Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate. By Gerhard Hasel. 4th Edition.

Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991. 262 pages. Softcover.

Bibliography

Gerhard Hasel (1935–1994) was the J. N. Andrews Professor of Old Testament and

Biblical Theology and the Director of the Ph.D./Th.D. programs at the Andrews University

Theological Seminary in Berrien Springs, Michigan. Before his death, Hasel had published over

three hundred and nineteen articles as well as nineteen books. Hasel was known as a modern-day

renaissance man because of his vast knowledge of multiple fields of study. Some of his works

include: The Remnant the History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah

(1972), New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (1978), Speaking in

Tongues: Biblical Speaking in Tongues and Contemporary Glossolalia (1991), and

Understanding the Book of Amos: Basic Issues in Current Interpretations (1991).

Thesis and Methodology

Hasel’s work has been revised four times because of its usefulness for anyone interested

in the field of Old Testament theology and biblical theology. The value of this work is found

within its two main contributions to the study of OT theology. First, Hasel’s work has constantly

been given an updated bibliography to provide his readers with nearly nine hundred and fifty

entries so that they would have a “working tool for those who wish to pursue any subject in

greater detail” (x). Second, though there are other overviews of the study of OT theology, only

this work deals with some of the “major unresolved problems” during the time of Hasel. Thus,

modern scholars have the opportunity gain from Hasel’s insights and attempt to resolve these

problems.
 Summary

Hasel begins his work with explain the beginnings and the development of OT theology.

Hasel introduces this chapter by explaining how Biblical theology shifted from being seen

simply as “proof-texts” for Systematic theology (Henricus A. Desit’s Theologia biblica, 1643) to

becoming its own discipline (Carol Haymann’s Biblische Theologie, 1708) such that it could

“become the rival of dogmatics” (13).

Hasel argues that Biblical theology did not truly become a rival to Systematic theology

until the work of Anton Freidrich Büching (1756–1758). Sadly, because of the influence of

rationalism, which rejected the idea of supernatural events, the separation of Systematic and

Biblical theology came hand in hand with the separation of the Bible from its God-given

authority (an exception being found in the work of Gotthilf Traugott Zachariä). C. F. van

Ammon (1792), a rationalist, laid the foundation for the separation of Biblical theology in two

branches: NT and OT theologies.

From here, Johann Philipp Gabler’s inaugural lecture at the University of Altdorf “gave

direction to the future of Biblical (OT and NT) theology” (17). According to Hasel, this future

contained three main presuppositions about the study of Biblical theology: 1) the text is not

inspired, 2) the different voices within the Bible must be separated, and 3) one must distinguish

between the old and new religions found within the text. From here works began to appear on

OT theology (Georg Lorenz Bauer, Theologie des AT, 1796), History of Religion (G. P. C.

Kaiser, Die biblishe Theologie, 3 vols., 1813, 1814, 1821), and ones that moved away from

rationalism (W. M. L. de Wette, Biblishce Dogmatik, 1813).

The conservative reaction to rationalistic and philosophical studies of OT theology

proposed a salvation-history methodology where the Bible was “not to be regarded primarily as a

collection of proof-texts or as a repository of doctrine but a witness to God’s activity in history

which will not be fully completed until the eschatological consummation” (22). But this reaction

was soon eclipsed by the history-of-religions methodology as influenced by Julius Wellhausen

(1844-1918). This methodology dominated OT theology for over four decades and, according to

Hasel, “has a particularly destructive influence both on OT theology and on the understanding of

the OT in every other aspect” (24). The first clear sign of the revival of OT Theology came in the

work of E. König (Theologie des AT, 1922). Shortly after König’s work was published, OT

Theology entered its “golden age” (26).

In light of the history and development of OT Theology, Hasel moves to speak more

directly of the methodologies surrounding its study. These methodologies fall into two main

categories: (1) descriptive and historical or (2) normative and theological. The following table

will help to clarify the distinction between the two:

Methodology Descriptive and Historical Normative and Theological

Definition “The Biblical theologian is said to have
to place his attention on describing
‘what the text meant’ and not ‘what it
means’” (29); historical reconstruction.
Mentioned G.E. Wright (God who Acts, 1952)
Scholars E. Jacobs (Theology of OT, 1958)
“Theological interpretation is the
translation of the historically
reconstructed text into the situation
of the modern world…. is conceived
as normative for faith and life” (30).
B. S. Childs (Biblical Theology in
Crisis, 1970)

As Hasel explains, at the root of this discussion is the question of “how exegetical study is

related to doing theology” (31). This discussion is further complicated by contributions (and lack

thereof) of Jewish scholars who “make it clear in their minds that no ‘Biblical theology’ of a

purely descriptive type is to be had” (37).

From here, Hasel moves to speak more specifically of the subsections of the two main

categorical methodologies mentioned above:

 Methodological Type Description/Page Numbers Scholars
Dogmatic-Didactic OT theology organized according to the Bauer (OT Theology,
Systematic theological categories of God-Man- 1796)
Salvation or Theology-Anthropology- Dentan (The Knowledge
Soteriology (39–42). of God, 1968)
Genetic-Progressive OT theology concerned with the historical Oehler (OT Theology,
progression of God’s divine revelation. This 1883)
method centers around different eras of God’s Lehman (Biblical
actions, his covenants (42–47). Theology I: OT, 1971)
Clements (OT Theology,
1978)
Cross-Section OT theology is centered around the idea of the Eichort (Theologie des
covenant as the unifying theme of the Bible. AT, 1939)
This method normally contains the following Vriezen (Outline of OT
three main categories of analysis (with minor Theology, 1970)
Spriggs (Two OT
variation): 1) God and the people, 2) God and
Theologies, 1974)
the world, and 3) God and man (47–60). Kasier (Towards and OT
Theology, 1978)
Mattioli (Dio e l’uomo,
1981)
Goldingay (Theological
Diversity, 1987)
Topical OT theology is concerned with specific topics Foher (History of
which have more or less to do with the Israelite Religion, 1972)
experience of the people. Overall, there is McKenize (A Theology
much variation within this method over the of the OT, 1974)
Zimmerli (OT Theology
number and type of topics addressed (60–71).
in Outline, 1978)
Diachronic OT theology seeks to divide the final form of “Von Rad is the first and
the text into its successive layers of only scholar who has
development so that one might trace the textual ever published a full-
traditions as they were updated and applied to fledged diachronic OT
Theology” (71); (OT
later generations (71–79).
Theology, 2 vols., 1957,
1961)
Formation-of-Tradition OT theology should be focused on the tradition Gese (“Tradition and
history, which begins in the OT and is Biblical Theology”,
concluded by the NT. Whereas the diachronic 1977)
method sought to identify the roots of the Stuhlmacher (Historical
Criticism, 1977)
traditions, this method seeks to identify its
Seebass (“Biblische
final progression (79–85). Theologie,” 1982)
Thematic-Dialectical OT theology is governed by two contrasting Terrin (The Elusive
ideas where one must seek to resolve the Presence, 1978)
Brueggemann (God and
tension between the two. Scholars in the His Temple, 1981)
category each utilize a different dialectic (86– Westermann (Elements of
94). OT Theology, 1982)
Hanson (The Diversity of
Scripture, 1982)
 Critical These scholars are not concerned with writing James Barr
an OT theology but instead provide a critic of John Collins
the field (94–103). Høgenhaven (Problems
and Prospects of OT
Theology, 1988)
New Biblical Theology OT theology is focused on the canon of Childs (Biblical
Scripture as the foundation for the Theology in Crisis,
interpretation (103–111). 1970; Introduction to the
OT as Scripture, 1979;
Old Testament Theology
in a Canonical Context,
1986)
Multiplex Canonical OT theology should be governed by the Hasel’s own view of
following seven proposals which “seek to take doing biblical theology.
seriously the rich theological variety of the OT
texts in their final form without forcing the
manifold witnesses into a single structure,
unilinear point of view, or even a compound
approach of a limited nature” (114):
1) Theology of the Canonical OT
2) Interpreting/explaining the final form
3) Every OT book is equally included
4) Presents the theology of each book
separately
5) Texts set the agenda
6) The various theologies are bound
together after they are individual found
7) The NT’s relationship to the OT is
considered polychromatic.

Within this chapter, Hasel also provides a short analysis and evaluation of each method. Hasel’s

own method is a combination of the positive attributes of the methodologies under evaluation

(mostly following Childs).

Having covered the different methods of Biblical theology, Hasel then moves to a core

issue found within each methodology: the relationship between the historical events (historical-

critical method) and their theological meaning as these events are described in Scripture (OT

theological method). Using van Rad as a reference point, Hasel described the different

perspectives on this issue.

 According to Hasel, von Rad “assumed that the two diverging pictures of Israel’s history

could ‘for the present’ simply stand next to each other with OT theology expounding the

kerygmatic one and largely ignoring the historical-critical one” (117). In other words, von Rad

concluded that even though OT theology created a different historical picture of the OT events

than historical reconstructions, both histories could exist since they served different functions.

Franz Hesse found disagreement with von Rad’s conclusion biased on the importance of the

historical events in light of “salvation history” (118). While both von Rad and Hesse approve of

the historical-critical version of Israel’s history, Hesse places this version above the history

described in the OT. Hasel concludes that Hesse’s thesis is flawed in two main ways. First,

“Hesse’s one-sided emphasis is due to his unique confidence in modern historiography…. he

does not realize that the historical-critical version of Israel’s history is also already interpreted

history” (119). Second, the version of Israelite history created by the historical-critical method

did not exist during the time of the NT. Thus, this version of Israel’s history could not be used in

a “salvation history” as known by the authors of the NT.

Hasel also notes that Walter Eichrodt found disagreement with von Rad’s conclusion

about the two versions of Israel’s history. Eichordt argued that the “reconciliation of both

versions of Israel’s history” was “not only possible, but in the interest of the trustworthiness of

the biblical witness absolutely necessary” (121). Thus, after noting the comments of a few other

scholars (such as Friedrich Baumgärtel, Johannes Hempel, Eva Osswald, and especially Wolfhart

Pannenberg), Hasel comes to the following conclusion:

When we speak of God’s acts in Israel’s history, there is no reason to confine this activity
to a few bare events, bruta facta, that the schema of historical criticism can verify by
cross-checking with other historical evidence. Nor is it adequate and appropriate to
employ the hermeneutical schema of von Rad, because with neither schema has
scholarship been able to reach a fully acceptable understanding of historical reality….
Thus we must work with a method that takes the account of the totality of that history
 under the recognition of the original unity of facts and their meaning and an adequate
concept of total reality (131–132).

From here, Hasel explains how John Wharton, followed by James Barr, changed the

discussion from the history of the OT to the “story” contained within it. Scholars such as

Kristern Stendahl and Bervard Childs, thought such a move jeopardized the normative status of

the OT. Instead, they argued that the canonical status of the OT created its normative nature.

The nature of one’s view of the OT text, as historical or story, descriptive or normative,

also informs one’s view of the main theme (center) of the OT. As such, the discussion of the

different proposed centers by which the OT should be read is the topic of Hasel’s next chapter.

The following table summarizes Hasel’s overview of the discussion:

Proposed Center Scholar (s)

1 Covenant Eichrodt
2 The holiness of God E. Sellin
3 God is the Lord Ludwig Kohler
4 Israel’s election as the people of God Hans Wildberger
5 Rulership of God Horst Seebass
6 Kingdom of God Gunther Klein
7 Rule of God and communion between God and Georg Fohrer
Man
8 Communion Vriezen
9 Yahweh the God of Israel, Israel the people of Wellhausen; Rudolf Smend
Yahweh
10 Deuteronomistic theology of history/God (Later) Von Rad
11 The First Commandment (Exod 20) W. H. Schmidt
12 You…Yahweh (Deut 26) in light of Exod 20 Walther Zimmerli
13 The book of Deuteronomy S. Herrmann
14 Election Wildberger
15 None (Early) Von Rad; P. Fannon; R. N.
Whybray; Claus Westermann
16 The universal dominion of Yahweh in Rolf Knierim
righteousness and justice
17 Righteousness Walter Dietrich
18 Theocentricity J. Lindblom
19 A dynamic God allows for multiple theologies Hasel
In regards the different proposed theories of the OT’s center, Hasel states near the beginning of

this chapter that “the problem remains whether or not any single concept should or can be

employed for bringing about the ‘structural unity of the OT message’ when the OT message

resists from within such systematization” (141). In other words, these theories claim that “the

multiform and multiplex OT materials in all their rich manifoldness will fit into and can be

systematically ordered and arranged by means of a center” (155). Thus, Hasel concludes that

there must be multiple theologies contained within the OT in order for one to grapple with the

dynamic God described within it.

One of the arguments in favor of Hasel’s conclusions is that OT scholars have wrongly

attempted to parallel the centralist nature of the NT to that of the OT. These scholars would

argue that since the NT is centered around Christ, the OT must be centered around a central

concept as well. Thus, Hasel’s next chapter deals with the relationship between the two

testaments. In this chapter, Hasel argues that the nature of the two testaments is not linear enough

to suggest such a parallel.

Though there are various views on the relationship between the OT and the NT, Hasel

only covers a few of them:

Theory Definition Scholar(s)

Law/Gospel The OT is a history of failure and is no longer Martin Luther; Rudolf
revelation for the Christian as the NT; only certain OT Bultmann; Friedrich
promises are related to the Christian. Baumgärtel;
Franz Hesse
OT Dominates the NT Only the OT is scripture and the NT demonstrates that Wilhelm Vischer; A.A.
the OT is true van Ruler
Proof and Result The OT is proof while the NT is the result Klaus Schwarzwäller
Typology Figures in the OT are prefiguration for NT counterparts Eichrodt; von Rad
Promise-Fulfillment The OT promises look forward to being fulfilled in the C. Westermann; W.
future (either within the OT, NT, or the eschaton) Zimmerli; von Rad
Multiplex Combines typology, promise-fulfillment, and salvation Hasel
history.
 Hasel then concludes his work with explaining how one might go about writing a

multiplex canonical theology of the OT. This chapter is generally just a more thorough

explanation of Hasel’s methodology for an OT theology as described on pages 111–114. Thus,

this final chapter only serves to remind the reader of something they read earlier in the book in

hopes of convincing them that Hasel is moving in the right direction.

Evaluation

Hasel’s work is and will continue to be known as a class for many years to come. This is

because of two main factors. First, Hasel provides an extensive bibliography of OT theological

works, which will be valuable to any student or scholar seeking to explore past works in the field

of OT theology. Second, Hasel overview of the field from its beginnings until the year 1991 is

comprehensive and seemingly exhaustive. Add to this, is that Hasel does not just note the

different views but actually demonstrates to the reader how each article, lecture, or book was

developed in response to the scholarship of the day. Such insights into a discussion of OT

theology is extremely helpful for any reader interested in the field.