You are certainly right in saying that Schlatter’s method turns away from our subjectivity toward the message of the biblical text…BUT, he also recognizes the inescapable role of the subjectivity of the interpreter plays. His sharpest words are directed toward the supposedly objective scientific method being used by the bible scholars of his day. He makes it very clear that the subjectivity of the interpreter (their “Lebensakt”) shapes and grounds their interpretive activity (their “Denkakt”). This cannot and should not be avoided, in fact our own experiences of faith play a positive role in helping us generate analogies that help us appropraite the message of scripture. True, Schlatter says we should start by paying attention to the message of the text, but that emphasis on objectivity is relative, never absolute. Our own subjectivity is operative throughout the interpretive process…it just should not rule the process. I am intrigued that evangelicals are so attracted to Schlatter. His view of knowledge, and his views of scripture, are in fact sharply critical of the doctrine of inerrancy, and the American evangelical tendency toward a fairly empirical epistemology.

That man Schlatter. Reading his work crystallizes the work of Christ into a format that is hitherto unknown. I am equally fond of his monumental contribution to evangelicalism and the stand he took against liberal higher-criticism in his contemporaries.

That he rates as my absolute favorite NT author is without theological dispute – thanks to your worthy effort in translating such compelling and Christ-honoring work. I am sure there are more like myself who have taken the time to become better acquainted with a great exegete – as Robert W Yarbrough insist in ‘Still Sovereign’.

In time more will come to know this obscure, though intellectual scholar.

Excellent post. I remember reading (I think) your article on Schlatter in some dictionary of evangelical theologians of the 20th century when I was an undergrad(forgive me if I’m wrong!). The recent “evangelical discovery” of Schlatter has certainly been illuminating and it goes to show that Barth and Bultmann were not the only contructive voices coming out of Germany in the 20th century. I wonder how Schlatter will be described and evaluated in Baird’s history of NT research? I always thought Schlatter’s primary contribution from our point of view was his biblical theological approach and being, in some ways, a forerunner to the apocalyptic school of Kasemann and company on Paul.

I think this is a partially true statement. The Gospel that Jesus preached (of the imminent Kingdom of God) is absolutely a presupposition to the NT. This is clearly seen by the fact that there is no definition statement for the phrase Kingdom of God. When looking at prophesies and intertestimonial writings the phrase Kingdom of God takes form. This is a cultural phrase and it’s meaning is known by those before Jesus, and after him in that Jewish culture.

That isn’t the part that is wrong. Jesus did not come to create a new religion. The part that is wrong, in my opinion, is that it is not a part of the theology. It most definitely is. It is the centerpiece of the theology (Seek first the Kingdom of God). It is the force of judgement. It is the force of the Christian motivation. It is Christ’s destiny to be the King. His very titles; son of God, son of Man, Christ (Messiah) are both connected vigorously to this idea of Kingship.

The centerpiece of the Bible isn’t so much Jesus the person, as it is the Messiah, the King – who is so central because the Kingdom of God is God’s ultimate salvation plan! You don’t find pictures of the 1st century Jesus in prophesies all that much. You see a King, ruling with a rod of iron.

Many thanks,
Barry Joslin