Was the biblical criticism of the eighteenth century in any sense rooted in the biblical vision of the Reformation? Was it possibly a fruit of Reformation principles that the Reformers themselves did not foresee? Did the Reformation’s investment in the principle of sola Scriptura carry, hidden but alive, a germ that later infected scriptural study in a way the Reformers would have rejected?

At least some scholars of the eighteenth century itself gave a Yes to these questions. One was Johann Salomo Sender (1725–1791). In a book that appeared in 1961 (Die Anfänge der historisch-critisches Theologie), Gottfried Hornig discussed thoroughly the relation between Semler and Luther. Semler, it seems, was critical of Luther but did have great respect for his idea of Scripture. Luther’s sola Scriptura, Sender thought, opened the way to a critical approach to the Scriptures.

Semler saw that Luther directed his attack against scholastic theology by demanding attention and obedience to Scripture itself. Luther proclaimed: Scripture is its own interpreter (Sana Scriptura sui ipsius interpret). That is, Scripture must not be interpreted by standards foreign to its own genius. Luther recalled Peter’s warning against “private interpretation” of Scripture (2 Pet. 1:20), which can also be read as “arbitrary” interpretation.

Neither Peter nor, after him, Luther was concerned with something purely negative in this warning. In fact, the statement that Scripture is not open to arbitrary interpretation is charged with positive intent. It means at least that the text itself must be the object of our study. Further, it means that we must listen to the text with an obedient and ready heart.

For Luther, this kind of listening involved a keen interest in the languages of Scripture. The Bible has come to us through the Greek and Hebrew languages; through them it must be studied. In short, attention was called to the very words of Scripture. This was what Calvin saw too, and perhaps especially, in his argument with the spiritualists who devalued the mere words in the name of independent spiritual insights. Thus, Calvin and Luther paved the way for a serious study of the text of Scripture.

This in turn opened up the possibility of scientific study of Scripture with full use of all the techniques developed later (historical, grammatical, philological). With these technical means, one could scientifically get at the meaning of Scripture. The Reformers resisted the traditional allegorical exegesis and chose to return to the literal sense. In this, Luther learned much from Erasmus, though far from him theologically.

Article continues below

Scientific study of the Bible did not bring the student closer to the Gospel content. The mystery of the Gospel is, we may recall, revealed to children. But scientific study can be pressed into the service of a better understanding of Scripture.

The reaction that the long period of rationalistic biblical criticism has aroused in more recent days has not carried with it a demand to get away from scientific study and back to a more spiritualistic approach to the Bible. The Reformation principle that kept the Reformers close to the text itself has had a great influence.

We must note, in fact, that historical critics of the Bible always appealed to the Reformation principle and practice as their own justification. The results of historical criticism brought scholars a long way from the exegesis of the Reformers. But the critics did appeal to the Reformers for their own critical study of the text itself.

So, in spite of the fact that a rationalistic spirit once controlled the scientific study of the Bible, we are obligated to keep ourselves to the text, and to do so with all the scientific means at our disposal. We must remember that while the Word comes as a voice from beyond nature, it comes through the human prophetic and apostolic witness.

Today we are being enriched by a tremendous concentration on biblical research. The movement has been gradual and steady within Protestantism; within the Roman church the door was suddenly opened by the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu in 1943. While Rome still controlled the interpretation of Scripture, the church allowed its scholars from then on to make use of modern techniques in their study of Scripture. This movement itself was part of a deeper appreciation within Rome of the greater significance of Scripture in comparison to tradition.

The development of biblical study goes hand in hand with several very complex and difficult problems. There exist tensions and sometimes anxiety and fear lest the simple secret of Scripture be lost in the maze of technical problems. More, it is sometimes feared that scientific study shaves something away from biblical authority.

In this situation there is always a danger that some people will flee the laborious and complex task of textual study to take a more spiritualistic approach to the Bible. Such a protest, however, would be a basic misreading of the Reformation principle. We must remember that the Reformers’ careful attention to the text was part of a protest against the spiritualists. We must shy away from the arbitrary interpretations of individual insights. In scientific study, the goal must always be the actual intent and meaning of Scripture.

Article continues below

It was in concern for the meaning of the text that Luther produced his commentary on Romans (in 1515!). It was in the same concern that Calvin produced his great library of commentaries. The later, rationalistic biblical criticism was not in error because it concentrated on the text of the Bible. It was the spirit ruling its study that was unbiblical. This is why we must not let ourselves be spurred by reaction against biblical criticism. We must accept as a calling the summons to come to Scripture with all the means at our disposal. For the Word of God has come to us in the words of ancient men.

Our fallible understanding is not going to open the gates to the mystery of the Scripture. The Gospel witnessed to in the Bible is not understood by scientific means. That is why we have to keep praying for an understanding heart. This is what the pious Israelites did, even though they had the Ten Commandments open and clear before them.

There is a stifling idea in some quarters that we are allowed to discover in the Bible only those things we already know. This is a barrier to the discovery of anything surprising or new in the Bible; it closes our eyes to any new perspectives. The mystery of Scripture (the proclamation of salvation) is not enhanced but threatened by this approach.

All this is very relevant to our times. The confession of the authority of Scripture must be subject to the touchstone found in First John 3:18: “Little children, let us not love in word or speech but in deed and in truth” (RSV). Without the deeds and truth of love, our confession of the authority of Scripture is without fruit and without blessing. Are we truly children of the Reformation?

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.

Our digital archives are a work in progress. Let us know if corrections need to be made.

Tags:
Issue: