An Essay on the Unity and Diversity of Scripture

Unity and Diversity: Their Role in Biblical Theology

A Paper
Presented to
Dr. Sheets, Ph.D.
In partial fulfillment of the requirements of
Bthb529 Foundations of Biblical Theology

Benjamin E. Rainey, Jr.
June 30, 2006

INTRODUCTION
Biblical Theology, the discipline of theology that seeks to examine the overarching themes of Scripture, is challenged by an issue that has only been significant over the last two centuries. The debate has been coined “Unity and Diversity”. This debate fundamentally regards the reliability of the Bible. It is predicated on the notion that if the Bible is shown errant as a whole, or even portions shown to be fallacious then the theological system of man knowing God can be shattered.
The issue is contested hotly among believers and non-believers alike. These debates focus on what Scripture says in comparison and contrast to itself. The topic of unity and diversity rouses the interest of any sapient scholar attempting to know God’s revelation to man.
Unity and diversity are opposite ends of the same continuum. This essay seeks to understand if Scripture agrees and disagrees, and what impact that has on theology. The implications of this discussion are tantamount to the debate. It is a subject engaged by many. Bible scholars and atheists observe the intricacies of unity and diversity to bolster their polemics.
A preliminary piece of this discussion is a statement about the canon. The canon is the listing of books allowed in the Bible. This is important because attention should be given to the fact that scholars selected which books would be canonized. These men could have unified specific parts of theology by limiting the canon to only those books that agree decidedly in perspective and theme. It has been noted that it was to our benefit that this was not done. David Rhoads wrote, “Diversity is fundamental to the biblical witness. The later Christians who decided which writings to include in the Christian canon were well aware of the differences among the books they selected.”[1] They took into consideration the author’s affect and perspective which shapes the scripture as they were “carried along”[2].
In setting up this discussion further, the issues of unity and diversity should be understood respectively, in order to gain a standard in application of each side in this debate of Biblical Theology. Unity had been the majority position for theologians until the Enlightment. “Throughout most of the history of the church, the unity of Scripture has been assumed and its diversity taken less seriously.”[3] The unity position focuses on the agreement of scripture while downplaying its differences resorting to allegorizing or dismissing the differences, no matter how irrationally.
The problem facing the unity position is diversity. Paul Hanson asserts, “The diversity of biblical tradition, like the subjective dimension in every biblical confession, can be regarded either as a stumbling block in the way of the Bible’s contributing to contemporary understanding or as a great opportunity and challenge.”[4]
Stumbling block or not, it definitely has positioned itself in opposition. “The last 200 years of biblical interpretation have been dominated by claims that there are irreconcilable conflicts among the authors of Scripture, and by theories of the tradition history of both Testaments that conflict with the data presupposed by the canonical form of the Scriptures themselves.”[5] Are the differences irreconcilable? The answer lies in a look at the Scripture. A decision can be made by seeing examples of its unity and diversity.

MAJOR UNIFYING THEMES OF SCRIPTURE
Unifying themes are the focus of Biblical Theology. Some themes run continuously through scripture, others only sporadically. Many theologians weigh in on the subject of the central theme of scripture. I believe that many would agree with the assessment that the major themes include Kingdom and Covenant.
Kingdom is one of the strongest themes. Beginning in the Genesis, God begins to construct His Kingdom on Earth. The fall of man brings separation and division between man and God. God therefore begins His work of redeeming the relationship with man He desired. This theme is carried through the institution of God’s chosen people, Israel, into and out of captivity in Egypt, to their land where they set up a capital and kingdom. The book of Judges, for instance, shows that God’s people were not intended to exist independently; without a King the people did what was right in their own eyes.[6]. The intent was for this Kingdom to have a leader, and it was always God’s intent to be their King. The figures of Father, Deliverer, and King were shown through the patriarchs like, Abraham, Moses, and David. But each of these were foreshadows of Christ coming to usher in God’s Kingdom. The Prophets of the exile of Israel continued this theme of the Kingdom’s restoration, and in the birth of Jesus Christ the eternal King comes. His leaving is for the good of the church, as the Holy Spirit makes each believer a proclaimer of the Kingdom come near.[7] Finally, one day Christ will return and will usher in a new heaven and new earth and will establish His Kingdom forever.
The theme of Covenants also brings us a completely unified theme. God began covenanting with mankind through Adam and Eve. The shedding of blood was a symbol used elsewhere in biblical covenants. The slaughter of animals at the time of the curse, in addition to providing clothing, was also part of the covenant that God was making to redeem mankind.[8] He continued with the covenant of Noah.[9] God saved Noah and his family, covenanted against destroying the Earth by flood, and to continue to bring redemption to mankind. The covenant was made with Abraham to become the father of a great nation, and that through his seed the nations would be blessed.[10] God instituted a covenant with Moses at Sinai, and He prescribed the law by which they would have to live to be redeemed.[11] Finally, God sent Christ to be the fulfillment of the law, and established a new covenant in Christ’s blood of redemption which Christ said would be completed in the Kingdom.[12]

PERCIEVED CONTRASTING THEMES
Diversity in contrast has been cited by exponents as causing problems for an overly simplified view of unity. There are contrasting themes, primarily because not all writers were writing about the same themes. The thematic differences cause much of the problem with diversity. Authors who were writing to specific audiences and occasions were not trying to carry on the theme of other authors. J. G. McConville finds an explanation among the diversity of themes in the idea that in some cases Scripture is descriptive and at other times prescriptive.[13] To compare the description of some passages in scripture with the prescription of others is wide of the mark. The perspective and intent of the author plays a major role; to only look at the text in a literal form is to miss the impact of the author’s work.
The gospels hold a major source of diversity, and are the most critical area to deal with, as they contain the fulfillment of so many themes in Biblical Theology. The Christ story is contained in the gospels. The diversity issues led I. Howard Marshall to describe it this way:
“The Gospels can be compared to a picture by an old Master which has progressively disappeared under a series of layers of varnish, touching-up paint and dust, and the task to the Scholar is to remove the layers one by one with infinite care in order to remove the hidden Masterpiece. This simile is very much a simplification of a complex problem.”[14]
The diversity among the gospels stems from controversy regarding conflicting words of Christ, locations and chronology of events.
A broader example of diversity comes from the theme of God. John Goldingay wrote, “Since the OT’s [Old Testament] concern is Israel as the people of God, a further unifying strand in its thinking is God Himself.”[15] This however, leads to a diversity issue. Some have contended that the God of the Old Testament is angry and vindictive. This is a stark contrast to the God of love presented in Christ and the apostolic writings.
The issue is a perception of conflicting theology, however when closely investigated, God’s character is unified. Clinton McCann cites an early text from Exodus 34:6-7 which describes God’s mercy and enduring love. “This text alone should sufficiently dispel the widely held belief that the God of the Old Testament is a vengeful, wrathful God.”[16]

THE ROLE OF PROGRESSIVE REVELATION
An integral part of biblical interpretation, especially in light of the unity and diversity debate, is the role of progressive revelation. Bloomberg writes, “God’s progressive revelation allows for development of scripture in numerous ways.”[17] Progressive revelation shows an expanding understanding of God’s plan revealed in a broader way throughout the story of the Bible. I do not mean to insinuate that it is tidy and linearly expressed, but rather as the course of time plays out there is greater and greater understanding with regards to the Scriptures. There is never a time when we have the full story. Everything continues to be revealed right through Christ and beyond to the eschatological prophecies, which have yet to be revealed.
Israel did not have the whole story. “The Bible gives us fundamentals of faith. It cannot be read as a flat surface of uniform teaching, nor as an evenly developing progressive revelation. There are peaks and valleys in Scripture, in both Testaments.”[18] The apostles did not have the whole story, and we do not have the full story today, but God is revealing it. D.A. Carson said, “Study each corpus of the Scripture in its own right, especially with respect to its place in the history of God’s unfolding revelation.”[19] To focus only on individual areas of diversity with a great understanding of their theme, and in light of God’s progressive revelation is folly. The Old Testament is an incomplete book fulfilled in Christ’s Coming. The New Testament is also incomplete, fulfilled in Christ’s coming again.
It is through progressive revelation that we sort through the diversity to the unified story God is revealing. Gabriel Fackre wrote, “The conservative portion of unitive infallibility assumes that oneness of the message of salvation found through scripture. The ‘progressive revelation’ in the Bible does not call into question the harmony of all biblical teaching.”[20]

CONCLUSION
The unified themes of Scripture, the diversity of portions of it, and the application of progressive revelation can bring into perspective the Bible in its full light. We need not be fearful of the Diversity contingent; we need to see all of scripture for what it is. “The key to a proper appreciation of the diversity in Biblical Theology, therefore, is to interpret each book as a literary integrity in its own right, in the light of the unique circumstances and purpose that generated it, and of antecedent Scripture and other relevant historical background.”[21]
For all the discussion and research, I find that biblical authority is strengthened when among so many authors, from differing walks of life, backgrounds, and eras all writing diversely with specific messages to specific audiences, God reveals united themes throughout them. Unity and diversity are not polar opposites. Rather, they belong together in a complimentary relationship with one another.

Works Cited

Bloomberg Craig, L. “The Unity and Diversity of Scripture.” Rosner, Brian S., T. Desmond Alexander, et.al. eds. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity & Diversity of Scripture. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2000.

Carson, D.A and John D. Woodbridge, eds. Scripture and Truth. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1983.

Dunn, James D.G. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. Philadelphia, PA: the
Westminster Press, 1977.

Fackre, Gabriel J. 1989. “Evangelical Hermeneutics: Commonality and Diversity”.
Interpretation 43 (April): 117-129.

Goldingay, John. Theological Diversity And The Authority Of The Old Testament.
Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987.

Hanson, Paul D. The Diversity Of Scripture: A Theological Interpretation. Philadelphia,
PA: Fortress Press, 1982.

Marshall, I. Howard. I Believe In The Historical Jesus. Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Bible
Publishers Inc., 2002.

McCann, J Clinton, Jr. 2003. “The hermeneutics of grace: discerning the Bible’s single
plot”. Interpretation 57 (January): 5-15.

Packer, James I. 1982. “Upholding the unity of Scripture today”. Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 25 (December): 409-414.

Rhoads, David. The Challenge of Diversity. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1996.

Sabourin, Leopold. The Bible and Christ: the unity of the two testaments. Staten Island,
NY: Alba House, 1980.

The Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996
[1] David Rhoads. The Challenge of Diversity, (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Fortress, 1996), 3.

[2] 2 Peter 1:19-21

[3] Craig Bloomberg, “The Unity and Diversity of Scripture.” New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity & Diversity of Scripture. Rosner, Brian S., T. Desmond Alexander, et.al. eds. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 64.

[4] Paul Hanson, The Diversity of Scripture: A Theological Interpretation. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fortress Press, 1982), 10.
[5] Bloomberg, 65.

[6] Judges 21:25
[7] Acts 1:6-8

[8] Genesis 3:16-21

[9] Genesis 8:20-22

[10] Genesis 15,18:18

[11] Exodus 19-20

[12] Matthew 26:27-29
[13] Bloomberg, 70

[14] I. Howard Marshall, I Believe In The Historical Jesus. (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Bible Publishers Inc., 2002), 144.

[15] John Goldingay, Diversity And The Authority Of The Old Testament. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 32.

[16] J. Clinton McCann, Jr., “The hermeneutics of grace: discerning the Bible’s single plot”. Interpretation (January, 2003): 8.

[17] Bloomberg, 71.

[18] Gabriel Fackre, “Evangelical hermeneutics: commonality and diversity”. Interpretation. (April, 1989): 125.

[19] D. A. Carson, and John Woodbridge, eds. Scripture and Truth. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1983), 69.

[20] Fackre, 125

[21] Bloomberg, 70