this confessional story of the OT traditions
was the most legitimate form of theological discourse on the OT. This conviction is reflected in the
manner in which von Rad organized and presented his material. Vol. I consists of two parts: a
concise survey of the history of Israelite religion, followed by a theology of Israel’s historical
traditions. After a brief chapter on methodology, the latter are treated under the following three
headings: “The Theology of the Hexateuch,” “Israel’s Anointed” (covering the Deuteronomistic and
the Chronicler’s history), and “Israel Before Yahweh (Israel’s Answer),” which covers the Psalms
and the Wisdom Literature. Vol. II is divided into three parts as follows: “General Considerations in
Prophecy,” “Classical Prophecy” (which treats the OT prophets from Amos on in their sequential
appearance down to and including apocalyptic literature), and “the Old Testament and the New” (in
which the author sets forth his understanding of the relationship between the testaments).
Von Rad’s approach to the subject has often been labeled a salvation-historical one, and in one
sense this is correct. It must be remembered, however, that for him Heilsgeschichte did not refer
primarily to Yahweh’s saving activity in Israel’s actual history as critically reconstructed by the
historian, but to the kerygmatic history as confessed by the OT writers and traditionalists. For von
Rad, as for many other OT scholars, a considerable gulf exists between these two histories. For this
reason, von Rad’s approach to OT theology can also (and perhaps more accurately) be labeled a
tradition-historical, rather than a salvation-historical, one. At any rate, von Rad’s OT theology made
a considerable impact on the field, not only because it was a significant departure from more
traditional methodologies, but because it was a well-written and stimulating book, characterized by
profound erudition and theological sensitivity. His approach has succeeded in presenting a more
differentiated and finely nuanced picture of the various theological perspectives found in the OT
documents. On the minus side it must be said that his twofold division of the history of Israel into
an actual and a confessional history, and his opinion that only the latter of these is of concern to OT
theologians, are unsatisfactory and indefensible. Furthermore, his claim that the OT presents no
coherent theology, but only a wide variety of conflicting theologies, is exaggerated and excessively
atomistic. In the long run, it is doubtful that von Rad’s tradition-historical approach to OT theology
will replace more systematic and conceptual approaches to the subject. In all likelihood it will be no
more than a contributing perspective or intermediate step, albeit a very important one, in the
construction of more conceptually oriented theologies of theOT. In support of such a contention, it
might be noted that most of the OT theologies which have appeared in the past 30 years since the
appearance of von Rad’s work have not followed him in his basic approach.
Before we bring this survey of the history of the discipline to a conclusion, we must comment
briefly upon one particular phase in its most recent history.
6. The “Biblical Theology Movement” and the Alleged “Crisis” in OT Theology. The
revival of biblical and OT theology in this century brought it to a position of prominence in the
larger theological enterprise during the 1940s and 1950s, which has led some to speak of a “biblical
theology movement” during that era. According to Childs (1970: 32–50), this movement was
characterized by a rediscovery of and emphasis on the theological dimensions of the Bible; the
unity of the Bible; the revelation of God in history; a distinctive biblical mentality, involving a
sharp dichotomy between Greek and Hebrew thought and stress on semantic approaches to the
content of the Bible; and emphasis on the contrast between the Bible and its ancient environment.
Barr (IDBSup, 105) adds a certain antiphilosophical bias as another characteristic feature of this
movement. Childs (1970: 61–87) describes the rapid dissolution of this movement during the 1960s.
It was brought on, according to him, by both changing perspectives within the field of biblical
studies and by pressures external to the field. Chief among the latter were the new secularity,
developments in the social sciences, and a gap between theology and experience. Since the
appearance of Childs’ book, it has become fashionable in some circles to talk of a “crisis” in biblical
and OT theology. The added perspective of the past two decades, however, make it appear that such
assessment is in need of considerable revision. Those who have bought into the “crisis” talk have
overstated their case. They have also been guilty of confusing and oversimplifying certain issues
which need to be differentiated more carefully. The following observations are offered in support of
this contention.
First of all, it needs to be said that Childs’ description of a biblical theology movement in the
1940s and 1950s is a bit oversimplified and hence misleading. It focuses too exclusively upon the
American scene, and even there lumps together biblical scholars, theologians, and theological
positions which need to be differentiated more carefully. Even more misleading is the implicit
equation of the biblical theology movement with the much wider discipline of biblical theology
(Smart 1979: 18–30).
Secondly, it must be remembered that the term “biblical theology” (and hence “OT theology” and
“NT theology”) has functioned traditionally in at least two distinct, albeit related, senses. By it one
may mean either (a) a type of theology which is consonant with the Bible; or (b) the theology (or
theologies) contained in the biblical documents. Biblical theology of type (a) is a systematic
theology which uses the Bible as its chief, if not sole, source and norm, whereas type (b) is more of
an exegetical and descriptive enterprise. Childs’ description of the biblical theology movement and
its crisis operated more with a type (a) definition of biblical theology. Thus, whatever crisis there
may have been applied to a narrow segment of the enterprise, that is, to Childs’ “biblical theology
movement,” rather than to biblical theology of the exegetical and descriptive variety. The title of
Childs’ book appears to be somewhat of a misnomer.
Thirdly, we feel that it is more accurate to say that whatever crisis existed in the 1960s was not
uniquely one in biblical theology as such, but rather a crisis of faith and theology in general.
Scholars, clergy, and laity alike had bandied about too glibly theological concepts and categories,
biblical or otherwise. Then they woke up one day and discovered that a serious gap existed between
their theological abstractions and their faith experience; and so they became disenchanted with
“biblical theology” and cast about for greener intellectual pastures. The theological enterprise itself
at one point became uncertain about its identity and purpose, as evidenced by the now strangely
quaint and dated “Death of God” controversy. To the extent that biblical theologians are human
beings who, like anyone else, imbibe of the general cultural and philosophical currents of their age,
that general malaise or crisis may have been in some forms of biblical theology also, but it did not
belong uniquely to that discipline.
For all these reasons we believe that it is inaccurate to speak of biblical theology as being in a
state of “crisis” or dissolution during the 1960s. It would be more accurate to speak of it as entering
a period of transition and reassessment. After three decades of breathless expansion, culminating in
what Dentan (1963: 72–83) has termed the “golden age of the fifties,” biblical and OT theology
reached a plateau where it needed to reflect whence it had come and whither it was going. Some of
its cherished assumptions were tested and found wanting; certain in-course corrections had to be
made; new data and perspectives provided by ancillary biblical disciplines had to be sifted and
accommodated; and differing methodologies needed to be assessed and evaluated.
While few new OT theologies were produced during the 1960s, more than a dozen such works
have appeared since the beginning of the 1970s, which is an unprecedented number for any
comparable period during the entire history of the discipline! To this number of full-length
theologies must be added the flood of articles and monographs which deal with some specific topic
or aspect of OT theology and which today number in the hundreds and thousands of items. All this
suggests that the discipline of biblical theology today is alive and well.
7. Summary: Two Fundamental Dialectics. Our survey of the history of the discipline has
shown that OT theology has undergone a number of significant changes during the past four
centuries. These were brought about chiefly as the result of two related, though distinct,
fundamental dialectics operative in the history of the discipline, which continue to be operative in
the discipline and stand at the center of contemporary discussions about OT theology. The first
dialectic has to do with the nature and task of OT theology, that is, whether it is primarily
descriptive or normative in character. We saw how biblical theology started out as a normative
discipline, designed to undergird the dogmatic assertions of orthodox Protestantism. Under the
impact of Pietism and the Enlightenment, biblical theology asserted its status as a distinct
theological discipline and became more self-consciously descriptive in character. The excesses of
vulgar rationalism, however, obscured the legitimate gains of the descriptive approach by subjecting
OT theology to the normative straitjacket of philosophical rationalism. The impact of 19th-century
historicism, on the other hand, for a time displaced any kind of normative OT theology with a
purely descriptive history of the religion of Israel. Finally, in the mid-20th century, the normative
aspects of OT theology were given greater prominence again.
The second fundamental dialectic operative in the history of the discipline has to do with the
question of methodology; that is, what is the most effect way to present the theological content of
the OT. This dialectic may be designated by the words “systematic-conceptual” versus “historical-
genetic” (the terms “synchronic” or “crosscut” versus “diachronic” are also used in the literature). A
systematic-conceptual approach to OT theology sets forth the theological content of the OT in terms
of ideas or categories drawn either from the OT itself or from somewhere else. A historical-genetic
approach, on the other hand, seeks to describe the theological content of the OT in its historical and
sequential unfolding, either in terms of the actual history of Israel or of the history of the traditions
and literature of the OT. Our historical survey showed how biblical theology started out with an
exclusively systematic-conceptual framework; that is, the theological content of Scripture was fitted
into the rubrics of Protestant dogmatics. With the rise of federal or covenant theology, and later
Heilsgeschichte, the rigorously dogmatic methodology was abandoned in favor of a more
historically oriented one. Historical-genetic methodologies became most pronounced during the late
19th and early 20th centuries. And in the last 50 years, the pendulum has swung back toward more
systematic methodologies.

B. Current Issues and Problems

As one surveys the sizable literature on OT theology during its revitalization in the mid-20th
century, one cannot help but note that a few key issues have stood at the center of the discussion.
Some of these, like the two fundamental dialectics identified above, have been with us for a long
time; others have come to the fore only more recently. There appear to be at least four central issues
that warrant some discussion.
1. Descriptive and Normative Dimensions. At issue here is the very nature and purpose of
the discipline. Is OT theology to be construed as a purely descriptive discipline, the chief task of
which is to describe the theological ideas of the OT irrespective of their abiding significance and
continued meaning today? Or must any credible OT theology also press on to deal with
“contemporary meaning” questions? Our historical survey above has shown that this fundamental
question has received varying answers throughout the history of the discipline. It remains for us to
assess where we stand on this issue today.
Following the demise of the theological consensus represented by the so-called “biblical theology
movement,” the pendulum swung toward a self-consciously descriptive approach to OT theology.
For a while it appeared that the program of a purely descriptive biblical theology advocated by
Stendahl (IDB 1: 418–32) and others would carry the day. Certainly much valuable work in OT
theology was produced under its banner. More recently, however, dissatisfaction with a purely
descriptive approach has become more vocal again, and calls have been issued for the inclusion of
normative dimensions in the enterprise of biblical and OT theology (so, for instance, Childs 1970;
1985; de Vaux 1971; Clements 1978; Martens 1981; Hanson 1986; and others). Should such calls be
heeded, or should they be ignored as an illegitimate intrusion of the concerns of systematic theology
into the discipline of OT theology? Will OT theology again be pressed into the service of
dogmatics, to the point where its independent witness will be muted or falsified? This danger is
certainly real, as the history of the discipline has amply demonstrated. One must proceed cautiously
and with proper safeguards against the uncritical confusion of descriptive and normative concerns.
Nevertheless, when all is said and done, it can be argued that a normative dimension belongs
legitimately to the discipline of OT theology. In support of this view, the following considerations
are advanced.
 First of all, it should be noted that even a self-consciously descriptive OT theology embodies
certain normative dimensions in the manner in which biblical data are selected, interpreted, and
arranged in some coherent fashion. The process of determining the essential and fundamental
structures of OT faith inevitably involves the interaction of biblical data with the cultural,
philosophical, and theological presuppositions of the interpreter. Complete neutrality and objectivity
is an illusion. The recognition of this fact, however, does not provide us with an excuse for
unbridled bias. On the contrary, one must strive to be as objective and as faithful to the biblical data
as one can, and to differentiate carefully between these data and one’s own presuppositions. The
heavy-handed imposition of philosophical or theological straitjackets on the biblical data must be
strenuously resisted as being inimical to a vital and creative OT theology.
A second reason for insisting on some normative dimension in OT theology is suggested by
the very nature of the biblical writings, for they seem to demand some kind of commitment or
response on the part of the interpreter. Even if complete neutrality and detachment were feasible,
this would not be true to the intentions of the biblical text, which presupposes the reality of God in
relationship to human beings and the world, and which seeks to elicit a personal response on the
part of the reader. It is for this reason also that the historical-critical method in and of itself, in spite
of the impressive and lasting results which it has achieved, has proven to be an inadequate tool for
doing biblical OT theology. Any approach to Scripture which views the world as a closed system of
natural cause and effect, which operates with the principle of analogy as if it were an absolutely
inviolate norm, and which rules out by definition the possibility of miracle or divine activity in
human affairs is incapable of producing a truly biblical OT theology.

A third consideration which has been advanced in support of the contention that normative
concerns rightly belong to the discipline of OT theology has to do with one’s understanding of the
term “theology.” If theology is in any sense concerned with “truth for us” or truth for the religious
community in which the OT is a foundational faith document, then OT theology cannot be content
merely to describe the religious ideas which the ancient Hebrews held at some point in their history.
Inevitably it must press on to discern what the abiding truth is today for those who consider
themselves to be the spiritual descendants and heirs of ancient Israel. R. E. Clements (1978: 6–7)
recently has argued that theology is something more than the study of religious ideas in the sense
that it also offers some measure of evaluation of their truth. It is in the very nature of theology to
concern itself with living faith rather than the history of ideas. Against this view, it may be argued
that the word “theology” does not always have such normative connotations, but that it is also used
in a more descriptive and noncommittal sense, as in the expressions “historical theology” or “Hindu
theology,” which may refer to a description of the belief system of a person or group of persons by a
more or less sympathetic bystander who does not necessarily share that belief system. Without
denying that such a description “from the outside,” as it were, can yield important insights, we are
inclined to doubt that OT theology can or should be restricted to such a specialized understanding.
To be sure, there are those who would be content to restrict OT theology to being simply one of
several historical or comparative theologies. But for most members of the faith communities for
whom the OT is a normative foundational document, OT theology inevitably suggests connotations
of abiding truth value, and any OT theologian worthy of the name is expected to address these in
some fashion.
This leads to a fourth and final consideration in support of our contention that some normative
concerns rightly belong to the discipline of OT theology—a consideration that is of a more
pragmatic nature. The chief reason why the Bible has been preserved, read, and cherished for all
these centuries is because it was considered in some sense to be God’s word to us. People have
turned to it in order to find God and to discern meaning and purpose for their lives. Thus, “meaning
questions” will inevitably rise in the mind of most students of Scripture, and it would be a
disservice to them to ignore these. What, for instance, is the meaning and significance of holy war
in the books of Joshua and Samuel, and how can this inform our current concerns with issues of war
and peace? Does God repent or have a change of mind, as the book of Exodus seems to assert, and
what does this do to traditional notions of God’s immutability? Does God bring about both good
and evil, as some of Israel’s poets seem to suggest? How are we to understand the lex talionis, or
what is the theological significance of contradictions in the OT law codes? Does God indeed reward
good and punish evil, and what must we do to gain favor in God’s sight? Biblical theologians who
ignore such meaning questions and adhere solely to the descriptive dimensions of their task will
frustrate their readers or lose them altogether.
There are those who argue for a strict division of labor between theological disciplines, insisting
that it is the task of systematic theology to deal with the question of what it means for us now,
whereas OT theology need only deal with the question of what it meant to ancient Israelites back
then. But this dichotomy is both unsatisfactory and impractical. The hermeneutical task cannot be
divided up that neatly. Most students of the Bible prefer to have their meaning questions addressed
as these arise from their reading of the text, rather than being referred to some other discipline, the
agenda and theological discourse of which may be informed by other than exegetical concerns.
Furthermore, the field of biblical studies has become so complex that few systematic theologians
have either the interest or the energy to be fully conversant with developments in biblical exegesis.
Here OT theologians can perform a valuable service for systematic theologians by presenting them
with a theological synthesis of the results of biblical exegesis in a form which is more readily
accessible and useful to the latter. In order to do this effectively, however, biblical scholars in turn
must become more conversant with theological perspectives and be willing to move beyond merely
antiquarian concerns.
For all of the reasons indicated, we believe that a normative dimension belongs appropriately to
the discipline of OT theology. This, however, in no way is meant to minimize or detract from the
descriptive task, which must always remain the heart of the enterprise. As OT theologians attempt to
deal with present meaning, they must not lose their interest and respect for the descriptive task, if
OT theology is to remain a viable and creative enterprise. Under no circumstances must it be
allowed to become captive to either a narrowly meaning-oriented philosophical or theological
system, or an ideological historicism which refuses to deal with meaning questions in any form. In
the light of the descriptive/normative dialectic inherent in OT theology, an attempt should now be
made to locate the discipline of OT theology vis-à-vis the two disciplines with which it had to
contend most for its independence and integrity.
OT theology is a boundary discipline which shares some common ground with the history of the
religion of Israel on the one hand and systematic theology on the other. It functions best when it
maintains the tensions between these two disciplines and resists the temptation of being too closely
identified with either.
The chief source and norm for OT theology is the canonical books of the OT. In seeking to
understand the theological concepts and ideas contained in these, OT theology may also consult
extracanonical literature and archaeological data, but these in themselves will not become a basis
for theological construction. For example, the understanding of Yahweh reflected in the Elephantine
papyri or in the inscriptions of Kuntillet >Ajrud is of interest to OT theology in the sense that it can
provide background or contrast against which the biblical understanding of God can be seen more
sharply, but it does not become part of a normative definition of the latter. A history of the religion
of Israel, however, may rightfully draw upon extrabiblical sources for its reconstruction of the
beliefs and practices of Israelite religion. Systematic theology, on the other hand, shares with OT
theology its use of the canon as a source and norm, but in addition it recognizes certain others, such
as tradition, human knowledge and experience, and reason, as valid sources and norms for
constructive theology.
As regards its method of operation, OT theology is an exegetical and theological discipline; that
is, it deals with the grammatical, historical, and literary meaning of biblical texts, but with special
attention to their theological significance and meaning as discerned by the theologian under the
illumination of the spirit of God. The history-of-religions approach operates more exclusively from
a phenomenological and historical perspective. Systematic theology shares with OT theology its
concern for the theological meaning of Scripture, but it is at the same time more philosophically and
logically oriented than OT theology.
As regards the organization of data, there is considerable variation. In general, OT theology
follows a combination of conceptual and tradition-historical principles in organizing its materials,
whereas the history-of-religions approach generally employs historical and genetic principles of
organization. Systematic theology, on the other hand, seeks to construct logically coherent
conceptual systems. OT theology is much less interested in system building and is able to live with
a lot more ambiguity and diversity of theological perspectives. It thus remains truer to Scripture,
which does not come to us in the form of a logically coherent system of theology.
As regards the respective hermeneutical concerns of these disciplines, the history of religions is
primarily, if not exclusively, descriptive in the sense that it seeks to describe a historical
phenomenon like the religion of ancient Israel. Systematic theology, on the other extreme, is
primarily concerned with normative meaning questions; that is, what does the OT mean for us today
in the context of our respective belief communities? OT theology falls somewhere in between these
two. It is both descriptive and normative in the sense that it must not only ascertain what the OT
documents meant in their own historical context, but also press on to reflect on what they can mean
for us today in our own context.

The location of OT theology as a “boundary discipline” between systematic theology and the
history of religions as sketched in the preceding paragraphs can be summarized in tabular form:

While these distinctions are not absolute but allow for a considerable amount of overlap as
demonstrated by the history of the discipline, this schema suggests a range on the
descriptive/normative spectrum at which OT theology seems to function best and at which it may be
legitimately differentiated from the history-of-religions approach on the one hand and systematic
theology on the other.
2. Methodology. Assuming that OT theology legitimately includes both descriptive and
normative dimensions, the question still remains how the manifold and diverse theological witness
of the OT can best be organized so as to present a reasonably coherent and comprehensive picture
of the faith structure of the OT. Our historical survey has shown that methodologies have fluctuated
between systematic-conceptual and historical-genetic approaches, or varying combinations thereof,
and the same is still true of recent OT theologies. Within that fundamental dialectic, however, many
different schemata of organization are possible. No one particular schema has been able to dominate
the field or win universal assent, as the following analysis of recent OT theologies since Eichrodt
and von Rad will demonstrate.
a. T. C. Vriezen. For Vriezen (1970) the central task of OT theology is to describe the
characteristic features of the message of the OT and to reflect upon that message from the viewpoint
of the Christian faith. His book is divided into two parts. The first part is devoted to an examination
of the place of the OT in the Church and its significance for Christian theology. Nearly a third of the
book is devoted to this general topic. If one wonders why the author devoted so much space to this
subject, it is probably because he wished to restore the OT to its rightful place in Christian theology
after a period of serious neglect and devaluation (it must be remembered that the first Dutch edition
appeared in 1949).
In the second part of his book, Vriezen turns to the actual delineation of the theological content of
the OT. It is divided into four chapters, in which the material is presented in an essentially
conceptual fashion under the following four headings: (1) the nature of the knowledge of God in the
OT; (2) the intercourse between God and man; (3) the community of God; and (4) the future hope of
the community of God. Vriezen essentially follows the cross-section approach pioneered by
Eichrodt, except that the overarching central theme of the OT for him is not covenant, but
communion between God and humanity. With this emphasis Vriezen intentionally sought to counter
von Rad’s denial of a theological center of the OT, as well as the atomizing tendencies inherent in
the latter’s tradition-historical orientation. Vriezen also made a conscious effort to differentiate OT
theology from the history of Israelite religion, which for him were separate disciplines showing
distinct differences in function, scope, and methodology. According to Vriezen (1970: 147), OT
theology is a Christian theological discipline whose task is to delineate the characteristic features of
the message of the OT, both in itself and in its relation to the NT; whereas the history of Israel’s
religion is a historical discipline seeking to offer a picture of the religion of Israel in both its
historical development and in its innermost essence and character. In accordance with this
definition, Vriezen went on to produce a book on Israelite religion (1967). He is one of a handful of
scholars to have produced both an OT theology and a history of the Israelite religion.
b. W. Zimmerli. Like Vriezen, Zimmerli follows a basically conceptual approach in the
ordering of his material. But within that overarching structure, he is much more tradition-
historically oriented than the former. His understanding of the nature and task of the discipline is
also not as confessional as Vriezen’s was. For Zimmerli, OT theology has the task of presenting
what the OT says about God in a coherent whole. It must deal with the most important narrative
complexes (which for him, as for von Rad, are the Hexateuch and the Prophets), but at the same
time it must also lead readers “to bring together in their own minds the diverse statements the OT
makes about God, who wishes to be known not as a manifold God but as the one Yahweh” (1978:
10). The self-revelation of Yahweh as formulated in the First Commandment may thus be said to be
the unifying center of OT theology. This central theme is reflected in the organization of his book,
which is divided into five major sections. The first one, entitled “Fundamentals,” deals with Yahweh
under the aspects of the revealed name, the God of Israel since Egypt, the God of the Fathers,
Creator and King, Election, Covenant, and Commandment. The second part deals with “The Gifts
Bestowed by Yahweh,” among which are war and victory, land and blessing, God’s presence, and
charismata of leadership and instruction. The third part analyzes “Yahweh’s Commandment,” and
the fourth part deals with the topic of “Life Before God.” The latter, dealing with the themes of
obedience, praise, lamentation, and wisdom, is very much reminiscent of von Rad’s section “Israel
Before Yahweh (Israel’s Answer)” (1962–65, I). The fifth and last major part of Zimmerli’s OT
theology is entitled “Crisis and Hope.” It is chiefly devoted to the Prophets, but includes brief
sections on the primeval history, the historical narratives, apocalypticism, and a concluding chapter
on “The Openness of the OT Message.”
In spite of the topical organization of his material, Zimmerli’s approach to the subject stands much
closer to von Rad’s than to Eichrodt’s or Vriezen’s. In large stretches his OT theology reads like a
miniature von Rad, though he is more interested in drawing out the overarching unity of the OT’s
understanding of God than von Rad, who was content merely to delineate the various theologies of
the major tradition complexes of the OT.
c. G. Fohrer. Fohrer is another contemporary OT scholar who, like Vriezen, produced both an
OT theology and a history of Israelite religion, though in reverse sequence from Vriezen. Fohrer’s
History of Israelite Religion (Eng 1972) appeared in German four years before his OT theology. It is
a substantive work which made a significant contribution to the field. A brief look at it may help us
put Fohrer’s understanding of OT theology into sharper perspective. According to Fohrer, the
purpose of presenting a history of Israelite religion is to depict the course of this religion as one
among many others, without theological value judgments or apologetic concerns. Careful attention
must be given to both the manifold changes this religion underwent during the course of its history
and the common elements which it exhibited in all periods and which make it possible to speak of
Israelite religion as a single entity distinct from others. Following a strictly historical and
chronological principle of arrangement, Fohrer’s History of Israelite Religion is divided into four
parts: (1) the religion of the earliest period (patriarchal times through the era of the judges); (2) the
period of the monarchy; (3) the exilic period; and (4) the postexilic period down to the era of the
Maccabees.
Israelite religion arose as the synthesis of two basic given religious elements as modified by a
series of five major religious impulses. The two basic givens were the nomadic clan religion of the
patriarchs and Canaanite nature religion. The five major religious impulses which determined the
development of Israelite religion were: (1) Mosaic Yahwism; (2) the monarchy; (3) the prophetic
movement; (4) Deuteronomic theology (seen as a consequence of the first three impulses and a new
impulse in its own right); and (5) exilic prophecy and incipient eschatology. In spite of the
developments, tensions, and changes which Israelite religion underwent, it also exhibited certain
constants throughout its long history. Fohrer identifies these as a personalistic structure of faith; the
correlation between divine and human activity; the notion of God’s present action among nations
and people; the demand for human conduct which is consonant with the divine will; the belief in the
sovereign rule of God; and God’s communion with humanity, to be realized in the lives of both
individuals and nations.
Fohrer’s delineation of the structural constants in the religion of Israel is of particular
significance, for it becomes a point of contact between his history (1973) and his theology (1972),
where they are taken up again in Chap. 6 as “basic elements of OT faith” which run through the
entire OT. From this, one may gain an important insight regarding the relationship of the two
disciplines: the point at which OT theology and the history of Israelite religion show the greatest
degree of affinity, and at times become virtually indistinguishable, is in the delineation of the
abiding or fundamental structures of Israelite or OT faith.
With this we must turn to a closer examination of Fohrer’s OT theology. It consists of seven
chapters and follows an essentially conceptual and topical method of presentation. While the
descriptive side of the task is not neglected, the normative and constructive dimension is very much
in evidence throughout his book, much more so than in most recent OT theologies. The first two
chapters of the book are taken up with what might be termed prolegomena to an OT theology. Chap.
1 reviews the various ways in which the OT has been interpreted down through the ages. Most of
these are judged by him as erroneous or improper, for they are rooted in questionable dogmatic
presuppositions. The OT faith must be understood in its own right and in its various historical
manifestations, where it is permissible, however, to differentiate between what is of abiding
theological significance and what is merely peripheral and culturally conditioned and time-bound.
Unfortunately, Fohrer fails to inform the reader by what yardstick that is to be measured.
Chap. 2 deals with the question of the OT and revelation. Fohrer argues that the OT as a document
or book cannot be equated with revelation. Revelation happens only in the concrete encounter
between God and human beings. That is, it is personal experience, and only the one who
experiences it can testify to it or describe it. Consequently, the OT is at best a witness or testimony
to acts of revelation. Even the prophetic word as recorded in Scripture is already a mixture of
divinely given insight as well as human perception, integration, and digestion. It is obvious that
Fohrer operates with a very subjective understanding of revelation. However, the mere fact that he
is speaking about revelation at all and allows for its occurrence shows how much he is operating at
this point as a constructive theologian, rather than simply as a descriptive historian of Israel’s
religion.
Chap. 3 is organized under the philosophical category of Daseinshaltung (“attitude toward
existence”). He describes six types of attitudes toward existence, all of which are found in the OT:
magic, cultic, legal, national-religious (election faith), sapiential, and prophetic. These are then
evaluated by him in terms of their merely temporal and transtemporal or abiding value and
significance. Magic was purely temporal, an inappropriate attempt to manipulate the divine world.
The priestly cultic and legal attitudes toward existence had some transtemporal significance insofar
as they overcame magic and attempted to revitalize Mosaic faith in a changed cultural milieu. But
they too were beset by problems, leading in turn to a superficial faith which sought to manipulate
the deity for selfish or nationalistic ends. The same was true when genuine election faith was
usurped by national-religious ideology. The sapiential attitude is found wanting because it was a
mere utilitarian morality. This leaves the prophetic attitude toward existence, which for Fohrer
represents the high point of the history of OT faith. It transcended all the others and is characterized
by faithful trust and obedient service rooted in complete communion with God. Prophetic existence,
according to Fohrer, was the reappearance of Mosaism in a purified form. Fohrer’s lifelong
preoccupation with Israel’s prophets may be partly responsible for this one-sided valuation of
prophetic existence. On the other hand, one cannot help but feel that his low esteem for Israel’s
cultic and legal traditions may also be the result of a long-standing theological bias found in much
of Lutheran Protestant OT scholarship.
In chap. 4, which is entitled “Unity in Diversity,” Fohrer turns to the question of whether OT faith
has a center around which everything else revolves. After noting von Rad’s denial of such a center,
and after rejecting various centers proposed by other OT scholars, Fohrer proposes a dual center for
OT theology designated by the concepts of “rule of God” and “communion with God.” These form
the unifying core to which the diverse religious and theological concepts of the OT may be related.
Corresponding to this dual concept of the rule of communion with God is a dual human response of
fear and trust, or distance and relatedness, which is characteristic of OT faith. Here we see how one
of the “constants” of Israelite religion which he isolated in his history of Israelite religion has
become the center of his OT theology.
Chap. 5 deals with the power and ability of OT faith to absorb and transform ancient beliefs and
practices, chiefly under the influence of the dual center isolated in the previous chapter. OT faith
itself, however, even its understanding of the rule of God and God’s will to communion, in turn
underwent change and expansion.
 In Chap. 6, “Developments,” Fohrer discusses basic tendencies of OT faith which are not
confined to one particular stream but which run through the whole of the OT because of their
relatedness to the central concepts of the rule of God and communion with God. They are: (1) the
personal structure of OT faith; (2) God’s activity among people and nations; (3) God’s action in and
through nature; (4) a correlation between divine and human activity (the act-and-consequence
scheme); (5) faith as righteous action; and (6) the “this-worldliness” of OT faith. As we noted
above, most of these basic tendencies of OT faith had previously been identified by Fohrer as
“constants of Israelite religion” in his earlier work. At this point, his two works coincide very
closely.
But in the very next chapter, Fohrer goes far beyond what any history of Israelite religion could
do and what few contemporary OT theologians have even attempted to do. In this final chapter,
entitled “Applications,” Fohrer’s mode of operation becomes overtly normative and constructiv as
he seeks to spell out how the fundamental insights of OT faith can be applied to fundamental human
issues and problems today. The meaning question is wrestled with under the following five major
headings: (1) the meaning of the biblical prologue; (2) the state and politics; (3) social organization;
(4) humanity and technology; and (5) the future of mankind.
Both of Fohrer’s works are immensely stimulating and have made significant contributions to the
field, especially as regards an appropriate differentiation between the disciplines of OT theology
and the history of the religion of Israel. His work, however, is not without shortcomings. His
descriptive work is at times idiosyncratic and insufficiently substantiated; his one-sided valuation of
the prophets is excessive, and his lack of appreciation for Israel’s cultic and legal traditions is
deplorable. His conceptual categories are too limiting at times, and his theological biases too
glaring. But his attempt to delineate the constants of Israel’s religion or the basic tendencies of OT
faith is highly commendable and worthy of emulation. His forthright and unabashed attempt to deal
with contemporary-meaning questions belongs to the very core of the theological enterprise. One
may frequently find oneself in disagreemen

Fohrer’s historical reconstruction and his normative theological construction, but one will rarely
fail to be stimulated in one’s own thinking by what he has to say.
d. C. Westermann. According to Westermann (1982), a theology of the OT has the task of
summarizing what the OT as a whole and in all its parts says about God. Westermann agrees with
von Rad that unlike the NT, which has a center in Jesus Christ, the OT has no other center to which
various theological assertions could be related. It is important, however, to look at how the OT
speaks about God. As the tripartite canon indicates, the OT speaks about God’s acting and speaking
in history, and about humanity’s response to that divine acting and speaking. And this furnishes
Westermann with a key to organizing his material in six parts. Part I, “What Does the OT Say About
God?” deals with methodological issues and provides a brief précis of his approach to the subject.
The next four parts form the central core of his OT theology. Part II, “The Saving God and History,”
deals with one fundamental kind of divine activity: God’s rescue of the needy from distress. God’s
saving activity may take many forms and applies to all spheres of life in both its individual and
corporate dimensions. God’s saving activity in the Exodus event at the beginning of Israel’s history
became determinative for all subsequent history.
Part III, “The Blessing God and Creation,” deals with another fundamental kind of divine activity.
It refers to God’s ongoing, gradual, and less spectacular action in creation and in the daily flow of
life, which is known as blessing in the Bible. The history of this blessing theme is then traced by
Westermann from the patriarchal narratives and the Balaam oracles through Deuteronomy, the
institution of kingship and the cult, the prophets, and the book of Job. Words associated with the
blessing motif, such as “peace,” “success,” “prosperity,” and “protection,” are analyzed.
Westermann’s distinction between God’s saving and blessing activity is an important one, which has
frequently been neglected in more salvation-historically oriented treatments of the OT. It is a real
gain which deserves to be preserved and explored more fully in OT theology. Curiously, though,
Westermann does very little with wisdom in the OT, even though earlier in his book he had, quite
rightly, located it under the rubric of creation theology.
Part IV, “God’s Judgment and God’s Compassion,” begins with an analysis of the OT concept of
sin and the vocabulary associated with it. The act/consequence theme is explored, as is the notion of
forgiveness. This is followed by a discussion of the judgment theme in the Prophets, which
addressed itself to all areas of Israelite life. The prophets, however, were also messengers of a
saving, healing, and forgiving God, which leads Westermann to a discussion of God’s compassion.
The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the apocalyptic, which is predominantly concerned
with the future.
Part V, “The Response,” analyzes various human responses to God’s words and actions.
Westermann distinguishes three basic forms which this response took: words, actions, and
reflection. The response in words consisted of prayers, praise, and lamentation. The response in
action could find either legal or cultic expression, that is, by obedient action in response to
commandment, or in the life of corporate worship, including holy places, times, and mediators.
Unlike Fohrer, Westermann here finds a positive valuation for Israel’s legal and cultic traditions
within his OT theology. The third type of human response to God’s initiative is reflection. This
could take the form of pious meditation on God or God’s Torah (as in Psalms 1 and 119), or in more
extended theological reflection. Examples of the latter would be the major historical traditions of
the OT, such as the Yahwistic work, which is rooted in praise over experience of deliverance; the
Deuteronomistic History, which is a reflection on the experience of judgment; and the Priestly
work, which is rooted in the fundamental reality of God’s presence in worship. He says nothing
about the Elohistic tradition or the Chronicler. Westermann’s subsuming of the primal histories of
the OT under Israel’s response is a major tour de force, which makes one wonder how meaningful
the categories of “Yahweh’s activity” and “Israel’s response” really are when dealing with OT
documents in an OT theology. Can these two entities be so neatly distinguished? Are not all OT
documents at the same time records of both God’s actions and Israel’s response?
Part VI, “The Old Testament and Jesus Christ,” is the last chapter in Westermann’s book, in which
he explores the nature of the relationship between the OT (and the faith expressed therein) and Jesus
Christ. He does this from the tripartite perspective of the Hebrew canon under the following
headings: (1) “The Historical Books and Jesus Christ,” (2) “The Prophetic Proclamation and Jesus
Christ,” and (3) “Christ and the Response of God’s People.” Both God’s saving and blessing
activity find parallels in the NT story of Jesus Christ, as does the prophetic message and experience.
Israel’s response in words and actions as expressed in the psalms and in commandment and law also
finds many echoes in the NT. Most of the comparisons which Westermann makes in this concluding
chapter are predominantly of a descriptive nature and merit further exploration and consideration by
objective scholarship. Unlike many earlier OT theologies written by Christians, he does not simply
use the OT for purposes of negative contrast; on the contrary, he frequently attempts to correct
traditional Christian misconceptions of the OT. Throughout one gets the impression that he is
concerned to restore the OT to full and equal partnership in the theological dialogue between the
testaments.
 Westermann’s OT theology, like that of Zimmerli, is only a Grundriss (“basic elements”). It is a
brief but very compact treatment of the subject, though one that is highly stimulating and thought-
provoking. As regards his methodology, in spite of his emphasis on the historical character of the
OT and the action-oriented nature of its God-talk, it is fundamentally conceptual and topical, rather
than historical-sequential. This appears to be the prevailing trend in the field.
e. J. L. McKenzie. McKenzie’s work (1974) is the first by a Roman Catholic scholar to break
with the traditional schema of dogmatic theology. Instead, he follows a conceptual approach with
topics abstracted from the OT itself. The basis on which his topics are chosen is the amount of
coverage which they receive in the OT and the degree of “profundity” they exhibit within the
totality of Israel’s experience. On the basis of this admittedly somewhat subjective criterion,
McKenzie devotes a chapter to each of the following seven topics: the cult, revelation, history,
nature, wisdom, political and social institutions, and the future of Israel. Within this larger
systematic and topical scheme, McKenzie occasionally finds it expedient to lapse into a more
historical-sequential scheme, as when under the chapter on revelation he treats some of the prophets
sequentially and book by book. This only reinforces what we have had occasion to observe
previously, namely, that a single methodology is rarely adhered to rigorously, and that most OT
theologies today exhibit a mixture of both systematic-conceptual and historical-sequential
methodologies. Other distinguishing features of McKenzie’s OT theology are the heavy emphasis
he gives to Israel’s cult and his refusal, explicitly at least, to relate the OT to the NT. As regards the
former, one cannot help but wonder whether his emphasis on the cult is entirely due to the
prominence given it in the OT, or whether the author’s Roman Catholic orientation may also play a
role in this. As regards his claim that he wrote this OT theology as if the NT did not exist, it is at
least debatable whether the application of his criterion of “profundity” is not at times implicitly
influenced by Christian values and NT perspectives.
f. W. C. Kaiser, Jr. Written by an American OT scholar and dean of Trinity Evangelical
Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, Kaiser’s theology (1978) is a self-conscious attempt to move
beyond the methodological impasse represented by Eichrodt and von Rad. He attempts to achieve
this by combining both conceptual and historical approaches to the subject in a harmonious whole.
With von Rad, the author agrees that an OT theology must draw its approach from the historic
progression of the canonical text of the OT. But unlike von Rad, he places much greater confidence
in the historical accuracy and reliability of Israel’s narrative traditions. Unlike von Rad also, but in
agreement with Eichrodt and others, Kaiser believes that the various theological assertions of the
OT are united by a common theological theme, which like a leitmotiv runs through them all and
unites them in a common bond and purpose. The author thus belongs among those who believe in
the existence of a theological center and organizing principle in OT theology. For Kaiser this is the
theme of God’s promise and blessing, first enunciated in Gen 12:1–3 and textually reiterated and
confirmed throughout the canon by means of a variety of related words and concepts.
Accordingly, the main part of Kaiser’s OT theology is organized into eleven chapters which
follow a historical-sequential order, but are grouped around the central theme of promise as follows:
Prolegomenon to the Promise: Prepatriarchal Era (Chap. 5); Provisions in the Promise: Patriarchal
Era (Chap. 6); People of the Promise: Mosaic Era (Chap. 7); Place of the Promise: Premonarchical
Era (Chap. 8); King of the Promise: Davidic Era (Chap. 9); Life in the Promise: Sapiential Era
(Chap. 10); Day of the Promise: 9th Century (Chap. 11); Servant of the Promise: 8th Century
(Chap. 12); Renewal of the Promise: 7th Century (Chap. 13); Kingdom of the Promise: Exilic
Prophets (Chap. 14); and Triumph of the Promise: Postexilic Prophets (Chap. 15). The first four
chapters of the book deal with issues of definition and method, and the final chapter addresses
briefly the question of the connection between the OT and NT.
A look at this outline inevitably creates the impression of a certain artificiality in the organization
of the biblical data, which is confirmed by a close reading of the actual contents of these chapters.
For instance, the Abrahamic and Davidic convenants are stressed to the neglect of the Mosaic
covenant, which incidentally, Kaiser considers to be an outgrowth of the Abrahamic covenant.
Given the author’s choice of the promise motif as his theological center, this is not surprising at all,
but it is highly doubtful that it reflects either historical reality or the literary witness of the OT. Also
problematic is Kaiser’s association of the topic “life in the promise” with the sapiential tradition and
the assigning of all of the latter to the Solomonic era. Israel’s cultic traditions are insufficiently
treated, and it is also highly questionable to treat the postexilic developments of Israelite faith under
the rubric of prophecy. Another serious shortcoming of Kaiser’s OT theology is his failure to come
to terms with the literary character of the material he is interpreting. Most of it is treated by him as
if it were uniformly historical in character. Historical and literary-critical problems are bracketed
out or ignored. This might have been less objectionable if the author had been content to claim
merely a structuralist or canonical reading of the documents rather than a historical one.
In spite of these shortcomings, however, the book contains many valuable exegetical insights. The
author is to be commended for his insistence on the exegetical nature of OT theology and that the
overarching categories should be derived exegetically from the material itself. Certainly the theme
of promise and blessing is an important one in the OT, the significance of which can be exegetically
demonstrated over a wide range of literature, as Kaiser has done. But it, no less than any other
single theological theme, is incapable of doing full justice to the wide-ranging and richly varied
theological literature of the OT.
g. R. E. Clements. Clements’ theology (1978), written by a British scholar and Baptist
minister, originated in 1975 as a series of lectures intended primarily as a critique of then-existing
OT theologies. Subsequently these were expanded to include the author’s own suggestions as to
what a theology of the OT should look like. This explains why a significant amount of space is
devoted to methodological issues, whereas the author’s own constructive treatment of the
theological content of the OT is more in the nature of a brief sketch or outline rather than a full-
fledged OT theology. Its eight chapters follow an essentially topical outline.
Chap. 1, “The Problem of OT Theology,” deals with fundamental problems of the discipline as
traditionally construed. Observing that OT theology traditionally has been a Christian undertaking,
Clements questions why this is so and whether it is necessarily so. Against a purely descriptive
approach, the author argues that theology by definition is something more than the study of
religious ideas, for it offers a measure of evaluation of their truth. While the historical-critical
method is absolutely essential for OT theology today, it alone is not sufficient but must be
complemented by theological perspectives. The canon is of theological significance for the
discipline, as is the fact that we can observe already in Scripture a process of transition from cultic
religion to the religion of a book. Clements rejects the methodological search for a uniform center
for constructing an OT theology, but notes that ultimately it is the nature and being of God which
establishes a unity in the OT.
Chap. 2, “Dimensions of Faith in the Old Testament,” turns to an examination of four salient
features of the OT which must be considered carefully before one attempts to elicit from it a
particular theology. The literary dimension reminds us that the OT is not the product of any mne
author but of many, and that it contains many literary types. The historical dimension reminds us
that the OT consists to a large extent of historical narratives which speak of various levels of divine
intervention and activity in the world; these have to be taken into account in uncovering the
theological meaning of ancient biblical narratives. Changing and conflicting perspectives (e.g., the
revolt of Jehu) can also be demonstrated, but the notion of “progressive revelation” must be used
with caution. The cultic dimension reminds us that contrary to much modern Christian
interpretation, the cult was not just a dispensable adjunct but the heart of Israelite religion. It so
affected the ideas and language of the OT that it may be viewed as the cradle of biblical theology.
Yet the conception of God also brought forth changes in the cult. Finally, the intellectual dimension
reminds us that the OT arose in an ancient culture and setting which was very different from the
modern world. In this ancient milieu the OT came in contact with three areas of the history of
religious ideas—primitive thinking, mythical thinking, and the realm of magic—yet it effected
significant changes in all of these areas as a result of its emphasis on the personal and moral nature
of God.
After these preliminary hermeneutical considerations, Clements in the next four chapters of his
book turns to an examination of the essentials of OT theology as he understands it. Chap. 3, “The
God of Israel,” deals with the being, names, presence, and uniqueness of God. Chap. 4, “The People
of God,” examines God’s human partner under the rubrics of people and nation, election, and
covenant. Chap. 5, “The Old Testament as Law,” gives adequate recognition to the importance of
Torah in the OT under the following four headings: “The Meaning of Tôrâh,” “The Pentateuch as
Tôrâh,” “The Tôrâh and the Prophets,” and “From Tôrâh to Law.” Clements’ emphasis on Torah is a
welcome and much-needed corrective to many OT theologies written by Christian authors. Chap. 6,
“The Old Testament as Promise,” deals chiefly, though not exclusively, with the prophetic literature
of the OT under the following fourfold subheadings: “Prophecy and the Judgment of Israel,”
“Prophecy and Hope,” “The Forms of Prophetic Hope,” and “The Promise in the Law and the
Writings.” Clements goes on to observe that for Christian interpreters the prophetic promise motif
has always been more congenial to finding theological meaning and significance in the OT than the
Torah motif (see the OT theology by Kaiser above). Yet both motifs are present in the OT and must
be given their due significance in any OT theology. The author is to be commended for his
evenhanded treatment of both themes. The sixth chapter concludes the author’s attempt at
constructing the outline of an OT theology as he understands it.
In the final two chapters of his book, Clements turns again to topics which belong to the category
of prolegomena to an OT theology, rather than to its actual content. They deal with OT theology in
relation to other theological disciplines, Chap. 7 dealing with “The Old Testament and the History
of Religions,” and Chap. 8 with “The Old Testament and the Study of Theology.”
One may fault Clements’ OT theology for the disproportionate attention given to the
prolegomena-type issues, as over against the theological content of the OT. His failure to deal with
the third part of the OT canon, except for a few scattered references to the psalms, is a more glaring
omission and one which is not adequately explained. The acknowledged origin of the book may be
cited in partial explanation of these imbalances. In spite of these shortcomings, however, the book
contains many good insights and suggestions, which others may explore more fully. It certainly
breaks some new ground, and for this reason alone must be judged to be an important contribution
to the ongoing discussion about the nature and task of OT theology.

h. B. S. Childs. Brevard Childs of Yale University has been an active participant in the debate
about the nature and purpose of the discipline for many years (see Childs 1970). More recently,
however, he has presented his own constructive attempt at an OT theology (Childs 1985). It is a
book of rather modest dimensions; like most recent OT theologies, it is more in the nature of an
“outline” rather than a full-fledged treatment of the subject. By the author’s own admission in the
preface, it is presented in a less technical form than his earlier commentary and introductions.
Nevertheless, the subject matter is dealt with in sufficient detail to reflect adequately his
understanding of it.
Childs follows essentially a systematic and topical method of organization. The roughly 250 pages
of his book are divided into 20 brief chapters. The first two are methodological in nature, dealing
respectively with the nature and history of the discipline and the meaning of revelation as applied to
the OT. The theme of revelation is also the subject of the next two chapters, where the author
examines the question of how God is known (Chap. 3) and what the purpose of God’s revelation is
in the OT (Chap. 4). The revelation of God is inseparably associated with the revelation of God’s
will. Consequently, the next four chapters are devoted to that subject under the following headings:
The Law of God (Chap. 5); Knowing and Doing the Will of God (Chap. 6); The Theological
Significance of the Decalogue (Chap. 7); and the Role of Ritual and Purity Laws (Chap. 8). The
next five chapters examine various human recipients of God’s revelation: The Recipients of God’s
Revelation (Chap. 9); Agents of God’s Rule: Moses, Judges, Kings (Chap. 10); The Office and
Function of the Prophet (Chap. 11); True and False Prophets (Chap. 12); and the Theological Role
of Priesthood (Chap. 13). The theme of revelation, which loosely held together the first 13 chapters
of the book, is not as apparent in the remaining 7 chapters, which deal with a sequence of unrelated
topics as follows: Benefit of the Covenant: The Cultus (Chap. 14); Structures of the Common Life,
dealing with various civil, legal, and military institutions (Chap. 15); Male and Female as a
Theological Problem (Chap. 16); The Theological Dimension of Being Human (Chap. 17); The
Shape of the Obedient Life, which deals with Israel’s response to God in psalms, wisdom, and story
(Chap. 18); Life under Threat (Chap. 19); and Life under Promise (Chap. 20).
From this outline it is apparent that Childs’ way of doing OT theology represents no radical
departure from the way others have done it. He emphasizes both constructive and descriptive
dimensions of the task and orders his material in a conceptual and topical, rather than a historical or
tradition-historical, manner. Even his vocal emphasis on a “canonical approach” represents no
radical departure from past practices, for OT theology has traditionally accepted the canon of the
OT as the source and norm which define its limits. It is true that Childs, more frequently than other
scholars, makes the final or present shape of the canonical books the object of his theological
reflections, rather than the antecedent stages or the process which led to their formation. But this
fact is not sufficient to speak of a radical departure in biblical theology. (Hasel’s handbook [1982:
86–92] needlessly multiplies labels and distinctions when it calls this the “New Biblical Theology
Method.” It is neither a new nor a distinct or well-defined method.) Childs’ OT theology falls well
within the limits of the fundamental dialectics described earlier, which have characterized the
discipline for many years. His most recent work is another significant contribution to the field, but it
blazes no new trails, nor does it resolve the fundamental problems and tensions which have beset
the discipline in the past, and which will continue to beset it in the future.
Finally, Childs’ claim that OT theology is a specifically Christian theological discipline makes only
explicit what has historically been implicit in most OT theologies written by Christians. The validity
or legitimacy of this claim is an issue which we shall not pursue at this point, but to which we shall
return (see B.4 below).

Summary. In concluding this section on methodology in OT theology, it may be helpful to

summarize succinctly what we have learned from this survey of recent OT theologies. First of all, as
regards the dialectal tension between descriptive and normative dimensions of the discipline, some
scholars, like Zimmerli, Westermann, and McKenzie, continue to emphasize the descriptive
dimension of OT theology. The majority of OT theologians surveyed, however, have become much
more overtly normative than either Eichrodt or von Rad. By and large they have achieved this,
however, without falling prey to the confusion between these two dimensions which characterized
some of the biblical theology of the 1950s. Stendahl’s differentiation seems to have made a lasting
impact, even if his counsel for a purely descriptive approach is no longer heeded.
As regards methodological principles of organization, the issues today are no longer as sharply
drawn as they were between Eichrodt and von Rad. Nearly all OT theologies today combine
conceptual and systematic with historical and tradition-historical approaches to the subject. Some,
like Vriezen, McKenzie, Clements, Childs, and Terrien, favor the conceptual approach. Others, like
Zimmerli, Kaiser, and Hanson, clearly prefer historical and tradition-historical principles of
organization. A few, like Fohrer and Westermann, exhibit a more nearly equal balance between the
two.
Some of the works surveyed continue to favor some parts of the OT canon over others. The German
scholars on the whole continue to give preference to the historical and prophetic traditions,
downplaying or ignoring priestly and sapiental traditions. Westermann’s distinction between the
saving and blessing activity of God, however, appears to be a significant modification of a one-
sidedly salvation-historical approach to the subject. While many English-speaking scholars are
guilty of a similar preference for a “canon within the canon,” some important correctives can be
discerned in recent British and American OT theologies. Clements, for instance, seeks to redress the
imbalance with respect to the Torah and legal traditions of the OT. McKenzie emphasizes the
importance of the cult, and Terrien gives adequate recognition to the importance of sapiential and
cultic traditions. Hanson’s coverage of apocalyptic traditions is quite thorough. Legal and cultic
traditions are also given their due by Hanson and Childs. While more could yet be done on this
score, all in all there appears to be a greater degree of respect for the theological witness of the
entire canon of the OT, rather than just selected segments thereof.

3. Revelation through History, Tradition, and Story. Another issue in OT theology is the
problem of revelation through history, which has received considerable attention since the
appearance of von Rad’s work (see esp. Albrektson 1967; Barr in IDBSup, 746–49; Herberg 1976;
Pannenberg 1968; Roberts 1976). At the core of biblical religion, whether in its Jewish or Christian
manifestation, stands the belief that God has acted for the benefit of the human race and the world
through specific and concrete events in the history of a particular people called Israel. Both the OT
and the NT attest to this fundamental conviction. How that divine activity is to be visualized and
understood constitutes one of the fundamental problems of OT and biblical theology. The older
Protestant orthodoxy had understood revelation as consisting chiefly of inspired utterances of a
propositional and dogmatic nature. But already during the 17th century, a more historically oriented
understanding of revelation came to the fore in the writings of “federal” theologians like Cocceius.
Increasingly, revelation came to be understood in terms of God’s redemptive activity in history, and
the Bible was viewed as the written record thereof. This notion reached its fullest development in
the various salvation-historical perspectives of the 19th and 20th centuries. The 19th-century
revolution in historical thinking aided this development greatly, at the same time as in some circles
it also tended to undercut the notion of God’s activity in history. In the religio historical
perspectives of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the biblical idea of revelation came to be
replaced with notions of human progress and the evolutionary development of religion. But
following the revival of OT theology during the mid–20th century, the notion of revelation through
history gained greater currency again, especially during the era of the so-called biblical theology
movement. Against both the fundamentalist notion of revelation as propositional truth and the
liberal notion of revelation as human progress and religious evolution, it became fashionable to
locate revelation in the actual events of biblical history, many of which were strikingly illumined by
spectacular discoveries in biblical archaeology (Wright 1952). During the 1960s, however, the
concept of revelation through history came increasingly under attack from several quarters. Today it
has fallen on hard times, and while not without its defenders, it has been abandoned by some and
become dysfunctional for many others.
As one surveys recent literature on this issue (see Lemke 1982: 34–46), it becomes apparent that
the notion of revelation through history has become problematical chiefly on two grounds: it was
construed too one-sidedly and burdened with too many unresolved ambiguities. A one-sided
emphasis on God’s mighty acts in history tended to ignore or overlook other important dimensions
of God’s self-disclosure. The Bible also speaks of God’s self-disclosure in the realm of nature, in
the proclamation of laws and commandments, in the high moments of communal worship or the
quiet meditations of the human heart, in the reflections of the wise, and in the musings of poets and
storytellers. Furthermore, the Bible does not differentiate as sharply as modern theologians have
between facta and dicta, the God who acts and the God who speaks, or the objective historical event
and its subjective appropriation by human beings. If God is revealed at all, God is revealed in all of
these manifold ways. Thus, for example, God’s communication with Moses, the actual events at the
sea, Miriam’s song about it, and the cultic anamnesis of all of these are part of God’s revelatory act
which we call the Exodus.
Among the unresolved ambiguities which have beset the notion of revelation through history are
the following. To begin with, there is a problem of definition. What do we mean by “history” or
“revelation”? If history is defined in terms of a closed system of finite causality and revelation is
defined in terms of God’s self-disclosure, then obviously there is no room for divine activity in
history and it is pointless to speak of revelation through history.
Unexamined or confused philosophical and theological assumptions have been another major
source of ambiguity in the discussion about revelation through history (Blaikie 1970). What, for
instance, is our understanding of God? Is God a personal agent or an impersonal process? What is
our understanding of divine and human causality, the nature and possibility of miracle, or the
meaning of providence? Lack of clarity on such questions as these will lead to confusion and
equivocation in one’s understanding of revelation through history.
A third source of ambiguity which has contributed to the dysfunctionality of the concept of
revelation through history lies in the recourse to purely historical and descriptive language when
theological and normative language is called for. Statements like “the Hebrews believed that God
had clogged the chariot wheels of the Egyptians” or “Moses felt himself to be in the presence of the
Holy when he encountered what appeared to be a burning bush at Horeb” render the concept of
revelation through history problematical, for they tell us nothing about what exactly God was doing
in those events, how God was revealed, or whether God was doing or saying anything at all.

Finally, a fourth source of ambiguity which has rendered the concept of revelation through history
problematical is the bifurcation between “actual” and “confessed” history brought about by modern
historical-critical approaches to the Bible. If the events of Israelite history as reconstructed by
critical historiography are not identical with those narrated or confessed by the biblical writers, then
what happens to the notion of revelation through history? Where is the locus of divine revelation, in
the actual or in the confessed history? Which set of events is the proper object of OT theology?
There are those like von Rad who clearly opt for Israel’s confessional history as the only proper
object for OT theology and the real locus of revelation. That, however, poses some real problems
for the concept of revelation through history, for if the events through which God was alleged to
have been revealed did not happen, or happened in a manner other than remembered by the biblical
authors, then what happens to God’s mighty acts in history? Do they simply evaporate into thin air?
For those who, like F. Hesse (1971), would answer this question affirmatively, the only recourse is
to ignore the confessional history and to place the locus of revelation in the events as reconstructed
by critical historiography alone. Neither course of action has proven satisfactory or adequate; nor
are these the only options available to us. For one, the dichotomy between actual and confessed
history is not as radical as it has often been made out to be. There is a considerable degree of
confluence between the two, if not in every detail, at least in regard to the broad outlines of biblical
history. Secondly, even where these two histories diverge in significant details, the confessional
history is at the same time another datum of Israelite history and therefore a legitimate object of
both historical inquiry and theological reflection. The locus of revelation then becomes more
complex. God’s activity cannot simply be located in the bruta facta of the one, nor in the
confessional dicta of the other, but in the complex interface between the two. A. Weiser (1961)
already saw this quite clearly; more recently the issue has also been addressed by P. Hanson (1978).
The limitations and ambiguities inherent in the notion of revelation through history have elicited a
number of responses by systematic and biblical theologians. There are those who have sought to
expand the notion by making all of history the locus of revelation (Pannenberg 1968; Rendtorff
1961; Kaufmann 1960). Revelation, in other words, is history. That is, God’s purpose and activity is
revealed in the totality of history, and consequently not until its final consummation. From the
vantage point of biblical or OT theology, such a “resolution” of the problem is not satisfactory. For
one, it is too global and universal to be historically useful. Furthermore, it goes beyond what the
Bible asserts. In Scripture, God’s activity is neither confined to, nor wholly identified with, the
historical process as such.
Another recent attempt to come to terms with the notion of revelation through history is to
abandon it in favor of a notion of revelation through story or narrative theology. This approach has
gained many adherents in recent years and has certain advantages, at least on the surface. For one, it
recognizes that much of the biblical narrative comes to us in the form of story or tradition, some of
which may be historylike, but which is far removed from history writing as commonly understood
today. Secondly, it associates revelation with the word, which is a time-honored and biblically based
notion. And thirdly, it relieves us of the burden of having to decide whether events actually
happened the way they were remembered and told.
In spite of its current popularity and appeal, it is doubtful that this flight into “revelation through
story” will prove to be a satisfactory solution to the problem. While it can provide a necessary
corrective to the imbalances and excesses of the revelation-through-history approach, it fails to
address the deeper underlying and abiding issues which the latter was designed to engage. Granted
that not all biblical narratives can or should be read as history, many of them must and will continue
to be read this way. The reasons for this are partly determined by the Bible and partly by our own
cultural givens. Once modern critical historical consciousness has arisen in us, we cannot very well
revert to a precritical stance. In some fashion or form, people will continue to ask questions of what
really happened in history and what relevance that has for them today. Of even greater significance
is the fact that biblical religion is essentially historical in character. As long as some biblical
documents make claims about God’s presence and activity in human affairs and among a particular
historical people, we will necessarily continue to address the issue of God’s revelation through
history. Any theological approach to Scripture which ignores this problem or pretends that it does
not exist will have no lasting impact upon the discipline of OT theology.

4. Is OT Theology an Exclusively Christian Enterprise? The final issue which we seek to

address is posed by both the actual history of the discipline and by the explicit way recent
practitioners of it have chosen to define it (see Lemke 1989; Levenson 1987). If one looks at the
history of the discipline, it would appear that OT theology is indeed an exclusively Christian
enterprise. OT theology had its roots in the Protestant Reformation, and for most of its history it
was practiced by Christian scholars working, either explicitly or implicitly, from Christian
theological assumptions. The noticeable absence of Jewish biblical scholars from the discipline in
the past may in part be attributed to the specifically Christian polemic context in which biblical and
OT theology arose. However, there were other historical circumstances which converged to keep
Jewish scholars from entering the field of OT theology. Goshen-Gottstein (1975: 69–88) has shown
that just as the treasures of Jewish exegesis were made available to Christian Hebraists during the
late 15th and 16th centuries, Jewish biblical scholarship entered a period of protracted stagnation
brought about by a combination of external circumstances and spiritual forces within Judaism.
According to him, it is only the belated entry of Jews into 20th-century biblical scholarship that has
prevented until now the development of Jewish biblical theology. From a purely historical
perspective, therefore, one would have to concede that OT theology in the past has been an
exclusively Christian (and until recently, a mostly Protestant) enterprise. This historical fact,
however, does not settle the question of whether OT theology of necessity, or in its essential
character, is an exclusively Christian enterprise. While a great majority of its practitioners continue
to define it that way (see, for instance, Childs 1985: 7), we would argue that there is no compelling
reason to continue to do so, and that the discipline would be immensely enriched by the inclusion of
Jewish scholarship. To a limited degree this is already happening, but it should become even more
extensive and self-conscious in the future. Since this judgment is not shared by most of the OT
theologies which we have surveyed, we propose to submit to closer scrutiny some of the main
arguments for and against our thesis.
First of all, the fact that OT theology arose as a Christian theological discipline and that most of
its practitioners during the last 400 years have been Christians (nominally at least) does not mean
that this necessarily defines the discipline in perpetuity. A look at its own history is instructive here.
Biblical theology began in a polemic context: it was directed first against Roman Catholic dogma
and then against the orthodox doctrines of Protestant scholasticism. Yet today, both Protestants and
Roman Catholics are engaged in a fruitful dialogue and in the production of significant works in
biblical theology. There is no reason why a similar development cannot take place between
Christians and Jews. It has already happened in many areas of biblical studies, such as history,
archaeology, philology, and exegesis; there is no compelling reason why the theological dimensions
of our common scriptural tradition cannot be made the subject of fruitful and mutual dialogue.
Secondly, on the basis of the fact that the very name “Old Testament” is a Christian designation
which points to the existence of a “New Testament,” it has been suggested that OT theology must
therefore be construed as a Christian discipline; and that the question of the relationship of the
testaments is part of the essential purpose and task of OT theology. Such an argument, however, is
not irresistibly persuasive. To be sure, the question of the relationship between the testaments is a
valid and legitimate theological question, at least for Christians, but probably also for Jews.
However, it belongs more appropriately to a Christian biblical theology than to OT theology as
such. Furthermore, the designation “Old Testament” need not imply pejorative connotations or
theological value judgments. Today it is widely used in a purely neutral sense of designating the
documents of the Jewish canon of scriptures (Tsevat 1986: 33–50). The fact that these documents
also happen to be part of the Christian canon does in no way necessitate the assumption that their
theological witness cannot be ascertained in its own right, but must only be heard in the context of
the theological witness of the NT. As a matter of record, when NT contexts and perspectives are
emphasized too much, the independent theological witness of the OT becomes muted or obscured,
as amply illustrated by the history of the discipline. A further point of clarification should be made.
When we are saying that OT theology is not of necessity a Christian theological discipline, we do
not wish to deny that the theological perspectives of subsequent faith communities have a
significant role to play in the theological interpretation of the OT. They clearly do. All we are
claiming is that they need not be confined to the Christian faith community. The Jewish faith
community surely also has legitimate insights and perspectives to contribute to this quest. It can
provide a much-needed corrective, or a more variedly nuanced perspective, to a one-sidedly
Christian theological reading of the OT, from which Christians would benefit in the construction of
their own theology.

Thirdly, Jewish scholarship itself has been reluctant to participate in the production of OT
theologies. There may be various reasons for this. For instance, it has frequently been asserted that
Judaism is less theologically oriented, right conduct and observance being more important than
right thinking. There is some truth in that objection, but it is not a compelling argument against
Jewish OT theology. Jews also study the Bible and reflect on its theological content. This is
evidenced by much recent Jewish biblical scholarship, even when it does not overtly label what it
produces as OT theology. Kaufmann’s well-known treatment of Israelite religion (1960), while
following essentially a historical and descriptive methodology, also has recourse to more conceptual
presentations of Israelite religious phenomena and is at points highly constructive and normative in
its historical reflections. It requires little imagination to see that Kaufmann might equally well have
written an OT theology. The work of the late Abraham Heschel clearly falls within the
understanding of OT theology presented in this essay. It is hard to imagine a theologically more
perceptive and finely nuanced treatment of the life and message of Israel’s prophets than that of
Heschel (1962). Limitations of space do not permit us to mention others by name, but contemporary
Jewish scholarship abounds with examples of first-rate theological treatments of various facets of
the OT. It is only a question of time before a full-length and major OT theology will be produced by
a Jewish scholar. Perhaps it will be called Tanakh theology (Goshen-Gottstein 1987: 617–44) or a
theology of the Hebrew Bible, or the like, but whatever its name, it will be a significant contribution
to OT theology. Such a theology will bring fresh nuances and perspectives, especially on those
portions of the Hebrew canon which have often been ignored or slighted in Christian OT theologies.
Jon Levenson’s recent treatment of the Sinai, Zion, and creation traditions of the OT (1985; 1988)
may be viewed as signposts on the way to a Jewish OT theology. One can only hope that the
renewed interest in biblical theology by Jewish scholarship will not stop with the OT, but will also
issue in fresh theological readings of the NT. There is no doubt in our mind that not only biblical
and OT but NT theology as well could be greatly enriched through a Jewish theological reading of
the NT documents.
But we must return to the question with which we began this section. By now it should be
apparent that we can see no compelling or valid reasons for viewing OT theology as an exclusively
Christian enterprise. The absence of Jewish scholarship from the field of OT theology is more the
result of historical accident than logical or theological necessity. Both Christian and Jewish scholars
can and should be engaged in doing OT theology. The discipline would be greatly enriched and
strengthened by such truly ecumenical dialogue.
If one wonders why it has taken us so long to come to this realization, the Church and Christian
theology must surely assume a major share of the blame because of their long-standing devaluation
and subordination of the OT to the NT. A concise summary of traditional Christian attitudes toward
the OT will make this clear. For the first century of the existence of the Church, the OT was the
only Bible the Christians had. Both Jesus and the apostles recognized the documents of the OT as
their sacred Scripture. The central problem for the early Christians was not whether the OT was to
be their sacred Scripture, but whether and how Jesus could be understood as another mighty act of
the God whom they already knew through their Scriptures (Sanders 1976: 531–60). Not until the 2d
century, or as Christianity became increasingly a Gentile movement, did the status of the OT
become problematical for some Christians. Marcion tried unsuccessfully to remove the OT, along
with a good part of the NT, from its status as sacred Scripture. But while the Church officially
adopted the OT as part of its canon of sacred Scripture, the ghost of Marcion continued to haunt the
Church throughout its subsequent history. The varying attitudes which Christians have assumed
toward the OT may for convenience’ sake be grouped into five basic categories.
(1) An Abrogation or Negative Valuation of the OT. This attitude may range from an outright
rejection of the OT from the Christian canon (Marcion, Schleiermacher, von Harnack, F. Delitzsch)
to a radically qualified acceptance of it for purposes of negative contrast with the NT and the
Christian gospel (Bultmann, Baumgärtel). All of them have no positive theological use for the OT,
which is variously characterized as inferior, superseded, or on a par with the other non-Christian
religions. In short, the OT is simply the dark foil against which the light of the gospel shines all the
more brightly. Regrettably, many Christians through the long history of the Church have adopted
this attitude, even though it is wholly unbiblical and unworthy of their allegiance. It is potentially
very harmful and has been responsible in part for gross outbursts of anti-Judaism throughout the
history of the Church. If consistently held, it would lead to the eventual destruction and
disappearance of Christianity.

(2) The OT as a Necessary Historical Presupposition. Because of Christianity’s origin in a

specifically Jewish milieu, an understanding of the OT is essential for a proper understanding of the
NT and of the gospel. The history of the early Church is incomprehensible apart from its Jewish
antecedents, and the literature of the NT presupposes knowledge of the language and thought-world
of the OT. While correct as far as it goes, this position is inadequate, because it confines itself to a
purely historical and descriptive level. Historical and cultural connections alone are not sufficient
grounds for canonization; if they were, one could argue with equal validity for the inclusion of the
Enuma Elish in the Jewish canon, and some of the intertestamental literature in the Christian canon.
(3) The “Christianization” of the OT. This was the prevailing attitude toward the OT in the
Church for at least a millennium, or from the early Church Fathers to the Reformation. This position
accepts the OT as a theologically relevant part of the Christian canon. However, its voice as an
independent theological witness was muted by the superimposition of Christian meanings on the
OT. Allegory and typology were the prevailing exegetical techniques in earlier centuries. More
recently, subtler ways of doing this have been devised. Usually this takes the form of some
hermeneutical key, such as the “law/gospel” or “promise/fulfillment” dialectic, by means of which
the theological meaning of the OT is to be discerned. The problem with these unitary hermeneutical
keys is that they are too one-sided and simplistic, obscuring both real continuities and obliterating
finer nuances and distinctions. Proponents of these usually also fail to see that whatever dialectics
may be legitimately present in Scripture, they cannot be divided up between the testaments but are
operative throughout the entire Christian canon, inclusive of the NT. Such a one-sided Christian
reading of the OT gives lip service to the theological relevance of the OT, but in actuality does not
really permit it to speak in its own right.
(4) The OT Has Direct Literal and Prescriptive Theological Validity. While this position has
never had a wide following among Christians, it has enjoyed some favor among certain groups.
Essentially it holds that since Christians have become heirs to God’s covenant with Israel, they also
must assume all of its obligations. Apart from 1st-century Jewish Christians, this attitude was also
embraced by some Anabaptists of the radical Reformation, as well as by some modern sectarians.
(5) While this attitude is commendable in its theological consistency, it is too literalistic and
fails to take sufficient cognizance of the fact that even biblical religion is a living organism which
underwent significant changes and adaptations, to say nothing of the gulf that separates modern
people from the cultural world of the Bible.
(6) The OT as Theologically Significant and Indispensable Norm for Christian Faith. This
position involves a positive theological valuation of the OT. It rejects all notions of a unilaterally
evolutionary or supersessive nature. The God of Jesus is the same as the God of Abraham, Moses,
and Deborah. The OT continues to function for Christians as a source of revelation and valid
apprehension of God’s character and relationship to humanity and the world. The theological
meaning of the OT must be ascertained through objective critical scholarship, in which both
Christian and Jewish scholars can participate. And while the subsequent adaptations of the
theological content of the OT by Jewish and Christian faith communities may provide valuable
insights into the fundamental structure of biblical faith, they must not be granted normative value in
the sense of dictating in advance how the theological message of the OT is to be heard. Allowances
must be made for both continuities and discontinuities in theological perspective between the OT
and the two faith communities to which it gave rise. Neither the NT nor the Talmud should be
allowed to define OT theology in any normative sense.
(7) It is this fifth and final position which holds the greatest promise today for the doing of OT
theology in a truly ecumenical context in which both Christians and Jews may participate with
integrity and to the mutual benefit and enrichment of the respective faith communities for whom the
OT is sacred Scripture.

C. Conclusion
At the beginning of this article we defined OT theology as “the exposition of the theological content
of the OT writings.” In the light of our historical survey and our analysis of key issues in the
evolution and current practice of the discipline, we are now in a position, perhaps, to give a little
more specificity and precision to that definition. OT theology may be defined as an exegetical and
theological discipline which seeks to describe in a coherent and comprehensive manner the OT
understanding of God in relationship to humanity and the world. A few comments on key elements
in this definition may be in order. By defining it as an exegetical and theological discipline, we
wish to underscore that OT theology must be rooted in the careful exegesis of the actual texts and
documents of the OT, but that this must be done in such a manner that the theological dimensions of
the text are not ignored or obscured, but given due prominence. The phrase to describe . . . the OT
understanding seeks to safeguard the descriptive aspects of our task, so that we hear what the OT
itself has to say rather than superimposing theological and philosophical systems on it from the
outside. This is not to say that legitimately constructive and normative dimensions of theology can
or should be ignored. They clearly have a place in any OT theology worthy of the name. But the
constructive and normative dimensions must always be closely related to, and dependent upon, the
descriptive dimension. OT theologians must not confuse these two dimensions, but as much as
possible should be clear about when they function in one or the other mode of operation.
Furthermore, this description of the theological content of the OT must be reasonably coherent and
comprehensive. That is, it should deal with the essential faith structure of the OT, not with every
phenomenological detail of Israelite religion but in sufficiently comprehensive fashion so that no
important element (like wisdom, the cult, creation theology, or legal and priestly traditions) is
slighted or ignored. Finally, the phrase God in relationship to humanity and the world points to the
proper object and parameters of the discipline. It is not the God of philosophical abstraction or
theological speculation that is the object of our inquiry, but Yahweh God who is revealed not only in
creation but in the historical experiences of a particular people called Israel. OT theology thus
defined and understood is in no crisis or quandary, but in the midst of a highly productive and
creative period, the full extent of which remains yet to be seen and assessed.