Not too long ago, we visited an out-of-state church, and attended their adult Bible class. It was on a difficult book for contemporary Christians to understand. After the class, I asked the teacher what books he found helpful. Without a hint of unkindness or arrogance, he told me that he only read the Bible, but quickly added that he checked cross-references. I found that I was drawn to him as a sincere brother in Christ, but not drawn to his answer.

He, and many others I’ve known, who are heirs of the Restoration Movement, come to this idea naturally. One of the early slogans of our movement was, “no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible.” The most prominent early leader of the movement, Alexander Campbell, said:

I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them today, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever.

However sincere these expressions have been, they are neither possible nor desirable. To be fair to Campbell, he elsewhere gives very helpful approaches to the proper interpretation of Scripture.[1] Yet, here he suggests that he can sit with Bible in hand and be free from any outside influences, including his own past, and take in the unfiltered Word of God. He could not, and neither can we. The Latin phrases describing this approach are either Nuda Scriptura (bare Scripture), or Solo Scriptura (alone with Scripture), but these are not what is meant in the Reformation term Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone [as final authority]).[2]

Here is a list of observations for consideration:

The shape of the Bible, itself
Our Bible is a collection of sixty-six books that include Ecclesiastes, but not Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of Judah Ben Sirach). It includes the Gospel of John, but not the Gospel of Thomas. It includes the epistles of Paul, but not the Epistle of Barnabas. Those, and many other writings, were not included in our Scripture. The story of how that happened is long and involved, but in short, the church of the first few centuries selected the books for our New Testament, while the Old Testament was selected over a longer period by Jews and Christians. They came together over the years to establish our Canon (rule or standard) of Scripture. So, as we open our Bibles, we are already dependent on the witness of those before us.
The history of the manuscripts
The Bible didn’t drop from heaven. Scrolls were written and copied by hand. The scribes who did the copying were humans who made mistakes in copying the original text and sometimes inserted their own notes in the texts, which later scribes included in their copies. Most of these copying errors are minor, but we depend on the scholars who study the manuscripts in order to give us the most reliable manuscripts we can have. They are unseen, but with us, as we read our Bibles.
The translations
Unless we are proficient in Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek, we need accurate and readable English translations. Read the King James version and then a modern English translation, and it’s obvious languages evolve and change. That’s true of those ancient languages as well. We should appreciate the scholars who use their life’s study to give us reliable translations.
Historical, Cultural, and Literary contexts
Without knowing something of the history and culture of the ancient peoples, we may easily misread and misapply passages of the Bible. That is, we cannot know what the Bible means until we know what it meant. Good commentaries help us here and should not be disregarded. Literary genre is also crucial in understanding the Bible. For example, unless we have a sense of apocalyptic literature, we will be way out of our depth in Revelation. We are often with the Ethiopian official, who confessed, “How can I, [understand] unless someone explains it to me?” (Acts 8:31 NIV). Good commentaries will help explain to us, and not using them is hardly a sign of faithfulness.
Interpretation is necessary.
I’ve frequently heard fellow Christians, including some preachers, say, “I don’t interpret the Bible, I just obey it.” I’m sorry to say it, but that’s nonsense, with barely a pretense of piety. Until we interpret what is said, we cannot obey it, and interpret it we do. The question is whether we interpret it well. Translators must interpret the meaning of a passage in order to put it into another language. Every sermon and Bible class is interpretation. If we refuse the witness of the church and a host of believing scholars to properly interpret Scripture, it’s hard for me to see such arrogance being rewarded.
Our own biases and assumptions
I’m not sure that Alexander Campbell was always aware of the influence of the Enlightenment, through the likes of John Locke and Francis Bacon, as he read his Bible. I’m not sure that I’m always aware of my own bias and even prejudice, as I read. Can we imagine that American Christians and Chinese Christians in their underground churches read the Bible exactly alike? No. Our personal and family histories, religious affiliations, and political values shape how we read the Bible—period. The witness of the church through the ages, though fallible, can give us perspectives that challenge our assumptions and sharpen our reading.
The presence of the Holy Spirit
We may quickly affirm that the Spirit breathed into the writers of the Word, but discount His role with the readers of the Word. I know that I must take care in this point. It’s quite possible to assume that the Spirit is giving us the certainty of understanding, when, in fact, it’s our pride. Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit can help the contrite, prayerful, and humble to see the truth of the Word. Such people never read the Bible alone. I have often experienced insights into the Word that I know came from beyond me. We should always test these insights, but denying them is dangerous and foolish.

In the end, all must yield to Scripture as our final authority. That’s Sola Scriptura. What is not, is the refusal to listen to the witness of the church. In the end such refusal leads us to say that our interpretation, not Scripture, is the final authority and that’s a divisive and dangerous place to be.

Tim Kelley

__________________________________________________________________

[1] See Campbell’s seven principles for Biblical interpretation, in The Christian System.

[2] Here is a very helpful video describing the differences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh2xFZCSj-0