Systematic Theology - Seeing the Bible as a Whole.

What is systematic theology?

A systematic theology is one of the many helps to trace the statements of the Bible. A systematic theology wants to systematically grasp why the whole Bible is about – it wants to learn to recognize and understand the Bible holistically. The attempt to understand the Bible coherently manifests itself, for example, in the thematic treatment of topics throughout the Bible. In this way, connecting elements or even developments can be identified.

“Systematic theology” is the attempt to understand the Bible coherently.

While a “biblical theology” intends to follow and understand the statements of the Bible as far as possible in its context, systematic theology is concerned with grasping larger contexts. The fact that this way of looking at things is possible in principle has to do with the fact that the Bible has a historical context, and many books are told as historical developments. (If you think at this point that this would be different, let it stand as a statement from the Bible text once so, for the purpose of this contribution).

The Bible itself was written over a period of about 1500 years and there were about 40 authors who helped write it. Their backgrounds and personal stories could not be more different. The accounts of the origin of humankind, God’s dealings with Abraham, the people of Israel, and the expectation of a king and messiah, the expectation of salvation for Israel and the other peoples reach into the New Testament era.

In the New Testament – so it is testified – fulfillment and outlook come together in the person of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God and the Son of Man. There are innumerable cross-references between the Tenach (the Old Testament) and the Greek writings of the so-called New Testament. Quotations, interpretations, links of stories, outlooks, and prophecies. How can this abundance be simplified?

These are the questions that a systematic theology deals with. An outline is made of God’s time and God’s word, in which not only connecting but also separating elements are given a place. Because it is not about individual Bible passages, but about an understanding “from beginning to end”. Naturally, a systematic theology therefore also touches on various sub-areas of theology, such as soteriology (doctrine of salvation) or eschatology (“doctrine of the last things”), among others.

A coherent understanding of the Bible has great practical significance. It is precisely the power of a systematic theology to recognize the “here and now” as “part of God’s action.” It helps to recognize and interpret our time and our being as part of the world and part of God’s activity. How and in what way this is achieved depends, of course, on the respective approach and understanding.

Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism

Systematic theology of significance exists predominantly in two approaches: Covenant Theology (Reformed) and Evangelical Dispensationalism. Both approaches are briefly explained here. However, it should not be concealed that there are many intermediate forms and variants.

More important than the historical and “technical” differences and their justifications seems to me the fundamental understanding around the two approaches. Because there is something to learn from both.

1. covenant theology

Covenant theology sees God’s action in the history of the world as a series of covenants that can be traced like a thread through the Bible. So, it is always about the relationship between God and man, which can be recognized in different times under different covenants. For covenant theology, the continuity of God’s action is central.

The best-known exponent of this direction is Reformed covenant theology (also: federal theology from Latin foedus, “covenant,” or covenant theology). The Christian division of the Bible into “Old Testament” (translated from the Hebrew term “Old Covenant”) and “New Testament” (“New Covenant”) is due to this theological interpretation. Thereby, the Old Testament would be, so to speak, for the Old Covenant or for Israel, the New Testament for the New Covenant, namely for the Church. Covenant theology sees continuity as linear, meaning that one is replaced by the other. The alliances are not parallel, but follow one after the other.

This interpretation has the consequence that the people of the Old Covenant (Israel) are replaced by the people of the New Covenant (Church). Israel as “God’s people” was replaced by today’s church. From this point of view, it is difficult to see a future for Israel that is still blessed by God, even though this is reported in the Bible. Rather, the church is seen as “spiritual Israel” or “the true Israel” and even as the inheritor of the promises to Israel. Those who see themselves in this tradition often portray Christianity as “God’s people,” even though the church today is not a people in the sense that Israel is.

Comparison

If history is presented as a road, in covenant theology there is a single car driving on that road. In case of a change of the federation (new federation), not the vehicle but merely the driver is changed. The new driver therefore drives the old vehicle and gets on with it. The previous passengers must get off (or may still ride in the back seat).

2 Dispensationalism

Dispensationalism sees God’s action as a series of time periods called dispensations or administrations, each with its own character. It is always a matter of recognizing the specific character of the time being written about. More than in covenant theology, the text is understood and interpreted from the immediate context.

Among other things, a dispensationalist distinguishes between a time of law and a time of grace. Just as keeping the Mosaic Law was decisive for the people of Israel, today’s church is under the sign of grace. Continuity in dispensationalism is superior to the individual periods of time. Dispensationalism sees continuity in God’s action from the perspective of development and considering the differences of the various times. More generally, time is an important aspect in dispensationalism. The history of God with mankind is interpreted as a history of salvation that comes to completion through different times.

Dispensationalism comes in many varieties. Dispensationalism is often traced back to John Nelson Darby. The latter has developed a “system” from 7 recognized different times (as in “Systematic Theology”), with which the Bible can be read more easily in its own light. However, Darby was by no means the first to recognize different times in the Bible, nor is “his” system the only one. There are also interpretations with 3, 8 or 12 administrations.

What really defines dispensationalism is not the number of administrations, but the ability to distinguish times. One can distance oneself from the theological distinctiveness of a John Darby, but still share all the essentials of dispensationalism. Eschatological interpretations and directions such as “premillenianism” or “postmillenianism”, as cultivated in many free churches, are dispensationalist statements already in name. Most free churches have a dispensationalist basis, even if one is not aware of it or no pronounced Darby-style eschatology is taught.

Comparison

When history is presented as a road, in the understanding of dispensationalism, different cars drive on the road. You may be driving different sections of the same road. At times – depending on the understanding – even several cars can drive on the road. The sections have different landscapes and also the roads are not always the same condition. When a new era begins, a whole new car may be put on the road, with a new driver or even an old driver – or even both. In the understanding of many dispensationalists, the car of Israel is currently broken down, while believers from the non-Israeli peoples (who up to this point in biblical history tended to sit in the spectator stands) are today traveling as a carpool in an entirely new vehicle. The expectation is that defects in all the companions will still be repaired so that all the cars can complete the journey according to plan.

Israel and the community

A significant theme in the Bible – and therefore also in systematic theology – is Israel. The Bible speaks of Israel almost throughout, not only in the Old Testament (the Tenach) but also in the New Testament. Jesus was a Jew. The apostles were all Jews. The first church in Jerusalem was a thoroughly Jewish community, waiting for the fulfillment of the promises to the prophets.

Anyone who reads the Bible cannot avoid Israel. The various theological approaches can even be divided according to how the position is understood by Israel and the other peoples. Where the church is seen as a substitute for the people of Israel (substitution theology), this is usually a consequence of covenant theology. Dispensationalism, on the other hand, usually sees the Christian community and Israel as two separate groups and still sees a God-filled future for Israel – even though there are major differences of interpretation on the detailed issues. Karl Barth, as a Reformed theologian, saw a synthesis in this question, for example, and saw that Jesus Christ fulfilled the “undeclared covenant with Israel” and thus included all of humanity in the message of salvation.

Directly linked to the understanding of Israel is also the understanding of the church. Whoever sees himself as a substitute of Israel also makes the reverse conclusion: Wherever Israel is written, it is (directly, or in a figurative sense) also about the church. It should therefore come as no surprise that in conservative Calvinist churches, for example, the 10 Commandments are understood as pillars of church doctrine. In contrast, dispensationalism sees the church as separate from Israel and usually places the beginning of the church in Acts. Depending on dispensationalist coinage, the church begins in Acts 2 (Pentecost), Acts 9 or 13 (Paul’s calling or setting apart for ministry), or even at the conclusion of Acts. The purpose of this article is not to evaluate one view or another, but only to provide an introductory and simplified overview.

By the way, it is not as clear as it is separated here in most traditions, churches and communities. Many see the beginning of the church already in the Gospels, coinciding with the appearance of Jesus. However, it is obvious that the focus there is still entirely on the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises to Israel (Rom 15:8) and a church of all nations is not an issue.

Eschatology and misinterpretations

It has already been pointed out that a systematic theology inevitably touches on questions concerning the end times. The Bible speaks about future events. That is why in all theological directions there is eschatology as “teaching about the last things”. A systematic theology, however, is not to be confused with an eschatology. They touch, but are not congruent. However, systematic theology provides important help for the development of eschatology because it can provide context for eschatology. So I guess the two are linked in a meaningful way.

Systematic theology, once it has arrived at a holistic picture, will contribute significantly to the interpretation of end-time events. It is therefore remarkable that such important reformers as Martin Luther and John Calvin were both unable to make a clear statement on the book of Revelation. The book somehow did not fit in one’s understanding. Perhaps this may be interpreted to mean that their understanding of the last things was hindered by their systematic theology. Their systematic understanding of the Bible could shed light on some passages, but as a tool for other parts of the Bible, it was not an aid to understanding.

Dispensationalism is similarly imperfect. The approaches from dispensationalism are excellent for schematizing biblical contexts (such as in Clarence Larkin’s overviews). Simplification by Differentiation is both the strength of this approach and at the same time its greatest weakness. The seduction lies in giving the schematic representation the same authority as the Bible and making the inference that the Bible must behave as the representation has drawn it. This also immediately indicates that it is not the approach of dispensationalism that is to be criticized here, but the conclusions that are made based on the presentation. It is then nothing more than a tradition through which the Bible is read and interpreted. Other traditions also show these symptoms.

It is not the approach of dispensationalism that is to be criticized here, but the inferences that are made based on the presentation.

From Henry Louis Mencken comes the quote: “For every problem there is a solution that is simple, clear and wrong”. This is not a flaw of the dispensationalist view alone, but it can be well illustrated there. The graphic representations look so beautiful – therefore they must be true! They tempt to understand the world schematically, to elaborate the recognized differences into a separation, even if they are not in an absolute sense.

Some calculate biblical years to fix the Second Coming of Christ to one year. Then it should be asked whether the conclusions do not overshoot the target of consideration. Although critical questioning is appropriate, the other side should not remain unmentioned: It is the clear structures and references from the Bible that stimulate thought and sometimes make an examination of the text possible in the first place.

Ways into the word

If we consider systematic theology as one of several imperfect helps, we can understand them as ways into the Word. No view is to be recognized simply as “the” truth, but all show aspects of the biblical narratives. Paul wrote: “But test everything, holding fast what is good!” (1Thess 5,21).

Is everything somehow equivalent now? Not at all. In my search for a consistent good understanding of the Bible, I have found the best help in the different varieties of dispensationalism. I had many questions and went through many a topic searching and comparing. It was not crucial what kind of scheme was being shown at the time, and I in no way felt pressured to adopt a particular view uncritically. Rather, it was a matter of understanding the text in its own context.

Clear dispensationalist approaches aim to view the Bible in its own light. If a theology, however shaped, helps to let the Bible speak for itself, then I benefit from the context shown. Therefore, good things can often be taken away from other approaches as well. This view naturally requires a learning culture that is open to a differentiated view.

Doctrines and theologies are summaries and as such they only represent the understanding of the writer – as does this article. However, if we succeed in uncovering biblical connections, then the approaches of systematic theology are useful “ways into the Word.” They should serve to make the Bible more transparent and to look at it in a more differentiated way.

Today, these approaches are all the more important because churches and congregations rarely teach sound biblical foundations anymore. Churchgoers and parishioners – if they do not set out on their own – no longer experience connections, but only fragments. This is a need of this time, which becomes recognizable through loss of a spiritual horizon and loss of spiritual depth. Israel already had to struggle with this (cf. Hos 4:6).

Suggestions for conversation

Why is it important to have a coherent understanding of the Bible?
Does your church or community value a more profound understanding of the Bible? Why is that?
Does your church or community have a culture of learning?
Are different doctrinal approaches discussed openly and without inhibitions in your church or congregation?
What would be desirable in your church or community in terms of biblical teaching?
Why does Paul write in Colossians “pray at the same time also for us, that God would open to us a door of the word, to speak the mystery of Christ”(Col. 4:2-3)? Was this prayer necessary?