A couple of weeks ago I engaged in a comparison of Daniel 7-12 and 1 Enoch. It was an amazing journey into the world of academic scholarship. So many interesting views flying around, yet so little voice from the conservative corner. I wondered what happened to the reformed evangelical voice…?
Well, tonight I read something encouraging from EJ Young from an old Themelios journal in 1963 entitled: “Some Thoughts on Old Testament Scholarship”. Here’s a really, really interesting and encouraging passage:
“One cannot take too seriously the claims of Scripture to be the Word of God. Hence, the exegete must always take into consideration the biblical theological significance of the passage which he is studying. Now, Biblical theology is a term that is bandied about quite frequently these days; there is good biblical theology and there is bad, and the bad, of course, is not really biblical theology at all. True biblical theology is concerned with the study of divine revelation in the various epochs or periods of redemptive history. It is this basic point which must be kept in proper emphasis. Even some conservatives seem principally concerned to find Christ everywhere in the Old Testament. In a certain sense, of course, Christ is everywhere, but we must certainly be on guard against a reversion to allegorical interpretation. Concern for biblical theology in biblical proportions, however, will prove a great asset for interpretation of the Scriptures.
Not only is concern for biblical theory essential, but it is also essential that we consider in our interpretation each verse in the wider context of the entire Scripture. In true study of Scripture the analogy of Scripture must ever be brought into play. To state this in slightly different terms, we must study and know systematic theology. With the advent of the neo-orthodox emphases genuine systematic theology has fallen into disrepute in some circles. This, of course, is to be expected, for in its very nature systematic theology presupposes that the entire Bible is the Word of God, and that is a position which neo-orthodox, despite its frequent assertions, does not really take seriously. Possibly systematic theology has fallen into disrepute because it is not really understood by many. We are not concerned in the true study of systematic theology merely to state that a certain doctrine was held by Calvin and Luther – but to discover what the Bible has to say about these doctrines. What, for example, is the teaching of the Bible on the doctrine of justification by faith? To answer that question is to engage in the study of systematic theology. Systematic theology is no less biblical than is biblical theology. It is, indeed, the queen of the sciences, and if our exposition is truly to to justice to the Scriptures, we must know what the doctrines of the Bible are. This is certainly one of the reasons why Calvin’s commentaries have so greatly excelled. The same can be said for Luther’s Commentaries and for those of Charles Hodge. These men were theologians, and they knew what the Word of God taught. A knowledge of systematic theology will protect one from going astray doctrinally, for when isolated parts of the Bible are studied apart from the context of the entirety of Scripture, error is likely to creep in. We tend to emphasise one aspect of truth at the expense of others, and when we emphasise one verse or section of Scripture to the neglect of others, our exposition is likely to be faulty. Systematic theology can keep us from falling into this error.”
He says earlier: “Nor need we really be afraid of the term fundamentalist. Better to be called a fundamentalist than to be found in the ranks of those who deny the Bible. In the long run the truth will prevail, and if Christian scholarship continues in devotion to God’s Word, it need not fear what man can say. Its purpose in the last analysis is the glory of God, and in seeking to accomplish this purpose it may well expect opprobrium.”
Praise God for men like this. I’m praying tonight that I can have the same guts in my studies.
Whenever a “new breed” appears on the theological horizon, many explorers rush excitedly to study and observe this unusual phenomenon. These expeditions do not always meet with great success, however. Such is the case, according to some, with the rather anemic Neoorthodox. Though ultimately determined to be a distant member of the Orthodox family, the Neoorthodox proved to have many features far less admirable than his great cousin. Of particular note are his bony legs and small hooves, which render him incapable of bearing the theological load typical of his ancestor. 
