Skip to content

Course 4 · Lesson 6.2

Reformation principles: Scripture, clarity and the grammatical and historical sense

12 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 4 outline

Module 1: How the Canon Formed

  1. What a canon is, and what canonical means
  2. The Old Testament canon: Law, Prophets and Writings
  3. The New Testament canon: from gospels and letters to a list
  4. Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant canons compared

Module 2: The Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint

  1. The Hebrew Bible and the work of the Masoretes
  2. Origin and character of the Septuagint
  3. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the state of the Old Testament text
  4. How New Testament writers quote the Old Testament

Module 3: Transmission of the New Testament Text

  1. Copying by hand: papyri, codices and scribes
  2. Manuscript traditions: Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine texts
  3. Kinds of variants and how they arise
  4. The principles of textual criticism
  5. Reading a critical apparatus and a translation footnote

Module 4: Reading Responsibly: Exegesis and Method

  1. Exegesis and eisegesis with worked examples
  2. Source, form and redaction criticism: what each asks
  3. Strengths and limits of the historical method
  4. Literary and canonical reading

Module 5: Meaning Beyond the Surface: Typology, Allegory and Genre

  1. Typology in the New Testament and the fathers
  2. Allegory and its critics: Alexandria and Antioch
  3. Reading by genre: narrative, law, poetry, prophecy, gospel and letter
  4. Setting, authorship and audience as questions to ask of any passage

Module 6: Christian Approaches to Interpretation

  1. The fourfold sense of Scripture in the medieval church
  2. Reformation principles: Scripture, clarity and the grammatical and historical sense
  3. Orthodox and Catholic approaches: Scripture within Tradition
  4. Historical scholarship and theological interpretation in conversation

Module 7: Writing an Exegesis

  1. Choosing a passage and framing a question
  2. Observation and context: what the text says and where it stands
  3. Using commentaries and reference works without being led by them
  4. Writing up, checking conclusions and revising

All courses

Program / Course 4: Biblical Studies and Hermeneutics / Lesson 6.2

What you will learn

  • State the main interpretive principles of the Protestant Reformers.
  • Explain what the clarity of Scripture means and what it does not mean.
  • Describe the grammatical and historical sense and how it differs from the fourfold scheme.
  • Summarize the Catholic reply at Trent and the difficulties that each side saw in the other.

The big idea

The Reformers of the sixteenth century held that Scripture is the supreme authority for faith and that it can be understood by ordinary believers with the help of the Holy Spirit. They taught that Scripture interprets Scripture, that the proper sense of a text is the plain sense intended by its author, and that this sense is found by attention to grammar and history. Catholics replied that this left interpretation without a safeguard and that Scripture must be read in the church’s tradition. The disagreement shaped the Western church for centuries.

Key terms

Sola scriptura
A Latin phrase meaning by Scripture alone. The principle that Scripture is the supreme and sufficient authority for Christian faith and life, to which tradition is subordinate.
Clarity (perspicuity) of Scripture
The teaching that what is necessary for salvation is plainly set forth in Scripture, so that ordinary believers can understand it.
Analogy of Scripture
The principle that Scripture interprets itself: unclear passages are explained by clearer ones.
Grammatical and historical sense
The meaning that the words had in their grammar and original setting, as intended by the human author.
Priesthood of all believers
The teaching that every Christian has direct access to God and a share in the church’s ministry, drawing on texts such as 1 Peter 2:9.
Inner testimony of the Spirit
Calvin’s teaching that the Holy Spirit persuades believers of the truth and authority of Scripture.
Magisterium
The teaching office of the Catholic Church, exercised by the pope and the bishops, which holds that it authentically interprets the word of God.

Background

The Reformers were trained in the biblical humanism of the Renaissance, which stressed returning to the sources: the Hebrew and Greek texts, not only the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus published the Greek New Testament in 1516, and the Reformers used it. Luther translated the Bible into German, and others made translations in the languages of ordinary people. The motive was a conviction that all Christians should be able to hear the Word of God.

They also reacted against what they saw as the burden of church tradition, and against the multiplication of allegorical senses in medieval teaching. The famous phrase of Luther at the diet of Worms in 1521, that his conscience was bound by the word of God, expresses the stance. They did not reject the fathers or the creeds. They held the creeds of the early church in honor but taught that all teaching must be tested against Scripture.

At the same time, the Reformation itself raised the problem of interpretation in a pressing way. If everyone may read, who decides when readers differ? The Reformers answered in several ways, and their critics, Catholic and radical, pressed the question.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: Scripture as final authority and its own interpreter

The Reformers taught that Scripture is the final authority, above popes and councils, which can err. The Westminster Confession of 1646 states it clearly, and calls Scripture the supreme judge in all controversies of religion. They taught also that Scripture is its own best interpreter. When a passage is obscure, it should be explained by others that speak more plainly. The Westminster Confession states that the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.

Luther put the matter in a Christ-centered way: he valued the books that show Christ and urged readers to find the gospel in the law and the prophets. Calvin spoke of the Spirit who spoke through the prophets persuading the heart of the reader. Both made the work of the Holy Spirit a necessary part of true reading.

Step 2: The clarity of Scripture

The clarity of Scripture is often misunderstood. Luther, in his debate with Erasmus in The Bondage of the Will, distinguished two kinds. The external clarity belongs to the words and the grammar of the text, which can be understood by anyone who knows the language. The internal clarity belongs to the heart, which the Spirit must open. Luther did not claim that every verse is easy. He claimed that the central message of salvation is plain and that obscurities do not defeat it.

The Westminster Confession states that all things in Scripture are not alike plain, but those things necessary to be known for salvation are so clearly set forth that even the unlearned may attain to a sufficient understanding. Clarity thus means sufficient clarity, and the Reformers also valued teachers, creeds and commentaries.

Step 3: The grammatical and historical sense

The Reformers urged a return to the plain sense. Calvin in his preface to the commentary on Romans said that the chief virtue of an interpreter is a lucid brevity, to let the author say what he says. Luther held that Scripture has one simple sense, the literal or grammatical sense, and that other uses are applications. Both criticized fanciful allegory. This approach is called the grammatical and historical method: the reader studies the language, the grammar, the history and the context to find what the author meant.

They did not give up all figurative reading. Luther and Calvin both read the Old Testament as speaking of Christ and allowed typology where the New Testament itself pointed to it. Calvin, in his Institutes, treated the Old and New Testaments as one covenant of grace in two administrations. The change was one of emphasis and discipline, not a complete break.

Step 4: The Catholic reply and the difficulty on both sides

The Council of Trent, in its decree of 1546, replied that no one is to interpret Scripture in matters of faith and morals contrary to the sense which holy mother church has held and holds, or contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers. The argument was that the church received the Scriptures and is the guardian of their right understanding, and that individual interpretation would lead to division. The history of Protestant divisions seemed to many Catholics to confirm the worry.

Protestants answered that the church can err, that the fathers do not always agree, and that the appeal to a living authority can put human teaching above the word of God. They pointed to places where they thought later practice had departed from Scripture. Protestants admit the problem of division and offer confessions and shared study as partial remedies. Each side saw a real difficulty in the other’s position, and fair readers acknowledge it.

  1. What does the passage say in its grammar and setting?
  2. Does my reading agree with clearer passages on the same subject?
  3. Is the point I am drawing from the passage necessary to salvation or a secondary matter?
  4. How has the church read this passage, and do I have a reason to differ?
  5. Who decides when readers disagree, and on what basis?
  6. Am I making an application, or claiming a new meaning for the text?

Examples

Luther and Erasmus

Erasmus argued that Scripture is obscure in many places and that the church’s teaching is needed to settle matters. Luther replied that the obscurity lies in our ignorance of words and grammar, not in the subject matter, and that the Spirit clarifies. The immediate subject was free will, but the debate opened the wider question of how clear Scripture is, and it shows the two positions facing each other.

Calvin on Romans

In the dedication of his commentary on Romans, Calvin states that the aim is to expound the mind of the writer, with brevity and clarity. The example shows the Reformers’ ideal: a reading that follows the author’s thought without running past it.

A disputed text

At the Marburg colloquy in 1529, Luther and Zwingli disagreed about the words This is my body (Matthew 26:26). Both appealed to Scripture and to the plain sense. They reached different conclusions about its meaning. The case shows that even shared principles did not always produce shared readings.

Different perspectives

Lutheran

Lutherans hold that Scripture is the sole norm for teaching, with the confessions as faithful expositions of it. They read the whole Bible as centered on Christ, distinguishing law and gospel, and they use the grammatical and historical sense while valuing the church’s liturgy.

Reformed

Reformed traditions, following Calvin, stress the sufficiency of Scripture, the witness of the Spirit and the unity of the covenant of grace. They have produced extensive commentary in the grammatical and historical manner, and confessions such as Westminster and Heidelberg.

Catholic

Catholics at Trent affirmed both Scripture and tradition as sources received with equal reverence, and the Second Vatican Council taught that the task of interpreting authentically belongs to the magisterium, which is not above the word but serves it. Catholic scholars today also use the grammatical and historical method with the church’s guidance.

Orthodox

Orthodox Christians see the Reformation question as a Western one. They hold that Scripture and tradition are one life of the Spirit in the church, and that the right interpreter is the church in her fathers and worship, and not the private individual or a single office.

Radical reformers and later critics

Anabaptists and others held that every believer, guided by the Spirit, could read and interpret, often with less regard for the creeds. Critics of all sides noted that this produced wide variety. Modern scholars debate how far the Reformation’s principles led to the modern historical method.

Why it matters

The Reformation principles shape most English speaking Protestant reading, and the Catholic and Orthodox replies shape the other traditions. To talk with Christians of other traditions about Scripture, you need to know what each means by authority, clarity and interpretation. These ideas also continue in modern debates about who may interpret and what counts as sound reading.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: Sola scriptura means private interpretation with no regard for the church.

Correction: Magisterial Reformers valued creeds, confessions and teachers, and held that tradition is subordinate to Scripture. They rejected the idea of the individual as a lone authority. Some modern forms do approach it, which critics note.

Misunderstanding: The clarity of Scripture means every verse is easy to understand.

Correction: It means that what is necessary for salvation is plainly taught. Many passages remain hard, as even Peter said of Paul’s letters (2 Peter 3:16).

Misunderstanding: Catholics are forbidden to read the Bible.

Correction: Catholics are encouraged to read Scripture, and the Second Vatican Council urged it. The church asks that interpretation be in harmony with the faith of the church.

Misunderstanding: The Reformers rejected all non-literal reading.

Correction: They kept typology and Christ-centered reading while rejecting what they saw as arbitrary allegory.

Knowledge check

State three interpretive principles of the Reformers.

Scripture is the supreme authority for faith, Scripture interprets Scripture, and the proper sense of a text is the plain sense found by the grammatical and historical method. They also stressed the clarity of Scripture on matters necessary for salvation and the work of the Spirit.

What did Luther mean by the clarity of Scripture?

He distinguished external clarity, found in the words and grammar, from internal clarity, which the Spirit gives to the heart. He did not say every verse is easy. He claimed that the central message of salvation is plain and that obscure passages do not overturn it.

How did Trent respond to the Reformers on interpretation?

Trent decreed that in matters of faith and morals no one should interpret Scripture contrary to the sense the church has held or contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers. It held that the church is the guardian of right interpretation and feared that private interpretation would divide.

What was the Protestant reply to the Catholic argument about authority?

Protestants answered that the church and the fathers can err, that the fathers do not always agree, and that making a living authority the judge can put human teaching above the word of God. They admitted the problem of division and appealed to confessions and shared study.

Think it through

  1. What is gained and what is risked when ordinary believers are encouraged to read Scripture for themselves?
  2. Why might a church tradition fear private interpretation, and why might it welcome it?
  3. How could Christians with different views of authority still read a passage together?
  4. What does it mean to say that Scripture interprets Scripture, and where might the principle be tested?

Independent assignment

Two sides of one debate

Read the short selections assigned from Calvin’s Institutes (Book 1, chapters 6 to 9) and from the decree of Trent on the canonical Scriptures. In your notebook, summarize each in about 150 words, in terms its adherents would accept. Then write 150 words naming the question on which they most disagree and one point where they agree. Do not argue for either side. Keep your work in your notebook.

Further study