Chapter 15: Scripture, and Scripture Alone, But . . .
Chapter Fifteen
Scripture, and Scripture Alone, But . . .
“Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God?”
“Yes, but I want you to stop and listen to what I mean when I say that.”
“I don’t care about all your little ways to deny the truth. Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God?”
“OK, so we know we can’t believe everything the Bible says. How do we know what we’re supposed to believe?”
When the Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament was first published in 1952, many pastors took it into the pulpit and ripped out the page that contained Isaiah 7:14. Why? Because the new translation said “a young woman shall conceive,” instead of “a virgin shall conceive,” as in the King James. In this case, doctrine trumped a more accurate translation.
“You can prove anything by the Bible.” That’s true, if you take verses out of context. And many of us do that. We find a verse that, by itself, makes the point we want to make. So we quote it, as if it were the full and only truth. Only, many times, when we look at the verse in its full context, we find it doesn’t mean what the argument seems to say it does.
What do we do about the Bible? What kind of authority does it have? Is it really the inspired word of God? How do we understand and interpret the Bible?
John Wesley on Scripture
John Wesley was a complex person, and his thought was as complex as the rest of his personality. He said, “Let me be homo unius libri” (a man of one book), by which he meant he wanted to ground everything in the Bible. But, in the same sermon where he said that, he quoted from the Greek classics. Wesley read everything, and used what he read in his preaching, his writing, and his teaching. He read devotional classics, theology, the Fathers of the early church, science, history.
He urged his followers to read widely, as well.
When Wesley set the American church free to organize separately from him, he sent a shortened version of the Articles of Religion (of the Church of England) for use in America. That version still remains as one of the bedrock doctrinal standards of United Methodism. Article V is titled, “Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation,” and reads in part:
The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.
(The Book of Discipline, 2008 edition, p. 60)
Since Wesley sent this to America unchanged from the Articles of the Church of England, we can feel confident it reflects his thought about the Bible. What does it say to us? First, the Bible “contains all things necessary to salvation.” We don’t have to go looking for God’s plan of salvation anywhere else. If someone comes along with a new idea about salvation that is not compatible with Scripture, we don’t have to take it seriously, or believe that it is necessary for salvation. Second, and equally important, is what the article does not say. It does not say that the Bible contains all truth in all topics for all time. Wesley did not believe that the Bible was a textbook for history, or biology, or geology, or astronomy, for example. In the chapter on science, we saw that he was open to the Copernican view of the universe, and applied that view to his understanding of the Scripture. He interpreted the Bible in the light of science, and not the other way around. In Chapter 1, when we looked at Wesley’s spirituality, we saw his outline of a “grand scheme of salvation” (pages 13-16). This is what he meant when he said the Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation. On those biblical doctrines he stood firm. Other parts of the Bible he was willing to interpret in the light of knowledge from other disciplines.
So Wesley did not believe that Scripture was inerrant, that is, that it was never wrong. Nor did he think that all parts of the Bible were equally binding on Christians. For example, he identified three kinds of law in the Old Testament—moral, ceremonial, and political. It is clear that he thought the ceremonial and political laws were written for specific historical and religious situations that no longer existed. Therefore, they were not binding on Christians in his time (or, by extension, in our time). The moral law, however, was timeless, and binding on all the people of God, in all times and places. So there are degrees, or levels, of understanding the authority of Scripture. So does that mean the Scripture has no authority? For Wesley, the Scripture was authoritative, just not on all subjects.
Scripture as a Means of Grace
John Wesley clearly saw the Bible as a means of grace, that is, as a way in which we come to know God and God’s love for us, find guidance and meaning for our lives, and grow in our faith. He was also aware that it is difficult for many Christians to just open the Bible and find meaning and faith. Although he sometimes practiced that kind of random opening of the Bible, he was more interested in a careful reading and meditation approach. So how do we read the Bible?
We begin, Wesley says, with prayer. We pray to be open to God’s word in the Bible; we pray that God’s Spirit will enlighten our minds as we read. This was an important theological point for Wesley, as well as a practical one. He believed that the Spirit who inspired the writing of the Scripture also inspired the understanding of those who read it centuries later. Prayer, then, is the key to really understanding the Bible.
Wesley is a bit vague on how the Spirit works to help us understand Scripture. He just takes for granted that this happens. Sometimes, he says, the Spirit may help us remember events or relationships. These events/relationships could help us understand more clearly what the Bible says. Or, the Bible could help us understand those events/relationships more clearly. (As in, “Oh, so that’s what God was doing there.”) Sometimes the Spirit convicts us of sin as we read the Scripture. That is, the Spirit helps us see a part of our life in an entirely new light—we now see that what we thought was innocuous, or even good, was really a sin against God and/or our neighbor. Sometimes the Spirit opens the Scripture to us like a ray of sunshine on a dark, gloomy day, bringing us hope and salvation and joy in the midst of our despair.
Wesley also was convinced that the Spirit worked with our reason to help us understand Scripture and how it relates to our life. Remember, in the Wesleyan tradition, we don’t have to check our brains at the door. God calls us to use the wonderful gift of reason to help us grow to a deeper faith and richer life.
Scott Jones, in his John Wesley’s Conception and Use of Scripture, pulls from various places in Wesley’s writings a list of principles of interpretation. Below you will find the list, along with some comments on how we might apply each of the principles in our own use of the Bible.
Speak as the oracles of God.
Use the literal sense unless it contradicts another Scripture or implies an absurdity.
Interpret the text with regard to its literary context.
Scripture interprets Scripture, according to the analogy of faith and by parallel passages.
Commandments are covered promises. Interpret literary devices appropriately.
Seek the most original text and the best translation. (Jones, p. 110)
Let’s look at these briefly, beginning with the last. The basic principle of Biblical interpretation is finding the translation that most faithfully reproduces the original text. Remember that Wesley read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, so he was a pretty good judge of accurate translations. Since we no longer have any of the original manuscripts of the Bible, this depends on following centuries of biblical scholarship. For the Old Testament, there is a scholarly consensus that the biblical manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls represent the most original. This includes the scroll of Isaiah that led to the controversies over the Revised Standard Version. In practical terms, Wesley would want us to consider (it seems to me) the relative value of a good translation, as opposed to a paraphrase. That is, in his terms, the New Revised Standard Version or the New International Version would have a higher relative value than The Message or The Living Bible, because they are more faithful translations of the most original texts.
Context is an important key to understanding. We all know, in a variety of settings, how sentences can be ripped out of context and made to mean something entirely different from what the writer meant. Context can be as simple as the paragraph in which a sentence is found, or as wide-ranging as the whole of Scripture. We need to consider historical context. When was this book written? What was the historical situation? How does the history affect the way we understand the message? The literary context is important. What kind of literature is this? Is it an historical narrative, a poem, a collection of wise sayings, or a letter? We read each of those genres differently, and this also affects the way we understand what we read. What is the cultural context? That is, what elements in the culture of the time do we need to understand in order to grasp the full meaning of a passage? We don’t carry all that information in our heads when we sit down to read the Bible, so we refer to commentaries, Bible dictionaries, or Bible handbooks to help us understand what we’re reading. Using our reason is an important part of understanding the Bible.
Closely related to context is the importance of interpreting literary devices appropriately. The Bible is rich in metaphors and similes, which are not meant to be taken literally. To use a non-biblical example, when we read that a mother heard her baby crying and flew upstairs to see what was the matter, we don’t take that to mean that the mother sprouted wings and floated up the stairway. In the same way, when we read Jesus’ words, “I am the vine,” we don’t think of him as a grapevine, with tendrils and leaves. But other metaphors and rhetorical devices are more subtle, and we have to read carefully.
Of all Wesley’s principles of interpretation, the statement that “commandments are covered promises” is one of the richest. By that he meant that commandments are really promises of God about what we can become. For example, in the Beatitudes, Jesus says all these things that seem impossible for anyone to really live out. We have two choices on how we interpret those, Wesley says. We can see them as law and despair, because we know we can never live up to them. Or, we can see them as promises and rejoice, because God fulfills what God promises. This reflects Wesley’s basic concern for holy living. This is how God calls us to live. God expects this of us. But God has also promised that, in Christ, we can live this way. So the commandments really are gospel and not law. Other commandments that we might take seriously as covered promises include Exodus 20:1-18, Matthew 22:37-40, Matthew 5:48, and John 13:34.
When we don’t understand a part of Scripture, it can often be understood by reference to another part of Scripture. Or, more likely, when we understand more and more of Scripture, the vague passages become clear when we see them in the light of the entire Bible. And, again, sometimes we have to understand a particular passage in the light of the “analogy of faith,” which is another term Wesley uses for the grand plan of salvation. That is, the key to Scripture is that plan of salvation (see Chapter 1), and we can interpret unclear passages in the light of the “plan.”
Did Wesley Really Have a “Quadrilateral”?
In a report for the 1972 General Conference, Dr. Albert Outler of Perkins School of Theology outlined what he called the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral,” a fourfold way of doing theology, based on Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. This caused a major furor in the church and was later changed to talk about the “primacy of Scripture,” interpreted by tradition, reason, and experience. A part of the furor was the question, did Wesley really talk about the quadrilateral?
The answer is “no,” in the sense that Wesley used the word, “quadrilateral”. Nor does he ever talk about all four of those elements at the same time. He does however, talk about all four of them as important for understanding the Bible, and for developing faith. The ideas are still important for us today. We’ve already talked about the importance of Scripture for faith. Here we will look at tradition, reason, and experience, and how we use them as tools for understanding Scripture and faith.
Tradition, for Wesley, meant primarily the traditions of the early church and those of the Church of England. Wesley believed that what he called “the primitive church” was the most perfect expression of the church that had ever existed. So he relied heavily on the writings of the Church Fathers, the writers of that early period. In turn, he believed that the Church of England was the most perfect reflection, in his day, of the primitive church. So he appealed to the authority of both the Church of England and the Fathers in both theological and practical matters. For example, he appeals to St. John Chrysostom on justification by faith, and to others of the Eastern Fathers for his teachings on sanctification. When he finally gave in and ordained clergy for America, he did so on the grounds that, in the early church, priests could ordain other priests without the blessing of the bishop.
Reason was always important for Wesley. He was a child of the Enlightenment, as well as of the Church, and this always shows in his preaching and writing. He believed that God had given to humans a rational faculty, and called them to use it. However, reason had limitations for Wesley. He was not convinced that we can think our way into and through all issues. Reason is only a tool we use for discerning God’s way in the world. Even with its limitations, however, reason is a powerful tool for the faith. One of the questions we ask about theological arguments is, “does that make sense?” Does it hang together with what we know of the Bible, the teachings of the church, and a broader range of knowledge in the humanities and sciences?
Experience, for Wesley, meant two things. First, he accepted the ideas of John Locke that all our ideas are based on experience. But he used experience primarily in a much narrower way, namely our religious experience. For him, religious experience was an objective reality, and therefore was a source of authority of Christian faith and life.
As principles of interpretation, tradition, reason, and experience continue to play an important role in our faith. We bring to our study of Scripture a wide range of experience. We bring a wide range of knowledge, from both the humanities and the sciences. We bring questioning minds. We bring an awareness that our religious experiences—the stories and prayers and songs we learned as children, and the values we inherited from our families—are powerful shapers of who we are and what we believe. All of those are a part of the process that we bring to the study of Scripture, and to the understanding of faith and life for the twenty-first century.
What Can I Learn from Wesley About Taking the Bible Seriously?
We have learned some surprising things about Wesley’s approach to the Bible. He definitely believed it was an authority, even the most important authority, but there were also other authorities. He believed that both the writing and the reading of Scripture were inspired by the Spirit, but he did not believe the Scripture was inerrant. He believed the Bible contained everything we need to know about salvation, but that the Bible was not an equal authority in all realms of knowledge. Wesley took a very modern approach to studying and understanding the Bible, particularly in terms of the use of language and figures of speech, using the best possible translation, and bringing to bear the best of our reason, experience and tradition.
One thing Wesley might say to the people called United Methodists today would be to “chill.” Don’t get so upset and angry with each other over the Bible until you learn to take the Bible more seriously. Don’t take the passages out of context and proclaim them as absolute truth. Don’t use Bible passages as weapons against each other. Talk together in love and try to understand each other.
Questions for Reflection
For Further Reading
Scott J. Jones, John Wesley’s Conception and Use of Scripture. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995).
Scott J. Jones, United Methodist Doctrine: The Extreme Center. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002).