Monosyllabic.
Inflammable.
Abbreviation.
Phonetically.
Perspicuity.
Every one of these words is ironic. Monosyllabic means one syllable but the word itself contains five syllables. Inflammable means “easy to catch fire,” but looks like it means the opposite (not flammable). Abbreviation is not an abbreviation. And shouldn’t phonetically be spelled funetically? Perspicuity means “ease of understanding” and yet the word itself isn’t very easy to understand. We’ll return to that later.
Roman Catholic theologians during the Middle Ages argued that the scripture was not perspicuous. They contended that scripture was too veiled and obscure for the average person to understand.
Thomas Aquinas said, “The truth of Scripture is veiled in many places on account of the profundity of the mysteries, so that the meaning of some things is not evident to everyone. Hence, the assistance of the authority of the Church and the holy doctors is necessary for its exposition” (Summa Theologica, I, Q. 1, Art. 10).
Jesuit cardinal and major Counter-Reformation theologian Robert Bellarmine said, “Scripture is not plain in itself, nor clear to all, and thus it can be twisted and interpreted in contrary ways. Therefore, it is necessary that there be a living judge … that is, the Church” (Controversies of the Christian Faith).
The Council of Trent decreed that “… no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,—wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,—to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—hath held and doth hold …” (Council of Trent, Fourth Session (1546), Decree Concerning the Edition and Use of the Sacred Books).
The Reformers demurred, asserting that Scripture was given to God’s people. They argued that Paul’s instruction to Timothy was not merely to the educated clergy, but to all. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Martin Luther argued that, “The Holy Scriptures are plain and fitted to the capacity of the unlearned” (Works of Martin Luther, Vol. 3). John Calvin agreed, “Scripture, indeed, is self-authenticated; hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning. … the Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. … the clearest proof of its truth is found in the fact that it shows itself clear and plain to us” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.7.5). The Westminster Divines explained that, “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them” (Westminster Confession of Faith 1.7).
Moses says, “For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it” (Deut 30:11–14).
Do you, fellow pastor, still believe in the perspicuity of scripture?
I was 18 years old when I preached my first series of sermons. I was home for Christmas break and rattling with enthusiasm from my Old Testament 101 class. I asked family if I could practice on them from the book of Deuteronomy. In my four-part sermon series, I threw the theological kitchen sink at them. I vaguely recall teaching redaction theory in one sermon. God bless loving family members.
Blown away by the knowledge of my Old Testament professor, I had somehow concluded that the more erudite and scholarly a sermon, the better it was. The best preacher was the one who could prove his intellectual mettle and make those listening realize how little they knew about the text. Functionally, I had rejected the Reformation. I believed the uneducated laity needed me (and my whole semester of education). James provides a sober warning against teaching with arrogance: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1).
Preachers, are you tempted to imperspicuity in your preaching? Do you unnecessarily drop your knowledge of the original languages in your sermon? Instead of giving your congregation tools to clarify scripture, do you prove your own intellect?
Paul deliberately avoided intellectual showmanship, wanting people to trust in God’s power, not his rhetoric, “And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God” (1 Cor 2:1–5).
There is a danger for every preacher to use the sermon to flex—his intellect, humor, or charisma. There is a sinful desire for every preacher to preach in a manner that increases the congregation’s dependence on him. It feels good to feel wanted and esteemed. It feels flattering to hear congregants say, “I never thought of that before!” And sometimes faithful exposition ought to lead to “Aha!” moments. But like a good coach, those sitting under our preaching ought to grow as expositors and interpreters in their own right. Someone under my preaching should have increasing confidence in their ability to read and interpret scripture on their own.
Are there challenging portions of scripture? Without a doubt. And yet, as a whole, God’s Word to us contains all we need to interpret itself. Let us be careful, fellow pastors, not to undermine that sacred trust in the way we preach.
You may also appreciate:
Teaching For Change: How I Learned to Stop Preaching
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash