1. Theological interpretation of Scripture can be defined as "those readings of biblical texts that
consciously seek to do justice to the perceived theological nature of the texts and embrace the
influence of theology (corporate and personal; past and present) upon the interpreter's
enquiry, context, and method."
Biblical theology
Biblical theology "seeks to discover what the biblical writers, under divine guidance,
believed, described, and taught in the context of their own times." ^[1]^ It is based first
and foremost on the Bible itself, and takes the Scriptures as they are given to us to be
the inspired, authoritative word of God. Further, biblical theology assumes that the
canon was provided by the Holy Spirit through the instrumentality of human authors.
From an evangelical perspective, biblical theology also assumes that the original
autographs of Scripture were inerrant.
Multimedia
An Introduction to Biblical Theology (MP3), by Jim Hamilton
Goldsworthy at Southern Seminary on Biblical Theology
Old Testament Theology, by Paul House
New Testament Theology, by Frank Thielman
Biblical theology and systematic theology
Donald Hagner defines biblical theology as "that discipline which sets forth the message
of the books of the Bible in their historical setting. Biblical theology is primarily a
descriptive discipline. It is not initially concerned with the final meaning of the teachings
of the Bible or their relevance for today. This is the task of systematic theology. Biblical
theology has the task of expounding the theology found in the Bible in its own historical
setting, and its own terms, categories, and thought forms. It is the obvious intent of the
Bible to tell a story about God and his acts in history for humanity’s salvation." ^[2]^
In systematic theology, one attempts to summarize biblical doctrine, addressing
theological topics one by one to summarize all the biblical teaching on each particular
subject. However, biblical theology is not a discipline completely separate from
systematic theology. In fact the approach in biblical theology will overlap systematic
theology at numerous points. It should ultimately end up with application, which is done
through the process of practical theology.
So, rather than tracing certain subjects through the Scriptures and then summarizing the
teaching (as in systematic theology), biblical theology takes a canonical approach to the
matter. While recognizing the theological unity and coherence of the canon, biblical

2. theology looks at the theological contributions of the individual books and authors. It is
a study of the nature, substance, and the content of the theology found in the Bible.
Old Testament theology
"Though Old Testament theology has a close relationship to the New Testament the two
have discrete witnesses of their own. Therefore Old Testament theology must state the
Old Testament's unique message before incorporating the New Testament perspective.
The ultimate goal is still to produce biblical theology yet to unite the testaments at the
proper moment. This procedure is sound on historical, canonical and exegetical grounds
and will make scriptural unity plainer than starting from the opposite end of the canon.
It will also make the Old Testament's unique value for theology clearer." ^[3]^
New Testament theology
Marshall writes that the aim of students of New Testament theology is to explore the
New Testament writer's developing understanding of God and the world, more
particularly the world of people and their relationship to one another.^[4]^ N. T. Wright
also notes that the "phrase has come to designate, more or less, the attempt to read the
New Testament from a historical point of view, and, either simultaneously or
subsequently, to draw its major theological emphases together into a coherent
statement which can then address subsequent generations, our own included." ^[5]^
Notes
? Robert W. Yarbrough, "Biblical Theology" in Baker Theological Dictionary of the Bible, edited
by Walter E. Elwell (Baker, 1996), p. 61.
? George E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, revised ed. (Eerdmans, 1993), p. 20.
? Paul House, Old Testament Theology (IVP, 1998), p. 54.
? I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology (IVP, 2004), p. 23.
? The New Testament and the People of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 1
(Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 18-19.
Resources
Biblical theology
Scott J. Hafemann, ed. Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect. InterVarsity Press, 2002.
Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology. Banner of Truth, 1975.
Graeme Goldsworthy, According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible.
InterVarsity Press, 1991.
T. Desmond Alexander, et al. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity &

3. Diversity of Scripture. InterVarsity Press, 2000.
Old Testament theology
Bruce K. Waltke, with Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and
Thematic Approach. Zondervan, 2007.
John H. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology. Zondervan, 1995.
Paul R. House, Old Testament Theology. InterVarsity Press, 1998.
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology. Zondervan, 1978.
Willem A. VanGemeren, ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
Exegesis, 5 vols. Zondervan, 1997.
New Testament theology
Thomas Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ. Baker Academic,
2008.
George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 2nd revised edition. Eerdmans, 1993.
I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology. InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Colin Brown, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 4 vols.
Zondervan, 1986. Abridged version, edited by Verlyn Verbrugge, 2003.
Larry R. Helyer, The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John: An Exploration in Biblical Theology. IVP
Academic, 2008.
External links
Biblical theology
Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology (crosswalk.com)
Kinds of Biblical Theology, by Vern Sheridan Poythress
Beginning with Moses An on-line resource of biblical-theological articles and reviews.
The Nature and Aims of Biblical Theology, by Geerhardus Vos
Old Testament theology
Old Testament Reading Room Extensive online resources for OT Theology; Arnold NeufeldtFast, PhD, Tyndale Seminary
New Testament theology
New Testament Reading Room Extensive online resources for NT theology; Arnold NeufeldtFast, PhD, Tyndale Seminary
The Kingdom of God in New Testament Theology: The Battle, The Christ, The Spirit-Bearer,

4. and Returning Son of Man, by Darrell Bock
Branches of Theology
Biblical theology | Historical theology | Philosophical theology | Systematic theology |
Practical theology
]The Bible, Theology, and Theological Interpretation
http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=308
Despite perhaps good intentions and sometimes imaginative initiatives, the disciplines of
theology and biblical studies have drifted apart. Today, they are hardly on speaking terms, not
so much because of deep-seated enmity but because, for all practical purposes, they speak
different languages. Within theological schools, although the departments of biblical studies and
theological studies may share a relationship of mutual respect and even support one another as
representatives of "the classical disciplines," the assumptions and practices they represent are
constitutive of different epistemic communities, each regulated by standards of excellence and
aims that, generally, are mutually exclusive. Scholars trained according to the accredited
standards of the one discipline patrol against the presumed naive or colonizing efforts of the
other.
From the side of biblical studies, the consequence of such developments, for some, is the
ghettoizing of biblical studies and an identity crisis for practitioners of this discipline. Werner
Jeanrond provocatively remarked, "What can the study of the Bible offer to the diverse interests
of students late in the twentieth century? What is the contribution of biblical studies to the
academy, to society at large and to the different Jewish and Christian communities? In other
words, what is the discipline of biblical studies good for these days?" [1]
Biblical scholars often look disapprovingly at systematic theology as an exercise in philosophical
abstractions. John Goldingay, for example, thinks of systematic theology as a discipline that
emerged in a Greek context, with ideas taking the place of the story of Scripture. Thus, he
writes, "If systematic theology did not exist, it might seem unwise to invent it...." [2] Taking the
contrary view, theological ethicist Stanley Hauerwas remarked to me some years ago, "New
Testament scholars ought to be lined up and run off of a cliff!" Whether Hauerwas intended to
echo biblical images of Gehenna is unclear to me, but the reverberations were nonetheless
sonorous.
How best to model the relation of Scripture to theology? Johann Philipp Gabler inspired the
now-pervasive answer more than 200 years ago, when he sketched a three-stage process by
which one might move from biblical studies to theology: (1) linguistic and historical analysis of
biblical texts; (2) identification of ideas common among the biblical writers; and (3) articulation
of the Bible's timeless and universal principles. A hermeneutical commitment to observer
neutrality (as opposed to an interpreter guided by doctrinal commitments) emerged—together
with an unswerving focus on the historical rootedness of the text, the historicity of events to
which the text bears witness, and the historical gap separating text and reader—as key
coordinates in the work of interpretation. Consequently, biblical studies were denuded of
inherent religious interests; and biblical scholars increasingly saw themselves as philologists and
historians rather than theologians. At most, their job would be to describe the theological
content or perspective of the biblical materials, leaving to others the constructive and

5. prescriptive theological tasks. Unfortunately, theologians and ethicists must sift through barns
of exegetical hay as they search for that rare needle of theological consequence.
An alternative approach recasts biblical studies as an inherently theological enterprise, one that
resists the common division of labor that identifies one group (theologians) for its interest in
speaking of God in the present tense while insisting that another group (biblical scholars)
confine itself to speaking of God only in the past tense. The predominate image would no longer
be "building a bridge" from biblical scholarship to ecclesial community, nor "crossing the bridge"
from text to sermon, nor journeying from exegesis to biblical theology to systematic theology to
ethics. Instead, biblical studies would self-consciously locate itself within the church, just as the
church works out its identity and mission in the world. Other ways of engaging the biblical
materials might continue, of course. Theological engagement with Scripture has no need to
exclude other interpretive agenda, but only insists that reading the Bible as Scripture has its own
inherently theological presumptions and protocols.
The sort of work I have in mind for theological engagement in Christian traditions would be
marked by such assumptions and approaches as the following:
(1) Theological engagement with Scripture revolves around two theological affirmations—one
concerning the Bible, the other concerning the nature of the church. First, theological reading of
Scripture takes as its starting point and central axis the theological claim that "the Bible is
Scripture," a claim that draws attention to the origin, role, and aim of these texts in God's selfcommunication. It thus locates those who read the Bible as Scripture on a particular textual
map, a location possessing its own assumptions, values, and norms for guiding and animating
particular beliefs, dispositions, and practices constitutive of that people. Second, concerning the
church, theological engagement with Scripture takes seriously the claim that the church is
"one." Consequently, the texts that constitute the Bible were traditioned, written, and
preserved by the same people of God now faced with the task of appropriating and embodying
its message; this is the same community that received this collection of texts as canon; and this
is the very community to which these texts were and are addressed. That is, we locate "the
meaning" of Scripture not in the distant past in a far-away land, but in the community of God's
people, past, present, and future. As James McClendon deftly insisted, "The present Christian
community is the primitive community and the eschatological community." [3]
(2) The pivotal question is what it means to make sense of this ancient text. Critical forms of
modern exegesis construe this question above all in terms of historical distance: how to span
the chasm between our worlds and the strange world of the Bible. The hermeneutical task thus
requires the scholar to enter that world like a pioneer, subdue the text, and bring back its
meaning, now transformed, domesticated for our world. Theological interpretation focuses
elsewhere, on the degree to which we share (or refuse) the theological vision of the biblical text
and in terms of our disposition to "stand under" (or to defy) the Scriptures—that is, with
reference to our practices of engaging with Scripture in the context of our commitment to live
faithfully (or not) before the God to whom the Scriptures witness. Therefore, such dispositions
and practices as attention, acceptance, devotion, and trust characterize theological
interpretation.
(3) This does not mean that reading the Bible theologically requires apathy concerning historical
questions, as though the last two centuries of a biblical scholarship characterized by its
orientation toward historical issues were unimportant or unnecessary. Quite the contrary, we

6. have learned that attention to historical questions may serve to shield the text from
domestication or objectification by the reader, by working to allow the text its own voice from
within its own sociocultural horizons. We recognize that these texts are present to us as cultural
products that draw on, actualize, propagate, and/or undermine the contexts within which they
were generated. Thus, the aim of historical work shifts from the discovery of meaning
embedded in or behind the text to enabling the text its robust voice as a subject (rather than an
object) in theological discourse.
(4) For theological work, the horizons of interpretation of these texts include the particularity of
the ecclesial community. This means that the measure of validity for Christian theological
interpretation cannot be taken apart from the great creeds of the church, a concern with the
Rule of Faith, and the history of Christian interpretation and its embodiment in Christian lives
and communities. This does not mean that the now-traditional categories of systematic
theology must govern the meaning of these texts, much less that the aim of theological
interpretation would be to generate and organize faith claims. Theological reading is concerned,
rather, with putting into play (or facilitating the performance of) the witness of Scripture. We do
not invite the text into a transformation of its original meaning into a new application geared
toward our thought forms; rather, the text invites us into a transformation of allegiances and
commitments, which will manifest itself in Scripture-shaped practices.
(5) Finally, what of "method"? Given the modern fascination with technique, it is important to
note that no particular method can guarantee a reading of the Bible as Scripture. Nevertheless,
some methods are more hospitable to theological reading than others. In addition to
approaches that situate the voice of Scripture sociohistorically, of special interest in theological
study of the Bible in Christian communities of faith are modes of analysis that take seriously the
generally narrative content of Scripture; the theological unity of Scripture, which takes its point
of departure from the character and purpose of the God of Israel and of Jesus Christ, and which
gives rise to the historical unity of Scripture as the narrative of that purpose being worked out in
the cosmos; and the final form and canonical location of the biblical texts.
Joel B. Green is Dean of Academic Affairs and Professor of New Testament Interpretation,
Asbury Theological Seminary.
Notes
[1] Werner G. Jeanrond, "After Hermeneutics: The Relationship between Theology and Biblical
Studies," in The Open Text: New Directions for Biblical Studies? (ed. Francis Watson; London:
SCM, 1993) 85-102.
[2] John Goldingay, "Biblical Narrative and Systematic Theology," in Between Two Horizons:
Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology (ed. Joel B. Green and Max Turner;
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 2000) 123-42 (138).
[3] James Wm. McClendon Jr., Systematic Theology, vol. 1: Ethics (Nashville: Abingdon, 1986)
31.
Citation: Joel B. Green, " The Bible, Theology, and Theological Interpretation," SBL Forum , n.p.
[cited Sept 2004]. Online:http://sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleID=308

7. have learned that attention to historical questions may serve to shield the text from
domestication or objectification by the reader, by working to allow the text its own voice from
within its own sociocultural horizons. We recognize that these texts are present to us as cultural
products that draw on, actualize, propagate, and/or undermine the contexts within which they
were generated. Thus, the aim of historical work shifts from the discovery of meaning
embedded in or behind the text to enabling the text its robust voice as a subject (rather than an
object) in theological discourse.
(4) For theological work, the horizons of interpretation of these texts include the particularity of
the ecclesial community. This means that the measure of validity for Christian theological
interpretation cannot be taken apart from the great creeds of the church, a concern with the
Rule of Faith, and the history of Christian interpretation and its embodiment in Christian lives
and communities. This does not mean that the now-traditional categories of systematic
theology must govern the meaning of these texts, much less that the aim of theological
interpretation would be to generate and organize faith claims. Theological reading is concerned,
rather, with putting into play (or facilitating the performance of) the witness of Scripture. We do
not invite the text into a transformation of its original meaning into a new application geared
toward our thought forms; rather, the text invites us into a transformation of allegiances and
commitments, which will manifest itself in Scripture-shaped practices.
(5) Finally, what of "method"? Given the modern fascination with technique, it is important to
note that no particular method can guarantee a reading of the Bible as Scripture. Nevertheless,
some methods are more hospitable to theological reading than others. In addition to
approaches that situate the voice of Scripture sociohistorically, of special interest in theological
study of the Bible in Christian communities of faith are modes of analysis that take seriously the
generally narrative content of Scripture; the theological unity of Scripture, which takes its point
of departure from the character and purpose of the God of Israel and of Jesus Christ, and which
gives rise to the historical unity of Scripture as the narrative of that purpose being worked out in
the cosmos; and the final form and canonical location of the biblical texts.
Joel B. Green is Dean of Academic Affairs and Professor of New Testament Interpretation,
Asbury Theological Seminary.
Notes
[1] Werner G. Jeanrond, "After Hermeneutics: The Relationship between Theology and Biblical
Studies," in The Open Text: New Directions for Biblical Studies? (ed. Francis Watson; London:
SCM, 1993) 85-102.
[2] John Goldingay, "Biblical Narrative and Systematic Theology," in Between Two Horizons:
Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology (ed. Joel B. Green and Max Turner;
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 2000) 123-42 (138).
[3] James Wm. McClendon Jr., Systematic Theology, vol. 1: Ethics (Nashville: Abingdon, 1986)
31.
Citation: Joel B. Green, " The Bible, Theology, and Theological Interpretation," SBL Forum , n.p.
[cited Sept 2004]. Online:http://sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleID=308