What Do We Mean By “Biblical”?
Reading the title of this article, you could not be criticised for immediately thinking, “Surely that’s obvious, Steve.” After all, it’s a word we’re more than familiar with in church circles. I doubt there’s a Sunday service when we don’t hear it said (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit might get more mentions in a typical week, but I think we can understand that).
A quick scan of church websites usually reveals numerous instances where “biblical” is deployed as an adjective (obviously favourably). Churches offer “biblical preaching,” they have a “biblical leadership structure,” promote a “biblical worldview,” and they hold to “biblical truths.” The purpose of such language is, of course, to subtly assure members and potential members that all these things are being done “properly,” in accordance with the Bible. Sometimes the word “traditional” will be added before “biblical,” to turbo charge the claim's legitimacy.
Commonly, evangelical churches will have a Statement of Faith (either a bespoke version in the case of independent churches, or one drafted by the church’s denomination) that will reference “the authority” of the Bible for faith and practice. So a liberal scattering of the word “biblical” (augmented with “traditional” here and there) offers assurance to churchgoers that the Bible’s authority is, indeed, being taught and practiced.
The word “biblical” is used in these church-centred contexts to authoritatively reference “correct,” “proper,” and “normative” beliefs, behaviours, or standards for Christian living.
Deploying the word “biblical” as the authenticating characteristic of a belief, behaviour, or practice makes it appropriately authoritative (or at least, authoritative-sounding, which preachers are well aware of when they do that).
The dictionaries, however, define the word rather differently. “Biblical” simply means “of, relating to, or occurring in” the Bible; being “in accordance with” the Bible; and/or “in keeping with the nature of the Bible or its times or people.”
Here’s where things get a little more complicated because there is a whole lot more in the Bible than just timelessly authoritative statements about beliefs, behaviours, and practices for twenty-first-century living. There’s a very great deal that “occurs in” the Bible—that is “in accordance” with the Bible, “in keeping with the nature” of the Bible and “its times and people”—that most good, Bible-believing evangelicals see as being neither authoritative nor applicable to life today. And that includes entirely “biblical” beliefs, behaviours, and practices (in the way the dictionaries define “biblical”).
Now of course, even those who liberally claim “biblical” this and “biblical” that know full well that this is the case. What they mean by “biblical” is, therefore, a selective list of certain verses and passages—emphasising those as biblically authoritative, while ignoring many others.
We should be circumspect about claiming to want to faithfully replicate “biblical” practices on the grounds of biblical authority. Here’s just a few practices that are “in” and “in accordance with” the Bible:
Slavery (“You who are slaves must submit to your masters with all respect. Do what they tell you—not only if they are kind and reasonable, but even if they are cruel.” 1 Peter 2:18);
Gender-normative hair styling (“Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” 1 Corinthians 11:14-15); and
The place of women in the church (“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.” 1 Corinthians 14:34.) The law doesn’t actually say that, for what it’s worth, but let’s not be distracted.
Oh, and an absolute prohibition on divorce and remarriage, period—no questions, no exceptions—directly from the lips of Jesus (Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18: “‘Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery”). Surely that’s as biblically authoritative (without the need for “interpretation”) as it gets.
I have deliberately chosen New Testament examples to avoid the easy accusation, “Ah yes, but that’s just ‘old’ covenant stuff that doesn’t apply to us anymore.” If we expanded to Old Testament examples as well—which would, of course, be equally “biblical”—we’d be here all night. And I don’t just mean well-worn examples such as, “Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed” and “Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” Leviticus 19:19. What about the far more disturbing (on several levels): “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver”? Deuteronomy 22:28.
Leviticus 19:19 may be read (and dismissed) by most evangelicals with amusement—not to be taken seriously nowadays. But the immediately preceding verse is “Love your neighbour as yourself”—yes, the very one that Jesus cites in what we call the Great Commandment, to love God and love people. Everyone takes that very seriously. And just to add to the interpretive complexity (or at least, the genuine challenge in being consistent) the immediately preceding and following chapters in the same section of Leviticus (that we call the “Holiness Code”) contain the two Old Testament prohibitions of male same-sex sexual behaviour (no verses address female same-sex behaviour—even though conservatives commonly interpret Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as if they did).
Now you may say, “Come on, Steve, you’re being a little bit picky here—we all know what we mean, don’t we? The things that are ‘biblical,’ and the things that aren’t.”
Well, I’d like to be able to say, “Yes, we do”—but it’s not that straightforward. Evangelical Statements of Faith always reference the authority of both the Old and New Testaments for faith and practice (not just the New). They also do not exempt “cultural” matters from having present-day authority (perhaps because evangelicals routinely disagree on which “biblical” propositions were applicable only in the culture of the time and which were not—another interpretive challenge that evangelicals are frequently inconsistent about).
The challenges in the word “biblical” came to popular attention some years back with the publication of AJ Jacobs’ book, The Year of Living Biblically. From a Jewish background, but raised secular, Jacobs sought to spend a year living as “biblically” as possible—starting with the Old Testament and then moving into the New—exploring the extent to which its injunctions should be taken “literally” or “interpreted.” You can imagine some of the outcomes. From the back cover: “Avoiding shellfish was easy. The stoning of adulterers proved a little more difficult—and potentially controversial. Was it enough to walk up to an adulterer and gently touch them with a stone? Even that could be grounds for accusations of assault, especially with female adulterers in Manhattan. So what's a good Bible-reading boy to do?” It’s an amusing and entertaining book, but there’s a serious underlying point here regarding our problematic adjective.
Ordinary evangelicals are often uncomfortable with the concept of “interpretation” because they worry that “liberals” (anyone they deem to be insufficiently conservative in outlook) will use clever words and (secular!) academic learning to “interpret away” the plain meaning (plain to them) of what a word or passage means. Generally, their discomfort is most acute when something challenges a “traditional” reading. Hence, there is a default towards “literal” interpretation wherever that appears not to be impossible; the assumption being that “literal” must always be closer to the biblical writer’s intentions—closer to “taking the text seriously.”
But what we’re talking about there is not a “literal” meaning at all, it’s simply the way those English words are coming across to the reader: it’s what he or she thinks they “must be” saying and are “obviously” saying—in what they think is a “plain reading.” It purports to be an objective reading but in reality, it could hardly be more subjective.
There is no such thing as an uninterpreted reading and application of anything in the Bible; the only question is how someone is going about their interpreting (where they’re getting their reference points from).
Bible-reading evangelicals who unquestionably affirm the Bible’s authority in principle fail to agree on what “biblical” means in relation to a whole host of important biblical subjects in practice. A quick search on Amazon identifies dozens of scholarly books in the “Four Views” category (some are “Three Views,” “Two Views,” and even “Five Views”) on subjects on which one would think it was vitally important to have the correct “biblical” beliefs: Salvation; Hell; Creation; Science; the Sovereignty of God; The Gifts of the Holy Spirit; and many others. Yet all of the views compared in these books are Bible-based, evangelical understandings presented and debated by appropriately-qualified scholars. It begs the question of what “biblical” (and for that matter, “unbiblical”) looks like on these subjects.
The authority of Scripture in practice means the theological view that we, personally, decide to treat as authoritative on that subject.
So that’s a quick sketch of some of the problems with the notion of “biblical.” What, then, is the solution? Despite everything I’ve said, I do want to redeem it. My problem is not with the word but with how it’s used.
First off, not everything in the Bible is equal in terms of what it is saying and how that relates to us today. Everything in the Bible is biblical but not everything in the Bible is relevant to us today in the same way. We all know that, but we are not so good at openly acknowledging it. Evangelicals fear an implied two-tier system in which “All Scripture is equal, but some Scriptures are more equal than others”—even though self-evidently that is the case, even in Scripture’s own words.
Second, nothing we read in the Bible comes to us interpretation-free. Every time we read something and seek to apply it, interpretation is part of the package. The same is true of preaching from the Bible and so-called “biblical teaching.” If there is no need for interpretation, why have preaching and teaching in the first place? Why not sit and read our Bibles privately for 30 minutes each Sunday instead of listening to a sermon? Interpretation is unavoidable and to distinguish what is and is not appropriately “biblical” for application today requires that we know about good interpretive principles and practices.
Third, we should not be asking how to live “biblically,” but how to live “Christianly” in ways that are informed by the Bible—the Bible read well, of course, rather than badly.
How do the questions the biblical writers faced and the answers they came up with help us to answer the questions we face and the answers we should come up with?
The Bible pictures what living “Christianly” looked like for them, then; what does living “Christianly” look like now, for us? Same? Similar? Different?
How does what we can learn from their situations help us in our situations? And I am not talking about blithely “copying and pasting” answers from then to now without intervening thought.
Fourth, and finally, maybe there is scope for us to be slightly less dogmatic about our claims for what is and is not “biblical,” not least when it involves imposing an authoritative opinion on others. Perhaps the sincerity with which we hold our views might benefit from being tempered with more provisionality and openness.
At the end of the day, “biblical” is a worthy adjective, and I don’t question the sincerity with which it is generally used; but let’s be honest, it’s a lazy adjective, too. I’ve said from time to time that I would ban the word “biblical” (only to get people’s attention, you understand).
Hopefully, following this blog, we will never hear the word “biblical” the same way again when we come across it being used, and the more thoughtful we will be in using it ourselves.