There is no consensus on the definition of, or preferable method for, biblical theology. This article explores the variety of ways biblical theology has been understood and practiced.

Biblical theology has been defined in various ways: (1) theology based upon Scripture (or theology derived primarily from a study of Scripture), as opposed to theology based upon confessional statements or philosophy; (2) theology in harmony with Scripture; (3) theology that is descriptive of the Bible’s contents; (4) a study of the theology found in the Bible; (5) the study of the main themes of the Bible; (6) the formulation of the theology of the entire Bible (in distinction from the theology of the OT, the theology of the NT, or the theology of the various books of the Bible, such as the theology of Isaiah or of Matthew); and (7) the ways the Bible has been studied throughout the history of the church.

One of the major weaknesses with these definitions is that they can function primarily as a way of distinguishing those theologies that are preferred from those that are dismissed. Although they may differ from one another, every Christian theologian formulates theology in reference to the Bible. Biblical theologies have a direct correlation to both the text of Scripture and the ways in which the authors of Scripture thought.

Biblical Theology as a Recent Discipline

Biblical theology is a relatively recent discipline. There are two reasons for this. First, the term “biblical theology” does not seem to have been used prior to the seventeenth century. Second, the focus on the historical progression of biblical themes did not become a significant part of biblical studies until the eighteenth century. This historical focus characterizes most biblical theologies of the last two centuries.

In his 1787 lecture at the University of Altdorf, Johann Philipp Gabler made a distinction between biblical theology (a historical discipline) and dogmatic theology (a didactic or instructive discipline that is usually called “systematic theology” in our own time). Prior to Gabler, biblical scholars engaged in what was sometimes called “exegetical theology,” but this usually was a discipline subordinate to systematic theology rather than a discipline in its own right. It involved showing the relationship between biblical texts and the various doctrines of systematic theology.

Influential writers of the early church such as Irenaeus and Marcion wrestled with issues that would become a significant concern of later biblical theologians, such as the relationship between the Testaments and the Christian’s use of the Mosaic law, but they lacked the historical focus in the study of Scripture that would characterize modern biblical scholarship.

The Biblical Theology Movement

Biblical theology as a discipline should be distinguished from the biblical theology movement, a primarily neoorthodox mid-twentieth-century movement in biblical studies that grew out of the controversy between fundamentalism and modernism in America. Neoorthodoxy, as expressed by Karl Barth, was characterized by the idea that the Bible itself is not the word of God but rather is a record of revelation and a witness to the word of God. Through the Scripture we encounter the divine Word in Christ. Biblical scholars of this movement affirmed the value of historical criticism (opposing a literalistic interpretation of the Bible) and at the same time acknowledged the need for a new direction that would affirm the unity of the gospel and make the results of historical criticism more useful for the church.

Defining Theology

Some explanations of biblical theology begin with a definition of theology. This is not a simple task, for there are many different ways that theology has been conceptualized. When Christians speak of theology, they usually are referring to either (1) the study of God (as revealed in Scripture and/or history), (2) the study of Scripture (the teaching that arises from the canonical books), or (3) the study of what the church (or a branch of the church) believes and teaches.

One’s understanding of theology is linked with the understanding of revelation. Those who believe that God has revealed himself primarily through Scripture will seek to develop a theology derived from Scripture. Those who believe that God has revealed himself primarily through his actions in history (such as the exodus from Egypt or the resurrection of Jesus Christ) will seek to develop a theology that comes out of understanding those events (keeping in mind that Scripture is often the primary witness to these actions). Those who view theology as a study of what the church believes will combine a study of Scripture and history with a careful analysis of various expressions of theology within a faith community. In spite of varying definitions of theology, with very few exceptions Christian theologians are concerned with working out the implications of the Christian Scriptures (the books of both Testaments) for the life of the church, as well as social analysis and critique.

Biblical Theology and Other Types of Theology

Systematic theology. Biblical theology often is defined in distinction from systematic theology. There are a number of ways that students of Scripture have differentiated biblical theology from systematic theology.

Gabler viewed biblical theology as a historical, descriptive discipline, distinct from systematic theology, which is an instructive, prescriptive discipline. From his perspective, biblical theology focuses on what biblical authors said about sacred matters, while systematic theology reveals what current theologians think about sacred matters in light of their own time and church background. This perspective forced recognition of the difference between the teaching of the biblical writers and the systematic theology professed in various churches.

Some later biblical theologians considered biblical theology to be a historical discipline in contrast to systematic theology, which is a logical discipline (using laws of logic to organize and synthesize theology).

A different emphasis is found when biblical theology is viewed as a descriptive task in contrast to systematic theology, which is prescriptive in nature. A distinction has often been made between systematic theology, viewed as a prescriptive task (explaining what the Scripture “means” in the time and situation of contemporary believers), as distinct from biblical theology, which is a study of what the Scripture “meant” at its time of writing.

Another way to contrast the two is to speak of biblical theology as a discipline that studies the Bible diachronically (i.e., with an emphasis on what is revealed throughout various time periods), while systematic theology is a discipline that studies the Bible synchronically (with the goal of producing a unified system by focusing on what the Scripture as a whole teaches). Biblical theology as a diachronic and sequential study has also been contrasted with systematic theology viewed as a logical arrangement of what is observed sequentially in Scripture.

In summary, those distinguishing biblical theology from systematic theology, with various nuances and emphases, describe biblical theology as a historical, descriptive, diachronic, and sequential discipline that focuses on what the Scripture “meant” at its time of writing, in contrast to systematic theology, which is didactic, logical, prescriptive, and synchronic, explaining what the Scripture “means” to contemporary readers.

The results of one’s biblical theology can be used to formulate systematic theology in light of the cultural and historical context of the contemporary theologian. Systematic theologians do this in a variety of ways. Roman Catholic theologians have traditionally placed Scripture alongside the tradition of the church in this task, while Protestants value Scripture above tradition when constructing theology. Among Protestants, some interpret Scripture in light of tradition, reason, and experience, while others emphasize the role of the Spirit in helping believers understand the word of God.

Historical theology. Biblical theology is often viewed as a discipline that follows the task of biblical exegesis and precedes historical theology, which itself precedes systematic theology.

Old Testament / New Testament theology. OT theology and NT theology can be viewed as two branches of biblical theology or as intermediate steps between exegesis and biblical theology. Other theological disciplines sometimes considered to be subsequent to systematic theology include ethical theology, homiletical theology, and pastoral theology.

Biblical Theology and Exegesis

Those focusing on biblical theology as a diachronic study often speak of biblical theology as a study of the progression and development of significant themes throughout Scripture, or throughout the progress of revelation. From this perspective, biblical theologians take the work done by biblical exegetes in their careful study of Scripture and observe themes that appear with regularity. When biblical theology is viewed in this way, it is common to see it as the study of the theology found within each book of the Bible and a comparison, analysis, and compilation of these theologies.

The work of biblical theologians is based upon, and is an extension of, the work done by biblical exegetes. The biblical exegete interprets and explains a passage of Scripture in light of linguistics, semantics (often including philological study), grammar, syntax, textual criticism, literary structure (of both the passage itself and the book within which the passage is found), compositional and rhetorical strategies of the author (including chiasm, plot, theme and character development, and parallelism), genre, historical and sociological background of the text, and geographical setting.

There is always fluidity in the relationship between biblical exegesis and biblical theology, for while the results of biblical exegesis inform biblical theology, the observations of biblical theologians assist biblical exegetes in their understanding of each biblical book as a whole, as well as the relationships between smaller units of Scripture within the book in which they are found. As a result, there is a circular (or spiral) interaction between biblical exegesis and biblical theology. An understanding of each part of Scripture informs one’s formulation of biblical theology, while an understanding of biblical theology increases one’s understanding of each part. Ultimately, every biblical passage informs the work done by the biblical theologian, while each text of Scripture is understood in a clearer manner by the exegete as the unity and diversity within the canon as a whole is seen with greater clarity.

Methods of Biblical Theology

There are a variety of ways in which biblical theology has been practiced and a number of ways in which these methodologies have been classified. Differences in the way the Bible is understood have resulted in various kinds of biblical theologies. For example, while some have focused on the final form of the biblical text, others have focused on the reconstruction of the biblical text (in light of historical critical methods), and still others have focused on the study of events referred to in the biblical text as reconstructed in light of tradition criticism or historical criticism.

Classifications of the various methods for biblical theology (with some overlap between the categories) include (1) systematic, (2) diachronic, (3) central theme, (4) confessional, (5) descriptive, (6) tradition-history, (7) salvation-historical, (8) christological, (9) promise-fulfillment, (10) allegorical, (11) typological, (12) canonical, (13) literary, (14) cultural-linguistic, and (15) sociological. The first three of these methods for biblical theology will be considered here in greater detail.

The systematic (or dogmatic) method organizes biblical theology in light of the structures used by systematic theology, such as the three themes of God, humanity, and salvation. This synchronic approach characterized the earliest biblical theologies. The greatest weakness in this method is that it often leads to imposing on the text of Scripture a framework that is incongruous with the content and teaching of Scripture. This unbalanced distortion leads to overemphasizing some ideas of the biblical writers and underemphasizing others.

The diachronic (or historic) method structures biblical theology in terms of the historic progression of themes or ideas communicated by the writers of Scripture. It focuses on the way God’s revelation unfolds throughout the canon, with a concern for the historic time periods of revelation. An example of this approach is the salvation-history method, which focuses on the progress and history of redemption. A diachronic study of the Bible is difficult because there is no consensus concerning the time or sequence of writing for most of the books of the OT. For example, some believe that the Mosaic law (as found in the Pentateuch) preceded the OT prophets, while others are convinced that the law was largely written as a response to the teachings of the prophets of Judah and Israel.

The central theme (or cross-section) method selects a unifying theme that is prominent in Scripture and observes how this theme is addressed throughout the historic progression of Scripture. Significant themes that can be traced throughout Scripture and that have been suggested as a center of biblical theology (a way of providing unity to the study of Scripture) include (1) God’s covenant(s) with his people, (2) the relationship between God and his people, (3) the history of redemption or salvation history (Heilsgeschichte), (4) the kingdom or reign of God, (5) promise and fulfillment, (6) reconciliation, (7) the presence of God, (8) the love and mercy of God, and (9) the providence of God. Many have rejected the possibility of finding a center or dominant theme around which each part of Scripture can be organized, and they reject approaches that force a particular theme upon texts that resist such a simplified analysis and classification.

Questions for Biblical Theologians

A number of questions have arisen as biblical exegetes have attempted to formulate biblical theology.

1. Is biblical theology a theological endeavor?

This question seems to arise when the biblical text is viewed as an object of study rather than as God’s self-revelation to humanity. Biblical theology has often been understood as the discipline that focuses on what a text meant, as distinct from systematic theology, which focuses on what a text means. Emphasizing the descriptive aspect of biblical theology at the expense of its normative role in the community of faith can lead to viewing Scripture as an object of study. If Scripture is viewed as the living word that is understood only by those with a desire to hear and obey the voice of God, a sharp distinction between what the text meant and what it means will be avoided. Those who reject the possibility of a merely cognitive understanding of Scripture will reject the idea of orthodoxy apart from orthopraxis and affirm that attempts at exegetical understanding (what the text meant) are not only incomplete and deficient but also distorted without obedience to God (which is, at the very least, part of what the Scripture means today). Those affirming biblical theology as a theological discipline will emphasize the theological nature of Christian Scripture as it addresses issues of the character and nature of God and the implications of this for human morality.

2. How does one find unity from biblical books that speak with diverse voices? Is there thematic unity? Would biblical theology better be replaced by biblical theologies derived from various portions of Scripture?

As biblical theology came to be understood as a historical discipline, the differences between the teachings of the two Testaments were highlighted. This has led some to reject the possibility of biblical theology.

(a) Some reject biblical theology because they see the differences between the theology of the two Testaments as insurmountable and irresolvable. They view the OT not only as pre-Christian, but also as sub-Christian. Examples include the call of God for Israel to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan (Deut. 7:1–2; 20:16–18) and the prayers of imprecation (cursing) in the psalms (e.g., Ps. 137:8–9). Similarly, when the revelation of Jesus Christ as seen in the NT is viewed as the climax of the progress of God’s revelation, how does the OT retain value? Is the OT always secondary and the NT primary?

(b) Those from the history-of-religions school moved away from, and even rejected the idea of, biblical theology, replacing it with a focus on the evolutionary development of Israel’s religion in light of the religions of Israel’s neighbors.

(c) Some of those who have rejected biblical theology focus on the historical-critical study of the text, often rejecting the historicity of the events described in the text. In response, some have defended the value of the history in the biblical narratives, while others have pursued biblical theology without considering the issue of the historicity of the events described in Scripture, focusing on the theology that comes out of the final form of Scripture.

(d) Recent biblical interpreters have focused on the differences in the theology of the writers of the various canonical books (e.g., the contrast in the way Jesus is presented in the Synoptic Gospels and John’s Gospel, or the differences in the way faith is understood by James and Paul, or the varying perspectives on the poor and oppressed seen in Exodus as compared with Proverbs). As a result, the movement has been away from observing similarities and toward highlighting these differences (thus a move away from unity).

3. Is it possible to summarize accurately everything the Bible teaches? Can one produce a biblical theology that values each biblical text?

It appears that all attempts to formulate a biblical theology will, of necessity, be selective, for it is impossible to construct a biblical theology in which all texts are weighted equally. This being the case, which portions of Scripture will be used? Which will be central? Which will be ignored? How will these decisions be made?

4. What is meant by the term “Bible”?

Different faith communities have diverse canons of authoritative Scripture. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches have a canon that includes what Protestants sometimes refer to as the deuterocanonical books, which Protestants reject. Differences in the locus of study for a biblical theology will, of course, affect the biblical theology that is produced.