In part 1 of this series attention was given to a number of factors that led in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to a decline of interest in the study of the theology of the Bible. By the 1920's and 1930's it was a widely held opinion among Protestant scholars that to derive a unified theology from the Bible was impossible. Historical and literary studies also had led to the conclusion that the Old Testament presents a wide variety of types of religion and theological thinking, each of which the theologian must study for himself, but that he must not expect to find in Scripture a unity that he can make the basis of his own doctrinal system.
The past twenty years have seen a striking reversal of this point of view, and once more many of the world's leading theologians are looking to the Bible as the basis for their theological thought. In the paragraphs to follow we shall consider a number of the factors that have brought about this change.
Failure of Liberalism
The first factor to be mentioned is the failure of religious liberalism to provide a dynamic solution to the problems that face mankind. Nineteenth-century optimism, with its convictions that the world was gradually growing morally better, has been shattered by the horrors of two world wars and the appalling dilemma in which mankind finds itself today. Along with this secular liberalism, theological liberalism has also, to a large extent, passed from the center of attention. Strange though it may seem, in the eyes of theologians today, religious modernism tends to be looked upon as old-fashioned. Most theologians now work under the conviction that man must have access to a power and must live under a standard not to be found wholly in himself.
This disillusionment with liberalism, however, would not have been sufficient in itself to bring about the return to the Bible had it not been for a number of positive factors that have shown many of the attitudes of the past generation toward the Bible to be no longer tenable.
One of the most important of these positive factors is a new faith in the Bible as the record of divine revelation. Foremost among theologians who have emphasized this point of view is the eminent Swiss professor, Karl Barth (1886-- ). While it would be a mistake to
say that for Barth the Bible as a book is divine revelation, yet he sees the Scriptures as the foundation of Christian theology. In his view God has revealed Himself once and for all in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ the Word is divine revelation. Although a strictly human writing, the Scriptures are nevertheless, under the Holy Spirit, a unique witness to God's revelation in Christ. Thus they occupy for the Christian a position that no other writing or tradition can hold, and only they can stand as the basis of Christian theology. This point of view makes it possible for Barth to admit the conclusions of higher criticism, and at least many of the ideas of the history-of-religions school, as having reference to the human aspects of Scripture only, and still to maintain the Bible and its authority as the focal point of Christian theology.'
Unity of Scripture
A second positive factor in the revival of Biblical theology has been a new recognition of the unity of Scripture. The older liberal scholarship had concluded that it is impossible to find significant unifying motifs in the Old and New Testaments. Now that picture has changed. The newer theologians no longer concern themselves with the contradictions of detail in the Bible that loomed so large in the thinking of the nineteenth century. Rather, the unity that is perceived today is a unity of leading motifs, and particularly of motifs that have to do with the doctrine of salvation. For the Old Testament the name of Walther Eichrodt (1890--), of the University of Basel, is particularly important in this respect.' He sees the unity of the Old Testament in the concept of the covenant between Jehovah and Israel. The outline of Old Testament theology for him is the history of that covenant. This is a particularly important insight, because for the Christian, history of the covenant is also the history of the outworking of the plan of salvation.
In connection with the unity of the New Testament a number of names must be mentioned. C. H. Dodd (1884-- ), of Cambridge University, has pointed out that an important factor unifying the New Testament is the kerygma, the proclamation of the earliest Christian preachers, especially as recorded in the first part of Acts. The central message of these earliest Christian sermons is that Jesus, under the power of the Holy Spirit, exercised a miraculous ministry, after which He was crucified and buried; rose again from the dead, ascended on high, and sat down at the right hand of God; and that thus He has procured. salvation for men, shedding on them the Holy Spirit.' This kerygma is also the outline of the Gospels and the central message of Paul. Another unifying motif in the New Testament has been pointed out by the French New Testament scholar. Oscar Cullmann (1902- ), whose recent visit to the United States has attracted wide attention. Cullmann has emphasized the continuity of redemptive history in the New Testament. Redemptive history may be defined as the outworking of the plan of salvation. Cullmann is concerned to demonstrate that the New Testament views history as a continuum, with the cross as its center and the Second Advent as its culmination. The period between these points is characterized by a continuing but assuredly successful struggle with evil, and it is dominated by the Lordship of Christ.' According to Cullrnann's view, the New Testament writers quite consistently see the church of their time and its activities in terms of redemptive history. This is, of course, also the understanding of Seventh-day Adventists.
From a different point of view Rudolf Bultmann (1884- ), of Marburg University in Germany, has thought to find unity in the New Testament. This he sees not so much in a unity of expressed concepts as in a common concern of the New Testament to set forth in a great variety of ways the idea that the existential tension in which man finds himself can be resolved in Jesus Christ. Bultmann takes this as the central message of the New Testament and understands it to be proclaimed in many different myths—for him a myth is whatever involves the supernatural—which must be "demythologized" to unveil their real meaning for the Christian.5
From a much more conservative point of view the Swedish theologian Bo Reicke (1914-- ) has emphasized that the unifying factor in the New Testament which transcends all seeming disunity is the person of Jesus Christ and the salvation to be found in Him.' Although these varying views concerning the unity of the New Testament are not always mutually complementary, and sometimes stand in sharp conflict with one another (as, for instance, those of Cullmann and Bultmann), yet both singly and together they demonstrate the new conviction that the New Testament is unified by themes that are central to the Christian message, and that it deserves therefore to stand at the base of Christian theology.
Contribution of Biblical Archeology
Still another positive factor that has aided in bringing about a return to the Bible has been the contribution of Biblical archeology. In this
field the name of W. F. Albright (1891- ), emeritus professor at the Johns Hopkins University, is paramount. Although archeology can never prove the Bible to be the word of God—because archeology deals with human artifacts and questions of human history and the inspiration of Scripture is a spiritual matter—nevertheless, excavations in the Near East have gone far to establish the essential reliability of much of the Old Testament as a respectable historical source. It would be a mistake to think that archeology has disproved the principle of higher criticism—most Biblical archeologists are also higher critics. But what it has done is to show that the extreme conclusions of the older critics were frequently unwarranted. This has helped to convince many that the Bible, and especially the Old Testament, deserves serious scholarly consideration.
New View of History
The final factor to be mentioned is the new view of history that characterizes much of both historical and theological thinking today. In the nineteenth century, historians, with their great faith in human reason, strove for completely impartial, objective history. The dean of German historians of the last century, Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886), epitomized this by his famous dictum that the historian should portray an even wie es eigentlich gewesen 1st ("as it actually happened"). His record of the past was to be quite detached from any characteristic point of view or burden to demonstrate a particular idea. Nowhere in Scripture, of course, are events recorded in this way. Old Testament history is dominated by the thought of God's leadership and rulership of His people. The four Gospels and the book of Acts reveal that they were primarily written for an evangelistic purpose. By the older canons of historical writing, Biblical history did not rate highly because it was not objective. But again the picture has changed. Although still stressing the absolute necessity of factual accuracy in historical writing, historians now recognize the impossibility of utter detachment from a personal point of view. Of necessity every writer brings his own mental and emotional structure to the subject concerning which he writes. He reflects his own environment and focuses on his own interests. Not only is this inevitable, it is also desirable, for only thus does written history live and breathe. Biblical history viewed from the standpoint of the plan of salvation thus achieves its true meaning because it is written from a spiritual point of view and for the purpose of witnessing to divine revelation.
Theologians today frequently distinguish between redemptive history and secular history. Redemptive history—the outworking of the divine plan of salvation—is recorded in the Bible; secular history is the record of the events of mankind's existence seen without religious interpretation. Thus while these two kinds of history have an indissoluble relationship to each other, and converge in the person of Jesus Christ, they are not exactly the same and should not be confused. Theologians who hold this view feel that it is unjust to criticize the Bible adversely—in its capacity as a witness to redemptive history—simply because its narrative seems at times to contradict the findings of secular history. From their standpoint these two kinds of history cannot be compared critically because they are not in the same category.
What can this revival of interest in Biblical theology mean to Seventh-day Adventists? It is obvious, of course, that any awakening of concern for the message of Scripture is significant for a people whose doctrines are as Biblically based as are those of Adventists. Thus far the Advent message has made comparatively little impact on the learned theological
world. However, a renewed interest in the Bible brings us closer together, and makes fruitful intercommunication between Adventists and leading world theologians both possible and profitable. At the same time it would be a seri• ous mistake to think that the current trend in Biblical theology is a return either to the Protestant orthodoxy of the seventeenth century or to fundamentalism as it is found in large areas of American religious life. The new Biblical theology rejects verbal inspiration, accepts higher criticism, and makes room for biological evolution. But it is Scripture-based and Christ-centered, and this is the significant fact that makes possible conversation between it and Seventh-day Adventists. In preparing ourselves for such conversation we must know both what Adventists hold as doctrine and what the new Biblical theology presupposes and concludes from its study of Scripture. With such preparation, Adventist ministers can look forward to fruitful contact with the newer generation of theologically educated Protestants.
