The Bible-Only Hermeneutic -
Using Only Scripture To Interpret Scripture...
Is This Method Of Interpretation Biblical?

Why are there so many conflicting interpretations of so many different Biblical doctrines today? Obviously not everyone is right. Some people must have the wrong interpretation. Certainly we can learn wrong doctrine when verses are taken out of context and combined with plausible explanations. When error is repeated often enough, it can easily become accepted as fact. But there is a major reason why error goes on being repeated without being corrected. "What is it?" you may be wondering. It has to do with the way that people study the Bible. Most people have not been taught how to properly study the Bible. That includes both pastors and their congregations. Were you, as a member of a local church ever taught how to study the Bible? Probably not, if your experience was similar to mine and that of the majority of Christians. There is a scriptural way to study the Bible and then there is the way that most Christians study the Bible:

The scriptural way of studying the Bible:

Use the Bible alone to interpret itself without any extrabiblical writings (commentaries and such). By this we mean:

• Use a Bible that has been translated using the original Masoretic Hebrew text and 1550 Stephanus Greek text (a.k.a. the Received Text or Textus Receptus).

• Look at verses in context and in light of the entire Bible, considering how the same words and phrases are used everywhere else in the Bible.

• Look at the original Greek and Hebrew words to ensure that words were most accurately translated into English (or whatever your native tongue is). This can be done with Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bibles and with concordances such as Strong's or Young's. When we do these "word studies" we will find that translators, at times, either transliterated words instead of translating them or at other times they omitted words from the English translation that are found in the Greek and the Hebrew manuscripts.

We should avoid using 'study' Bibles which have commentaries on the meanings of verses and we should avoid basing our interpretations on the writings of various church historians or church fathers.

The above way of studying the Bible is based on a biblical principle:

1 Cor 2:13 - "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

Rom 7:14 - "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin."

The above verses tell us to use Scripture (i.e. the law) to interpret Scripture. We cannot and must not trust any information outside of the Bible. Only the Bible itself is completely trustworthy and it is sufficient in and of itself to explain itself without the aid of extrabiblical writings as we shall show below. We can be sure that the reason there are so many interpretations of various Bible passages nowadays, is because the above biblical principle is NOT being adhered to.

Common - and dangerous - ways of studying the Bible:

• Use the Bible itself - without consulting interlinears, concordances, or Greek & Hebrew lexicons

• Use external commentaries and history books without knowing the mindset (theological bias) of the author(s)

• Use study guides and interpretive books by popular Christian authors.  The most popular authors are not always the most biblically accurate authors.

• Look at various Bible versions to see which one makes the most sense to you

• Use an English dictionary to find a definition that makes the most sense to you

The above 'helps' that many people use to study and interpret the Bible can actually throw us off track when we are trying to find the meaning of a passage of Scripture. They should only be consulted after we have done a thorough job of studying the Bible without these materials.

God tells us how to interpret the Bible

Contrary to popular opinion and contrary to seminary thinking, the Bible most definitely teaches the Bible-only hermeneutic. First of all, this method of interpretation is based on several Biblical principles, namely:

1. Outside of divine inspiration, man cannot be trusted to always write infallibly.

Man is an imperfect, sin-tainted creature so it is impossible for him (apart from divine inspiration) to accurately translate all that he sees and hears into writing. We all make mistakes, we all have biases and we all have limited biblical knowledge. No one on earth can completely know the mind of the Lord, least of all those who are not saved:

Rom 11:33 - "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?"

Even when we become saved, we still have a sin nature and we are still living in a sin-cursed world. Even the greatest Christian writers and scholars have been wrong about various doctrines. Here is the apostle Paul's advice to those who might give heed to extrabiblical wisdom and writings:

1Cor 2:5 - "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."

Titus 1:14 - "Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth."

2. God has only claimed to preserve His Word. (i.e. the texts in their original Hebrew and Greek languages)

God has not claimed to have preserved any extrabiblical words of men:

Psa 12:6 - "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Psa 119:160 - "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

Matt 5:18 - "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Matt 24:35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

Luke 16:17 - "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

3. The Bible makes no claim that any extrabiblical historical sources are infallible or completely trustworthy.

Rom 3:4 - "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

Even fairly recent history is being rewritten, so how can anyone honestly and assuredly say that extrabiblical writings of the past have not been twisted or corrupted? While God has promised to preserve His Word and keep it pure, He has not made any similar promises about extrabiblical writings. So, to rely upon extrabiblical sources to assist in the interpretation of Scripture can be quite dangerous. When dealing with difficult passages, it is wiser to honestly state that you do not know the meaning than to latch onto the interpretation of the seminaries, reformers, or "most scholars".

4. The Bible alone is sufficient to explain itself

Some who argue against the Bible-only hermeneutic say: "The Bible was not written in a vacuum." as if we need more information than the Bible supplies, without which we are left groping in the dark, hoping to find some extrabiblical light that will illuminate a passage of Scripture for us. However, the Bible-only hermeneutic does not suggest that the Scriptures were written in a vacuum, but that the Bible is completely sufficient, exceedingly trustworthy and adequate in and of itself to explain what God would have us to know, without any help from the uninspired extrabiblical opinions/commentaries of man:

2 Tim 3:16 - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

When you have the Bible, you are throughly furnished. You do not need to feel inadequate that you do not have a seminary degree or that you do not have a library full of the works of Josephus, Calvin or Luther or whoever - not that there is no value in those other writings but those men were themselves human and were in error on various doctrines. We must never forget that we have the best Bible teacher on earth:

John 14:26 - "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

In addition to the Holy Ghost, we also have the best Bible textbook on earth:

Prov 30:5 - "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him."

The Bible teaches a Bible-only hermeneutic in several places:

The Bible teaches a Bible-only method of interpretation by referring to the use of Scripture to interpret Scripture, without ever mentioning the use of outside sources to interpret Scripture. Here are some of those places where the Bible shows this Bible-only hermeneutic:

1. The Bereans used a Bible-only hermeneutic:

Acts 17:11 - "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

Luke commended the Bereans for searching the scriptures - not for searching the history books. This verse in Acts 17 points out that the Old Testament scriptures (which is all the "scriptures" that the early church had initially) were the place where the Bereans went to determine if a teaching or a doctrine was true. Why should Christians go anywhere else but to the scriptures, especially now that we have the further revelation of the New Testament? Can we assume that the Bereans searched only the scriptures and not some extra-biblical history books also? Well, if God wanted us to go the external sources of information to validate or interpret His Word, we can be sure that He would have let us know that. But just the opposite is true... God tells us not to trust in what men say:

Rom 3:4 - "... let God be true, but every man a liar"

Psa 58:3 - "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."

Jer 17:9 - "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

1Cor 2:16 - "For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."

Job 40:2 - "Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it."

Isa 40:13 - "Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him?"

2. Jesus used a Bible-only hermeneutic when answering people's questions:

In answering the Jew's question about "whose husband would she be in heaven?" regarding the women who died after having 7 husbands, Jesus said:

Mark 12:24 - "And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?"

Jesus did not accuse them of not knowing secular history or Jewish fables. There is no mention anywhere in the four Gospels of Jesus accusing someone of not knowing secular history. Neither is there any mention of Jesus condemning anyone for neglecting to use extra-biblical information to enlighten their eyes to the meaning of scripture. We are to use biblical patterns and biblical examples to determine how we are to live, to behave, to speak, to do anything:

2Thes 2:15 - "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

2Thes 3:6 - "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."

1Cor 11:16 - "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

1Cor 1:1-2 - "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."

Php 4:9 - "Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you."

3. On the road to Emmaus Jesus used a Bible-only hermeneutic:

Luke 24:25 - "Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe : 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."

Jesus expounded the scriptures beginning at Moses - not beginning at Plato or Socrates. Notice also the use of the word "all" in verse 27 emphasizes the importance of considering the entire Bible when searching out a matter. Now does this mean that Jesus used only previously recorded scripture to expound the scriptures? No, although as eternal God, everything that Jesus spoke was the Word of God. There is nothing wrong with using our own words to tie together the various scriptures and to point out how one verse relates to another or how one verse explains the meaning of a word used elsewhere. But we are not supposed to rely on extrabiblical writings and the observations and ideas of historians and others as a reliable means of determining the correct interpretation. Also, we can learn from Mark 24:25-27 that we should consider all that the Bible has to say about a matter so that we do not reach hasty and erroneous conclusions.

What about non-biblical sources mentioned in the Bible?

Employing a reference to non-biblical literature in their writings is not the same as endorsing the use of non-biblical material to aid in interpretation, so one cannot validly use that argument to justify a hermeneutic that employs extrabiblical sources. For instance, the Bible does contain several references to non-biblical writings. But those references cannot legitimately be used to justify the use of extrabiblical information to interpret Scripture. Those references include:

1. Jude quotes extrabiblical Jewish writings in Jude 9

2. Jude quotes extrabiblical Jewish writings in Jude 14

3. Paul quotes extrabiblical Greek writings in Acts 17:28

4. Paul quotes extrabiblical Greek writings in Titus 1:12-13

As we shall see, none of the above verses is instructing us to use extrabiblical writings to interpret Scripture. They are merely being used as examples for the respective points being made in each verse. Not only that, scholars don't even agree as to where these references actually came from! Let us look at those "examples" now along with notes from John Gill about the viewpoint of various "scholars"...

Example 1 - Jude quotes from extrabiblical Jewish writings in Jude 9:

Jude 9 - "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."

Is the above verse a quote from some extrabiblical Jewish literature? Who knows? John Gill's commentary on Jude 9 states:

"Some have thought that he [Jude] took it out of an apocryphal book, called "the Ascension of Moses", as Origen, which is not likely; others, that he had it by tradition"

Here we see that the quote about Moses in Jude 9 is, according to various scholars, either:

1. from an apocryphal book called "the Ascension of Moses" OR

2. from tradition

Example 2 - Jude quotes from extrabiblical Jewish writings in Jude 14:

Jude 14 - "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints"

Regarding Jude 14, Gill says:

"that Enoch wrote a prophecy, and left it behind him in writing, does not appear from hence, or elsewhere; the Jews, in some of their writings, do cite and make mention of the book of Enoch; and there is a fragment now which bears his name, but is a spurious piece, and has nothing like this prophecy in it; wherefore Jude took this not from a book called the "Apocalypse of Enoch", but from tradition; this prophecy being handed down from age to age; and was in full credit with the Jews, and therefore the apostle very appropriately produces it; or rather he had it by divine inspiration"

Here we see that the quote by Enoch in Jude 14 is, according to the scholars, either:

1. from the book of Enoch (a.k.a. the "Apocalypse of Enoch") OR
2. from tradition OR
3. simply from divine inspiration by God to Jude

Example 3 - Paul quotes extrabiblical Greek writings in Acts 17:28:

Acts 17:28 - "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."

When we look further, we see that the very next verse (Acts 17:29) says: "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." So if the Godhead is not like unto man's thinking* why should we use the uninspired writings of men to try to gain insight into the thoughts of the Almighty whose thoughts are not man's thoughts, neither are His ways man's ways (Isaiah 55:8)?

[* "man's device" could perhaps be more accurately translated "man's thinking" when we take a look at the Greek word for "device" and note how it is interpreted elsewhere.]

John Gill mentions that this verse in Acts 17 may be:

"a citation from Aratus and whom the apostle might have called his own, as he was his countryman ... the expression is also said to be in an hymn to Jove, written by Cleanthes, ... it is also said to be in Aratus the astronomer, and in the poet Homer"

Here we see that the poetry mentioned in Acts 17:28 was, according to the scholars, either:

1. a citation from Aratus OR

2. a hymn to Jove, written by Cleanthes OR

3. from Aratus the astronomer OR

4. from the poet Homer

Example 4 - Paul quotes extrabiblical Greek writings in Titus 1:12-13:

Titus 1:12 - "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith"

When we look further, we see in Titus 1:14 that to rely on non-biblical sources is to "turn from the truth":

Titus 1:14 - "Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth."

Biblical writers do not say anywhere that we are to use non-biblical sources to interpret the Word of God. To infer they are saying so, by examples of Bible references to extrabiblical writings, is dishonest. Unfortunately, many of today's seminaries have become institutions that equate knowledge of extrabiblical writings with Biblical scholarship and they try to support their grammatical-historical hermeneutic with weak "scriptural" evidence that is really not evidence at all.

John Gill notes that the quote in Titus 1:12 was a reference to someone named Epimenides:

"This was Epimenides, in whose poems stand the words here cited; the apostle rightly calls him "one of themselves", since he was a Cretian by birth, of the city of Gnossus"

Here we see that the scholars finally seem sure as to the source of the quote in verse 12 of Titus 1, since they attribute it to Epimenides and no one else (at least according to John Gill). However as we saw in the three prior examples, the scholars usually don't even agree as to where a quote is coming from. So, why should we go to an extrabiblical source if we can't even be sure that it is the true source of a quote?

PLEASE NOTE: I am not endorsing Gill's commentary by quoting from it. I am merely using it as a source of information regarding what certain Bible scholars or historians have to say, not what God has to say.

What about translation errors?

Translations certainly do contain errors, simply because they are translations and God has not promised to produce inerrant translations. For that reason, it can be very helpful to know how to check out the original Greek and Hebrew to be able to better understand difficult passages in the Bible and to reach proper conclusions on disputed doctrines. At the very least, this means we will need to look at concordances and lexicons to help us interpret the Bible in its original languages. But as with Bible translations, any concordance or lexicon we refer to can have errors in it. So, we must be careful to check our findings with the various places in the Bible where a word or a phrase is used. Young's concordance can be very helpful in this regard since it shows you the various ways that a Greek or Hebrew word was translated into English, indicating that the translators did not always translate a word consistently into the same English word. These tools will also show you when a word was not even translated, but rather transliterated. This practice of the translators is most notably done in the case of the words "angel" and "baptize":

Angel comes from the Greek word "aggelos" which means "messenger". In the KJV it is transliterated as "angel" 179 times and it is translated as "messenger" 7 times. We must ask ourselves why was it not translated as messenger everywhere that the word "aggelos" appears in the Greek, especially when we substitute the word "messenger" for the word "angel" in the related verses and see how well it fits in to the context of the passages.

Baptize comes from the Greek word "baptizo" which means "wash". In the KJV it is transliterated as "baptize" 76 times and translated as "wash" 2 times and as "baptist" 1 time. We must wonder why it was not translated as wash every time that the word "baptizo" appears in the original Greek, especially when we substitute the word "wash" for the word "baptize" in the related verses and realize that the affected text is not rendered meaningless, but perhaps more meaningful.

Summary

In this world we see dimly as though looking through a glass. We cannot expect to fully understand everything in the Bible but neither should we be content in our ignorance.  Also, as difficult as it can be at times to understand the meaning of a passage, we should not be discouraged, because God rewards those who diligently seek Him (Heb. 11:6). Also, "it is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter" (Prov. 25:2) so we as true believers, whom God calls priests and kings in His kingdom (Rev. 1:6), have the honor of searching out biblical truth as we study God's Word. As we do this we need to remember that only the Bible alone can reliably be used to interpret the Bible. Certainly we must have a proper understanding of the words and the grammar of the language that our Bible is written in. But we must never think that extrabiblical writings can be used as a measuring rod to interpret Scripture. It is Scripture that is the measuring rod for determining the validity and truth of extrabiblical information. We are not to look at the Bible as if it were on an equal status with any other writings or as if it could be judged and interpreted using the ordinary uninspired writings of man. God has magnified His Word above all His name (Psa. 138:2). Let us treat it as such.

Just as the corporate Church needs to get away from the institution style church of the status-quo and back to the home-centered, family-centered church of the New Testament, it also needs to get away from the seminary mindset and get back to the Bible with respect to Biblical interpretation. Seminaries have not cornered the market on truth. Rather they have cornered the market on tradition and on promoting the status quo and propagating the idea that your average Christian is totally incapable of interpreting the Bible without crying out to seminary-trained helpers. We must not even assume that our church leaders are saved, never mind assume that God has revealed more biblical truth to them than to the rest of us:

Luke 10:21 - "In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."

Now don't misunderstand me and don't miss the meaning of Luke 10:21... God is not advocating ignorance and neither am I.   I wish to encourage believers to question everything they are taught by others and to realize that many so-called 'learned men' are ignorant to the fact that they may have been misled by others. In the secular realm, one need only look at all the so-called 'leading' scientists who have followed in Darwin's footsteps regarding human origins. In the Christian arena, we see notable people (like Charles Wesley) following after men like Arminius who had a misunderstanding of the biblical doctrine of the preservation of the saints, probably based upon a wrong view of God's grace and sovereignty and certainly a misunderstanding of Jude 24 since that passage clearly states that God is able to keep His people from falling and present them faultless at the Judgment.

1Cor 1 - "26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence."

Ray Kane