A Theology of the New Testament

George Eldon Ladd

• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Year: 1993
• ISBN:
  9781467426435
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

Ladd's magisterial work on New Testament theology has well served thousands of seminary students since its publication in 1974. Enhanced and updated here by Donald A Hagner, this comprehensive, standard evangelical text now features augmented bibliographies and two completely new chapters on subjects that Ladd himself wanted to treat in a revised edition—the theology of each of the Synoptic Evangelists and the issue of unity and diversity in the New Testament—written, respectively, by R. T. France and David Wenham.

1. Introduction

A. The History of New Testament Theology

Literature: R. Bultmann, “The History of NT Theology as a Science,” Theology of the NT (1955), 2:241-51; K. Stendahl, “Biblical Theology,” IDB 1 (1962), 418-32 — see extensive bibliography; O. Betz, “History of Biblical Theology,” IDB 1 (1962), 432-37; R. C. Dentan, Preface to OT Theology (1963₂) — valuable for parallel movements in the Old Testament; D. H. Wallace, “Biblical Theology: Past and Future,” TZ (1963), 88-105; A. Richardson, “Present Issues in NT Theology,” ET 75 (1964), 109-12; A. M. Hunter, “Modern Trends in NT Theology,” in The NT in Historical and Contemporary Perspective, ed. H. Anderson and W. Barclay (1965), 133-48; G. E. Ladd, “History and Theology in Biblical Exegesis,” Int 20 (1966), 54-64; G. E. Ladd, “The Problem of History in Contemporary NT Interpretation,” StEv 5 (1968), 88-100; H. Conzelmann, “History of the Discipline,” An Outline of the Theology of the NT (1969), 3-8; M. Dibelius, “Biblical Theology and the History of Biblical Religion,” in Twentieth Century Theology in the Making, ed. J. Pelikan, 1 (1969), 23-31; B. S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (1970); G. E. Ladd, “The Search for Perspective,” Int 25 (1971), 41-62 — a defense of Heilsgeschichte; W. J. Harrington, The Path of Biblical Theology (1973); L. Goppelt, Theology of the NT (1981), 1:251-81; S. Neill and T. Wright, The Interpretation of the NT, 1861-1986 (1988). See also the bibliography on pp. 14f.

The Middle Ages

During the Middle Ages, biblical study was completely subordinated to ecclesiastical dogma. The theology of the Bible was used only to reinforce the dogmatic teachings of the church, which were founded upon both the Bible and church tradition. Not the Bible alone, historically understood, but the Bible as interpreted by church tradition was the source of dogmatic theology.

The Reformation

The reformers reacted against the unbiblical character of dogmatic theology and insisted that theology must be founded on the Bible alone. Dogmatics should be the systematic formulation of the teachings of the Bible. This new emphasis led to a study of the original languages of Scripture and to a consciousness of the role of history in biblical theology. The reformers insisted that the Bible should be interpreted literally and not allegorically, and this led to the beginnings of a truly biblical theology. However, the reformers’ sense of history was imperfect, and the Old Testament was often interpreted not in its own historical setting but in terms of New Testament truth. For instance, Calvin writes as though the Jews knew and understood, albeit imperfectly, the New Testament doctrine of Christ (Institutes II, vi, 4).

Orthodox Scholasticism

The gains in the historical study of the Bible made by the reformers were soon lost in the post-Reformation period, and the Bible was once again used uncritically and unhistorically to support orthodox doctrine. The Bible was viewed not only as a book free from error and contradiction but also without development or progress. The entire Bible was looked upon as possessing one level of theological value. History was completely lost in dogma, and philology became a branch of dogmatics.

The Rationalist Reaction

Biblical theology as a distinctive discipline is a product of the impact of the Enlightenment upon biblical studies. A new approach to the study of the Bible emerged in the eighteenth century that gradually freed itself altogether from all ecclesiastical and theological control and interpreted the Bible with “complete objectivity,” viewing it solely as a product of history. Several interrelated influences produced this movement. The rise of rationalism with its reaction against supernaturalism, the development of the historical method, and the rise of literary criticism led to the treatment of the biblical records viewed no longer as the Word of God, given by the inspiration of the Spirit, but as human historical records like any other ancient literature.

These influences led to the conclusion that scholarship was not to seek a theology in the Bible but only the history of religion. The Bible is a compilation of ancient religious writings that preserves the history of an ancient Semitic people, and is to be studied with the same presuppositions with which one studies other Semitic religions. This conclusion was first clearly articulated by J. P. Gabler, who in an inaugural address in 1787 distinguished sharply between biblical theology and dogmatic theology. The former must be strictly historical and independent of dogmatic theology, tracing the rise of religious ideas in Israel and setting forth what the biblical writers thought about religious matters. Dogmatic theology, on the other hand, makes use of biblical theology, extracting from it what has universal relevance and making use of philosophical concepts. Dogmatic theology is that which a particular theologian decides about divine matters, considered philosophically and rationally in accordance with the outlook and demand of his or her own age, but biblical theology is concerned solely with what people believed long ago.

Gabler was essentially a rationalist, and his approach to biblical theology prevailed for some fifty years. Works on the theology of the Bible were written by Kaiser (1813), De Wette (1813), Baumgarten-Crusius (1828), and von Cölin (1836). Some scholars of this period were extremely rationalistic, finding in the Bible religious ideas that were in accord with the universal laws of reason. Others tried to reconcile Christian theology with the thought forms of the modern period. While rationalism as such is long since passé, it is obvious that this basic approach to the study of the Bible is still used by modern scholarship; and even the evangelical scholar employs the historical method, although with limitations.

The Rise of the Philosophy of Religion

Rationalism was superseded under the influence of the idealist philosophy of Hegel (d. 1831), who saw the Absolute Idea or Absolute Spirit eternally manifesting itself in the universe and in human affairs. Hegel taught that the movement of human thought followed the dialectic pattern from a position (thesis) to an opposite position (antithesis); and from the interaction of these two emerged a new insight or aspect of reality (synthesis). Hegel saw in the history of religion the evolution of Spirit in its dialectical apprehension of the divine, from nature religions, through religions of spiritual individuality, to the Absolute Religion, which is Christianity.

Under the influence of Hegel, F. C. Baur abandoned the rationalistic effort to find timeless truth in the New Testament, but in its stead found in the historical movements in the early church the unfolding of wisdom and spirit. The teaching of Jesus formed the point of departure. Jesus’ teachings were not yet theology but the expression of his religious consciousness. Theological reflection began over the question of the Law. Paul, the first theologian, took the position that the Christian was freed from the Law (thesis). Jewish Christianity, represented particularly by James and Peter, took the opposite position, that the Law was permanently valid and must remain an essential element in the Christian church (antithesis).* Baur interpreted the history of apostolic Christianity in terms of this conflict between Pauline and Judaistic Christianity. Out of the conflict emerged in the second century the Old Catholic Church, which effected a successful harmonization between these two positions (synthesis).

Baur was less concerned with the truth of the Scriptures than with the effort to trace historical development. He has made a lasting contribution, for the principle that biblical theology is inseparably related to history is sound, even though Baur’s application of this principle is not. Baur’s interpretation gave rise to the so-called “Tübingen School,” which had great influence in German New Testament studies.

The Conservative Reaction

These new approaches to the study of the Bible naturally met with strong resistance in orthodox circles, not only from those who denied the validity of an historical approach but from those who tried to combine the historical approach with a belief in revelation. Influential was E. W. Hengstenberg’s Chris-tology of the OT (1829-35) and History of the Kingdom of God under the OT (1869-71). Hengstenberg saw little progress in revelation and made little distinction between the two testaments, and interpreted the prophets spiritually with little reference to history. A more historical approach was structured by J. C. K. Hofmann in a series of writings beginning in 1841 (Prophecy and Fulfillment). He attempted to vindicate the authority and inspiration of the Bible by historical means, developing his Heilsgeschichte (“history of salvation”) theology. Hofmann found in the Bible a record of the process of saving or holy history that aims at the redemption of all humanity. This process will not be fully completed until the eschatological consummation. He tried to assign every book of the Bible to its logical place in the scheme of the history of redemption. These scholars, who comprised the so-called “Erlangen School,” did not regard the Bible primarily as a collection of proof texts or a repository of doctrine but as the witness to what God had done in saving history. They held that the prepositional statements in Scripture were not meant to be an end in themselves nor an object of faith, but were designated to bear witness to the redemptive acts of God (cf. also J. A. Bengel and J. T. Beck).

The Erlangen school had great influence in conservative circles upon such scholars as F. A. G. Tholuck, T. Zahn, and P. Feine, and is represented in the theologies of F. Buchsel (1937), A. Schlatter (1909), and Ethelbert Stauffer (1941).¹ Stauffer rejects the “systems of doctrine” approach and does not try to trace the development of the Christian understanding of the person and work of Jesus. Rather, he presents a “Christocentric theology of history in the New Testament,” i.e., the theology of the plan of salvation enacted in New Testament history. The book has the defects of not distinguishing between canonical and noncanonical writings and of ignoring the variety of the several interpretations of the meaning of Christ in the New Testament.

A new form of the Heilsgeschichte theology has emerged in recent years, for there is a widespread recognition that revelation has occurred in redemptive history, and that Heilsgeschichte is the best key to understand the unity of the Bible. This will be developed later.

Liberalism and Historicism in New Testament Theology

Bultmann has pointed out that the logical consequence of Baur’s method would have been a complete relativism,² for the liberal mind could not conceive of absolute truth in the relativities of history (cf. Lessing’s “ugly ditch”). This was avoided by the influence of romanticism, by which personality is interpreted as a history-forming power. Under the influence of Ritschlian theology, the essence of Christianity was interpreted as a pure spiritual-ethical religion, which was proclaimed by and embodied in the life and mission of Jesus. The Kingdom of God is the highest good, the ethical ideal. The heart of religion is personal fellowship with God as Father.

This theological interpretation was reinforced by the solution of the Synoptic problem with its discovery of the priority of Mark and the hypothetical document, Q. Scholars of this “old liberalism” believed that in these most primitive documents, historical science had at last discovered the true Jesus, freed from all theological interpretation. Biblical theologians of this school began with this “historical” picture of the ethical religion of Jesus and then traced the diverse systems of doctrine (Lehrbegriffe) that emerged as the result of later reflection and speculation. The great classic of this school is H. J. Holtzmann’s Lehrbuch der NT Theologie (1896-97, 1911₂). Paul Wernle’s The Beginning of Our Religion (1903-4) is another illustration. Adolf von Harnack’s What Is Christianity? (1901) is a classic statement of this liberal view.

This “old liberal” approach influenced even conservative writers. Both B. Weiss (Theology of the NT, 1868, Eng. 1903) and W. Beyschlag (NT Theology, 1891, Eng. 1895) interpreted Jesus primarily in spiritual terms, placing great emphasis upon the centrality of the Fatherhood of God. These men are conservative in that they recognize the reality of revelation and the validity of the canon; but their picture of Jesus shares the features of liberalism. They also employ the “systems of doctrine” method, Weiss going so far as to discover four different periods of theological development in Paul, which he treats separately. This approach is found in English in the writings of Orello Cone, The Gospel and Its Earliest Interpreters (1893); G. B. Stevens, The Theology of the NT (1899); E. P. Gould, The Biblical Theology of the NT (1900); and A. C. Zenos, The Plastic Age of the Gospel (1927). The same method is used by even more conservative writers in Germany, such as T. Zahn, Grundriss der NT Theologie (1932) and P. Feine, Theologie des NT (1910, 1950).

The Victory of Religion over Theology

Along with liberalism developed the religionsgeschichte Schule (“history-of-religions school”). Liberalism found the distinctive element in biblical theology in the simple ethical teachings of Jesus. While its representatives paid some attention to the influence of the religious environment of early Christianity (Holtzmann’s theology devoted 120 pages to sketching Jewish and Hellenistic backgrounds), yet the essence of Christianity was treated as something unique. Holtzmann does recognize Hellenistic influences on Paul.

Otto Pfleiderer presaged a new approach. The first edition of Das Urchristentum (1887) took the same position as Harnack and Holtzma...