What Do We Mean When We Say, “Biblical”?
Quick Summary
When people describe a belief or practice as “biblical,” they often assume a single, timeless meaning. In reality, the Bible is a collection of texts shaped across many centuries, cultures, and historical moments. To call something biblical is not to freeze it in one era, but to engage faithfully with Scripture’s movement, diversity, and enduring theological vision.
Introduction
The word “biblical” carries enormous weight. It is frequently used to signal faithfulness, authority, and certainty. A belief is defended, a practice is justified, or a moral claim is settled simply by calling it biblical.
Yet the Bible itself complicates this confidence. Scripture was not written in one place, at one time, or to one people living under identical conditions. It emerged across centuries, in multiple civilizations, through law, poetry, prophecy, narrative, wisdom, letters, and apocalypse. To ask what we mean by “biblical” is not to weaken Scripture’s authority, but to take that authority seriously.
The Bible Is Not a Single Book from a Single Moment
The Bible is a library rather than a monolith. Its texts arise from different historical settings, addressing different questions and crises. The world of the patriarchs in Genesis is not the world of the monarchy in Kings. The world of exile differs profoundly from the world of Roman occupation in the New Testament.
Practices that appear normal in one part of Scripture are questioned, reshaped, or even rejected in another. Kingship is permitted, then critiqued. Sacrifice is commanded, then relativized. Power is centralized, then destabilized. The Bible preserves these tensions rather than resolving them into a single system.
To read biblically is to attend to this layered witness, not to flatten it.
Sources: John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018), 1–12.
Biblical Authority and Historical Context
Calling something biblical often assumes that Scripture speaks with one clear, uniform voice on every subject. In practice, biblical authority operates differently. Texts emerge from particular historical moments shaped by economic pressures, political realities, and social arrangements. Laws given to a nomadic people function differently than exhortations written to urban congregations living under imperial rule.
This historical situatedness does not weaken Scripture’s authority. Instead, it clarifies how that authority works. The Bible does not govern by erasing context but by engaging it. Authority is exercised as Scripture forms communities over time, teaching them how to live faithfully in changing circumstances.
This is why later biblical writers regularly reinterpret earlier texts. Prophets reread the law in light of injustice. Wisdom literature reflects on lived experience rather than command. The New Testament rereads Israel’s Scriptures through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Authority is not repetition without thought, but faithful rereading guided by God’s ongoing work.
To speak biblically, then, is to take context seriously while trusting that Scripture continues to speak across contexts.
Sources: Richard B. Hays, Reading Backwards (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2014), 9–18.
Richard B. Hays, Reading Backwards (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2014), 9–18.
The Bible as a Conversation Across Time
Scripture frequently speaks in multiple voices rather than a single register. The Bible preserves debate, lament, protest, and reinterpretation within its pages. Prophets challenge kings. Wisdom questions easy answers. Lament psalms argue with God rather than defend doctrine.
Jesus stands firmly within this tradition. He does not quote Scripture to end conversations but to open them. His teaching intensifies ethical demands while redirecting them toward mercy, faithfulness, and love. Paul continues this pattern by rereading Jesus in light of new communities facing unfamiliar questions.
This dialogical character of Scripture means that biblical faithfulness involves listening rather than flattening. The canon models how God’s people wrestle with continuity and change, holding fast to core convictions while responding to new realities.
Reading the Bible as conversation invites humility. It acknowledges that faithful interpretation requires patience, attentiveness, and willingness to be shaped rather than merely confirmed.
Sources: Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 70–82.
Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 70–82.
Trajectory and Moral Development in Scripture
Certain ethical questions reveal clear movement within the biblical witness. Practices once assumed are later constrained, critiqued, or transformed. Laws regulating slavery limit harm but do not endorse the institution as ideal. Kingship is permitted, then sharply critiqued by prophets who expose its abuses. Power is slowly redirected toward service rather than domination.
These developments do not represent contradictions so much as maturation. Scripture records how faithfulness deepens as communities learn, fail, repent, and are reoriented toward God’s purposes. Moral clarity emerges through struggle rather than decree.
Jesus stands within this trajectory and brings it into focus. He does not discard Israel’s Scriptures, but he consistently emphasizes mercy, restoration, and love of neighbor as interpretive priorities. His teaching reveals the direction in which Scripture has been moving all along.
To call something biblical, therefore, requires attention to direction as well as origin. Faithfulness is measured not only by where a practice appears, but by where Scripture is leading.
Sources: N.T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God (New York: HarperOne, 2013), 85–102.
N.T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God (New York: HarperOne, 2013), 85–102.
Why “Biblical” Cannot Mean One Civilization
Modern appeals to “biblical values” often assume that one ancient social arrangement represents God’s permanent will. This assumption collapses the Bible’s many worlds into a single imagined civilization and treats it as normative for all times and places.
Scripture itself resists this move. It preserves voices from nomadic clans, agricultural villages, royal courts, exilic communities, and small house churches scattered across the Roman Empire. These communities lived under radically different conditions, and their faithfulness took different forms.
What remains consistent is not social structure but theological orientation. Covenant faithfulness, justice, humility, and love of neighbor recur across contexts, even as the forms of daily life change.
To speak biblically is not to reproduce ancient arrangements, but to embody enduring commitments within new circumstances.
Sources: Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 3–12.
Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 3–12.
What We Mean by Biblical Today
To speak biblically today is to engage Scripture with attentiveness, humility, and trust. It involves recognizing the Bible’s historical depth while seeking its theological coherence. Biblical reading resists both rigid literalism and careless relativism.
Biblical authority does not demand certainty on every question. Instead, it forms people capable of discernment, compassion, and faithfulness. Scripture shapes moral imagination so that communities can respond wisely to situations the biblical authors could not have anticipated.
When Christians claim something as biblical, the question is not simply whether a verse can be cited. The deeper question is whether the claim aligns with Scripture’s movement toward life, justice, mercy, and covenantal love.
In this sense, calling something biblical is an act of responsibility. It requires careful reading, historical awareness, and willingness to be shaped rather than merely justified by the text.
To speak biblically is to engage Scripture with attentiveness, humility, and trust. It means honoring the text’s diversity while seeking its theological coherence. It involves resisting simplistic appeals to certainty in favor of faithful discernment.
Biblical authority is not fragile. It does not depend on pretending the Bible speaks from one moment or one voice. Its strength lies in its capacity to form people who can live faithfully amid complexity.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does questioning what “biblical” means undermine Scripture?
No. It deepens respect for Scripture by taking its historical and theological complexity seriously.
Why doesn’t the Bible give one clear answer to every ethical question?
Because Scripture forms people for discernment rather than providing exhaustive regulation.
Can something be biblical without being directly commanded?
Yes. Many biblical commitments emerge through narrative, trajectory, and theological emphasis rather than explicit commands.
How should Christians use the word “biblical” responsibly?
By grounding claims in careful reading, historical awareness, and attention to Scripture’s overarching theological vision.
Works Consulted
Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.
John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018.
Richard B. Hays, Reading Backwards. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2014.
Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.
N.T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God. New York: HarperOne, 2013.
