What do we mean by the phrase, sola Scriptura? What does it mean that the Bible is our authority for life today? How does that fit in a culture that emphasizes “my truth?” We’ll discuss these questions and more with our guest, Dr, Ben Witherington around his new book Sola Scriptura: Scripture’s Final Authority in the Modern World.


Bible scholar Ben Witherington is Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary and on the doctoral faculty at St. Andrews University in Scotland. Witherington has written over sixty books, including The Jesus Quest and The Paul Quest, both of which were selected as top biblical studies works by Christianity Today. He also writes for many church and scholarly publications, and is a frequent contributor to the Patheos website.



Episode Transcript

Scott: What do we mean by the phrase "sola Scriptura?” What does it mean that the Bible is our authority for life today? How does that fit in a culture that emphasizes, quote, "my truth?” We'll discuss these questions and more with our guest today, Dr. Ben Witherington, around his new book, Sola Scriptura: Scripture's Final Authority in the Modern World. I'm your host, Scott Rae.

Sean: And I'm your co-host, Sean McDowell.

Scott: This is Think Biblically from Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. Ben, so happy to have you with us. Appreciate your book, and looking forward to the conversation.

Ben: My pleasure. Good to be with you.

Scott: I have to admit, when I first read the title and subtitle without looking at any of the book proper, I thought to myself, do we really need another book on this subject? So, why do we need another one? What prompted you to write this one? And what makes this book different from all the other ones that have been written on the authority of the Bible in the modern world?

Ben: Well, to start with, you know, there has been an assumption, especially in the evangelical Protestant community—the orbit we tend to be in—that the idea of Sola Scriptura came out of the Reformation and the post-Reformation. And that's absolutely false. In fact, that phrase was being thrown around long before Luther or anybody else thought about using it. And it was used by Catholic priests who were ticked off with the pope. They used it because the pope, increasingly over the Middle Ages, was claiming he was the final authority on X, Y, and Z. And these priests, Marsilius of Padua in Italy, William of Ockham, the famous philosopher, also a priest, John Wycliffe, the Morning Star of the Reformation, but a Catholic priest, all used this phrase to say, no, the norm of all norms, the final authority, is not the pope. And they weren't denying that there were other things that had, you know, lesser authority. They weren't even denying that the pope had…they weren't saying the pope had no authority. They were simply saying, the final litmus test, the final authority, is Scripture. And that's what they meant by “sola Scriptura.” So, when you get to the Reformation, what's interesting is that in some cases, it morphed into "sola Scriptura" means "only Scripture." Now, that's not true of all of the reformations. It's not true, for example, of the English Reformation. I mean, when you read somebody like John Wesley or even Richard Baxter, what they're saying is that reason has some authority, tradition has some authority. They don't really talk about experience as authority, which makes them very different from our modern culture in America. For our ultimate litmus test is our own experience. Well, that wasn't true in the Reformation for those folks, but they agreed that other things had lesser authority. For instance, John Wesley said that reason, tradition, and experience were avenues into the central truth of Scripture, or vehicles out of the central truth of Scripture by which the central truth of Scripture could be expressed. So, you know, there was only a minority of Protestants in the Protestant Reformation that were really insisting "sola Scriptura" just means no other authorities other than Scripture.

Sean: All right, so you just, in a sense, dropped a bomb on certain Protestant-Catholic discussions.

Scott: [laughs]

Sean: And I mean, I have a doctorate in this in terms of apologetics and worldview, and until your book, and what you just said, I've never heard that. I just assumed that the term "sola Scriptura" came from the Reformation. So why haven't we heard this before? This is pretty important news. And how did you come across it? And is that what motivated you to write this specific book?

Ben: Well, it was part of it. But, I mean, I was required to read Philip Schaff. I had to read Schaff, page after page, at Gordon Conwell Seminary back at the dawn of time, when the earth was still cooling, in the 70s.

Scott: [laughs]

Ben: You know, BC, before cell phone.

Scott: [laughs]

Ben: And I don't know. I have no idea why my fellow Protestants and evangelicals today are completely unfamiliar with page after page of Schaff saying, "Well, this idea already..." In fact, he says the idea already existed with Dante. And Dante, as in Divine Comedy, got into hot water with the pope for critiquing the pope on the basis of the Bible. So this was going back to the early Middle Ages, in fact. So this idea was definitely out there. And John Wycliffe, bless his heart, I mean, the Catholics gave him no end of stick over this. And, you know, he actually even had a heart attack while serving Mass one day in Oxford over the criticism and persecution he faced for saying, no, the pope is not the final authority.

Scott: So Ben, what exactly, in your view, what has the term "sola Scriptura" come to mean today?

Ben: Well, you know, I would hate to say we're in the period of the judges, where each does what is right in their own eyes. But what I've observed is that if you're talking about the really, really conservative Protestants, "sola Scriptura" really does mean it's the only authority for faith and practice. Period. Exclamation point. I mean, I've run into primitive Baptists like this, general Baptists like this, various others like this, and what that also meant was an absolute, literal interpretation of the Bible. I mean, I'll give you an example. 1968, after Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, I'm on a ride down Blue Ridge Parkway with a good friend of mine, Doug Harris, and the clutch blew out, and my countenance fell, as the Bible says. And we had to be pushed off the Blue Ridge Parkway into a gas station. And we were stranded. You know, it's the middle of summer, and not good. So, I stuck out my thumb and we got a ride. And we got a ride with some flatlanders. I did not know before we got in the car that's who they were, but Doug just started this conversation with them about, "Well, what'd you think about Neil Armstrong walking on the moon?" And they said, "That's all fake. Never happened. Hollywood stuff."

Scott: Wow.

Ben: And Doug did not recognize invincible ignorance when he saw it, so he kept pressing this. I mean, Doug has been a lawyer for the last 50 years, so you can understand why he might do that. And they said, and I quote, "It says in the book of Revelation, the angels will stand on the four corners of the earth. It can't be round, can it, if it's got four corners?" I mean, okay, there's your infallible proof that the Bible is teaching us cosmology. And so, you know, one of the things that's still true today is that there are some Christians, particularly very conservative Protestants, who think “sola Scriptura” means it's the only authority for everything.

Scott: All right, so maybe the better question to help clarify this a little further would be, what are some things that that doesn't mean?

Ben: Sure. Now, in the book, I sort of laid this out and tried to be very clear about this. There are ever so many subjects that the Bible doesn't teach us on. For example, auto mechanics, okay? I'm just saying.

Sean: [laughs]

Scott: I'm shocked to hear that.

Ben: [laughs] It's not in there, it’s not in there. But, there are any number of subjects that the Bible touches on but does not teach us on. I'll give you an example. Human anthropology. In the ancient world, whether we're talking about Egyptians or Israelites, they all assumed that the heart was the control center of the personality. This is why, for example, the psalmist says, "Cleanse the thoughts of my heart by the inspiration of your Spirit." They don't have modern scientific understanding of the difference between a heart, which is just a pump, and the brain. They don't really have that understanding. And what I am saying is, the Bible is not teaching us anthropology. It's not teaching us cosmology. It's not teaching us auto mechanics. There's so many things the Bible is not teaching, and even some of the things that it touches in passing, it's not teaching. Here are the subjects the Bible teaches us on. History, and in particular, salvation history, theology, ethics, and spiritual formation. Those are the four biggies. I could unpack that, but those are the things that the Bible is really trying to teach us on. And there are a lot of other things in there, interesting things, but not exactly the subject matter of, you know, biblical authority teaching us on those subjects.

Sean: Okay, say those four again. You said history, spiritual history, ethics.

Ben: Yes, it's...

Scott: Spiritual formation.

Ben: History as in salvation history, particularly. I mean, they're not teaching us just any kind of history, but God's history with humankind, okay? And then theology, ethics, and spiritual formation.

Sean: Okay, so how does that play out for authority, since this is a book about authority in the modern world as it comes to history, things like the historicity of the exodus or other historical accounts in the Bible. How do we intersect authoritatively when history, in some cases, some would say, is at tension with the Scripture? What does that look like between those two?

Ben: Well, what I would say is that I personally, who spent a lot of time on history and archaeology—I spent a lot of time in the lands of the Bible talking to archaeologists and studying these things—I would say I don't know of anything in the Bible that contradicts the hard evidence of archaeology and external history. I don't know anything like that. I haven't run into it. I'm 72 years old. I've been looking since I was knee-high to a grasshopper.

Sean: [laughs]

Ben: I don't know anything. Nothing, right? So, as far as anything the Bible is trying to teach us about history, I think we can take that to be true. Now, it's a theological interpretation of events, which undoubtedly would be interpreted differently by people who were not part of the biblical genre or milieu. That's fine. I mean, I can imagine Pharaoh saying, you know, we've got too many bugs here right now this year. I mean, this is just not good. Maybe those Israelites are a curse. We should just get rid of them. But that's not the biblical perspective, of course. The plagues were sent by God. So, I don't have a problem with people saying other interpretations are possible. What I do say is, the authoritative interpretation of those events, which are crucial events like the exodus, the Bible tells us the truth about them.

Scott: Well, Ben, let me go back to the statement you made about anthropology.

Ben: Yeah.

Scott: That's something that the Bible touches on but does not teach us on. And I think the example you cited is a good one. That may have been intended as a figure of speech for the whole person. That's the way I've always heard it referred to. But what about something like, you know, when the Bible refers to human beings having souls? Is that something that Scripture is teaching, or something that Scripture just touches on? And where does the authority lie for that?

Ben: Well, first of all, I would say the medieval theology of soul, or even the Greco-Roman theology of the immortal soul, is not in the Bible. What is in the Bible is the idea that there is a human spirit. Remember Jesus on the cross? What does he say? "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." So, what we need to do, when we're talking about the non-material part of who we are, is use actual biblical terms for it, which is not soul. I mean, "suke" in the Greek does not mean soul. In fact, it means “life breath,” just like “nephesh” does in the Hebrew. It means “life breath.” So, for example, when Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 is talking about a “psychikon soma” as opposed to a “pneumatikon soma,” the first one doesn't mean a soulish body as opposed to a spiritual body. It means a body empowered by “suke,” life breath, the ordinary thing from the story that he's thinking about, the story of Adam. God breathed into Adam and he became a living being. And then the “pneumatikon soma” means not a body made out of spiritual material. It means a body empowered by the Holy Spirit. So I would say what the Bible does teach us is that we're not simply material creatures. We also have a spiritual part of who we are, call it our spirit, and it's not simply equating with the Greco-Roman idea of an immortal soul. And that's a whole different ball game, to be honest.

Sean: So, the Bible's obviously been translated into different languages, you know, for 2,000 years plus. Does this affect its authority, and if so, how?

Ben: Well, I would always say that a translation is already an interpretation. And this is, I think, perfectly clear. This is why we have different translations of the very same verse in various ways, even in English. I mean, we have so many translations into English. You know, take your pick, go to Walmart and pick out one, right? And so, the truth of the matter is that, of course, translating things, especially difficult words and difficult phrases, requires interpretation. What do they mean by this? You know, what's the implication of this? That sort of thing. Let me give you one example. Certainly, a very important Old Testament word is “hesed.” And I'm not spitting at you, I'm just trying to do decent Hebrew, okay?

Sean: [laughs]

Ben: And in one kind of tradition of Protestantism, this has been translated “covenant love.” In fact, I had an argument with Walter Brueggemann at Baylor about this. It doesn't mean “covenant love,” it means “loving kindness.” And, in fact, if you do your word study in the Old Testament, guess who uses the word “hesed?” Rahab the harlot. The pagan uses this word. Can't mean “covenant love.” It's in the story of Ruth as well, and we should be thankful the book of Ruth is in the Bible. Otherwise the Bible would be ruthless.

Scott: [laughs]

Ben: So, we can be thankful for that. But my point is that “hesed” is not a technical term for covenant love. It is used sometimes of the relationship of Yahweh to His people, and it means “loving kindness.” God has shown them loving kindness. And here's the most interesting bit about this. In the LXX, “hesed” is regularly translated, over and over again, the overwhelming majority of the time, as “mercy.” Mercy. Not “covenant love,” “mercy.” So, it certainly matters what happens in translation. I would say, and I do tell my students, there are no perfect translations. There are better and there are worse translations. And here are some criteria to evaluate them on. But every translation is already an interpretation. So, what we should not do is commit bibliolatry over a translation. That is, the worship of a particular translation is infallible, inerrant, and basically God in my life. That's a mistake. You need to do your homework and compare various different translations. You don't know the original languages. And realize that even in very conservative evangelical circles, when we're talking about inerrancy and infallibility, we're talking about the original inspired documents that the Bible writers wrote. That's what we're talking about. And we don't have those. What we have is copies of copies of copies. Now, if we want to use the term "inerrancy" today—and I don't object to that—I would simply say that what that means is that the Bible is totally truthful and trustworthy about the things it teaches us. Period. That's what it really ought to mean. And I would much prefer using the positive language rather than the negative language, because when you start talking about errors, no two people have the same list of what counts as an error. I mean, you know, you can die the death of a thousand qualifications talking about inerrancy. And I don't really think that's a very helpful conversation. I think what people would rather know is that the Bible is truthful and trustworthy in regard to history, theology, ethics, and spiritual formation. That will feed their souls, or in this case, spirits.

Scott: So, let me just be clear about this, too. When you're talking about the Bible's authority extends to history, you mean more than just salvation history, I take it?

Ben: Well, if it makes a claim—for example, it makes a claim that Cyrus is, in fact, the anointed one of God who sets God's people free. Okay, that's not about salvation in Jesus Christ. It's about a broader concept of history, the liberation of Jews from exile. Yeah, it's making a claim. It's even naming a name. So, yes, it's telling us the truth about that historical fact. And there are other historical facts it tells us the truth about.

Scott: So, I'm thinking of things like the different chronology of the Kings and Chronicles, some historical references in the Gospels, things like that.

Ben: Sure. Absolutely. But here's where the nuance comes in. Let’s talk about the fact that all four Gospels tell us that Jesus cleansed the temple once. There's not any of our canonical Gospels that said He did it twice. So, how do we deal with that? Because the Gospel of John frontlights that in the early chapters of his book, and everybody else says it happens during the last week of Jesus' life. Right? Now, here's the thing about this. In the Gospel of John, it's a theological placement of the story, because in the Gospel of John, the author wants to claim that Jesus is the fulfillment of the temple, of the sacrifices, of priesthood. It's all one-stop shopping in Jesus. Right? And so, the story of Him cleansing the temple and claiming to be the living presence of God in that place is a theological statement. It's not a historical-chronological statement, which is what Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us. They tell us that Jesus cleansed the temple once during the last week of His life. And I will say this, from a historical perspective, as a historian, if Jesus had cleansed the temple at the beginning of His ministry, they are so not letting Him go back into the temple to teach again after that. That would be…He would have been persona non grata from the beginning of His ministry. So, that's not what happened. What happened is exactly what the Scriptures tell us, that He did it once. The placement of the story is historically chronological in the synoptics, but theologically placed in the Gospel of John.

Scott: Now, I think that fits with what we understand, say, for example, about the Gospel of Matthew, that it was arranged more thematically than chronologically and never claimed to be arranged chronologically. Mark and Luke, on the other hand, do claim to be arranged more chronologically.

Ben: Especially Luke.

Scott: So, we would expect a different level of chronology there. So, I think it is clear that the Gospel writers were not just writing history for history’s sake. They were trying to make a theological point, and they included and excluded materials that serve their theological purposes the best.

Ben: Absolutely.

Scott: And sometimes that extends, like in Matthew's Gospel, to the arrangement of materials as well.

Ben: Yeah. Oh, well, absolutely, because what you've got is the arrangement of Jesus's teachings into blocks. We have the Sermon on the Mount block, we have a parable block, and so on. We have an eschatological block as well. Yeah, absolutely right.

Scott: Five of those blocks.

Ben: Yeah, exactly.

Scott: To resemble the five books of Moses.

Ben: Yes, exactly right. And here's the thing about this. They were following the conventions of ancient biographies and ancient historical monographs, not modern ones. If we know the genre and the conventions by which they were writing, this becomes so much easier to make sense of. I mean, I remember, I'm so old that I remember Harold Lindsell coming to Gordon Conwell Seminary right after he wrote The Battle for the Bible. And if you've ever read that, you will know that he's claiming that Peter denied Christ six times, because he had such difficulty comparing the number of times that Peter denied and the cock crows. And finally, he came up with, "Well, Peter must have denied Christ six times." And that's something no Gospel says. None. Zip, zero, nada. And here's where I say that ancient people didn't have wristwatches, and they didn't view time in the same way, with the same precision, that we do. They could have very well written a general account that said, "Peter denied Christ three times and at some point during that process, the cock crowed once or twice." It was a general statement, not a precise statement. It's like in the Gospel of Mark. The word "euthus," which means, literally, “immediately,” does not mean immediately. It means “next.” It's about like my grandfather when I asked him, "When are we going to the ice cream parlor?" And he'd say, "Directly." And we didn't go directly. It was after a while, right? And so, when you look at the 45 references to “euthus” in the Gospel of Mark, you shouldn't really be translating it “immediately.” It should simply be “after that” or “next,” or something like that. And that even applies to phrases like "on the third day" and "after three days." If you go back to the LXX of the Old Testament in Chronicles, there is a very clear place where "after three days" and "on the third day" mean exactly the same thing. So, we have been doing much ado about nothing trying to argue, "Well, which was it? Was it three whole 24-hour days? Should we back up the crucifixion to Thursday?" et cetera. No, because see, what that is is anachronism, us reading the text in light of our modern ideas and concerns about timing. And that's a big mistake, because the ancients didn't have that same way of looking at time.

Sean: Hey, Ben, I've often been asked what I think is the biggest issue facing our culture today, or Christians today. And some will say things like, I don't know, like tribalism, or Christian nationalism, or sexual confusion or whatever the topic is. And my response is, I think at the root of it is a lack of biblical authority. If we would start there, because there's so many questions in our culture about, who am I going to look to for authority? Now, the subtitle of your book is Scripture's Final Authority in the Modern World. Does sola Scriptura look unique in our cultural moment, maybe because we're hearing people say, "my truth” versus “your truth," or is it really just kind of the same old emphasis on scriptural authority, these discussions we've been having going back centuries?

Ben: Well, I don't know that it's either or, but here's what I will say. In my lifetime, I have watched the church itself become more and more biblically illiterate. You want to know the real root of the problem? If the Bible doesn't have authority, it's because people don't know and haven't embraced the Bible. I mean, duh. Of course this is part of the problem, you know? And so, it seems to me, that within the context of the church, when we're actually talking about Christians, they need to have a better grasp of what the Bible is, what it claims, what its claims on them are, and they need to understand the concept of truth with a capital T, as opposed to "my truth," or saying something supercilious like, "Love is love is love." Okay, well, guess what? There are lots of different kinds of love, and the Bible is only advocating some of them. So, you know, I think part of the problem is of our own making. And here's one of the things that I think has accelerated this process. Maybe you have noticed how many churches have simply abandoned Sunday school or other vehicles of discipleship. They just have worship service, and they only have people coming to their big worship services, which then turns out to be the only avenue in the week that they are really confronted with the gospel. This is not going to get the job done, you know? It's not going to increase biblical literacy, no matter how good the sermon was. So, I think that some of the fault lies with the church itself, and its failure in regard to discipleship in various ways and in various denominations. And certainly, in my historic denomination, the United Methodist Church. I'm now retired from that denomination, and I'm glad I am, because now they're going to go the way of Episcopal Church at Presbyterian USA, and et cetera, et cetera. So, the truth of the matter is that I think some of the fault lies with us. It's like that old Pogo cartoon for it, when he looks in the mirror and he says, "I have seen the enemy, the enemy is me.” The Pharisee is me. And I think that's part of the problem itself. But it's also true that our culture has been changing a lot, and the Bible's influence on the culture has been waning all throughout my life. I was born in 1951. Here's a good example. In the 50s, if the mayor of High Point, North Carolina, where I was born and raised, had run off with the secretary, the very next day he wouldn't have been mayor anymore. That would have been the end of him as mayor, right? There used to be a day in the Bible Belt where the Bible was so taken for granted as the final authority on, especially, human sexuality and what you should do about marriage, that it actually still had some force even if it wasn't written into secular law. Well, that's just not true anymore. You know, I have watched, even in the South, how we have gone south, if you will, in a more unbiblical direction on so many issues, so many things. And the end result of that is polarization. We, because of our failure in the church, have accelerated the polarization. And one of the horrible offshoots of that is Christian nationalism.

Sean: Ben, I gotta say...

Scott: That's another story for another day.

Sean: Exactly, exactly. I do have to say, as we wrap up, you get the award, in six years plus we've been doing this podcast, of the most dad-type jokes in a single episode.

Scott: [laughs]

Sean: So, well done, keep those puns coming. All joking aside, great content. Really appreciate it.

Scott: Great stuff, Ben.

Ben: Well, you're welcome. I have one more for you to leave you with.

Sean & Scott: [laugh]

Ben: I used to subscribe to Time magazine. Remember magazines?

Scott: Yeah, vaguely. [laughs]

Ben: They were trying to get me to renew my subscription, but they left it to their brand new computer, Warner Time Computer. And the computer read my name, Dr. Ben Witherington III. And they couldn't squeeze that into the preset little spaces in their form letter. So, I got a letter that read, "Dear Dr. III…”

Sean & Scott: [laugh]

Ben: “We know you're one of the most important persons in your neighborhood. Surely as a caring person, Dr. III, you'll want to resubscribe." Well, I was tempted to write them back, "Dear Inc."

Sean: Nice, nice.

Scott: Touché.

Ben: When the world tries to be personal, it treats persons like numbers and things.

Scott: Hear, hear.

Ben: That should never ever be the case in the body of Christ, because y'all are my brothers in Christ, and hopefully we'll spend an eternity together. And therefore, we should be always treating each other as persons, and persons in Christ.

Scott: I feel like we can close in prayer and go home on that one. Ben, thanks so much for being with us, and we appreciate your book, Sola Scriptura: Scripture's Final Authority in the Modern World. Great to have you with us, and appreciate your insights and the effort that went into writing this book.

Ben: Well, blessings, and thank you so much for the time to talk with you.

Scott: Our pleasure. This has been an episode of the podcast, Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture. It's brought to you by Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, offering programs in Southern California and online in apologetics, spiritual formation, and philosophy, theology, and ministry. Oh, we have more master's programs than we know what to do with here at Talbot. So visit talbot.edu in order to learn more. Ben, thanks so much for being with us. If our audience has comments, or wants to ask questions or make suggestions, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. If you enjoyed today's conversation, give us a rating on your podcast app, share it with a friend, and join us Friday for our weekly Cultural Update. Thanks so much for listening, and remember, think biblically about everything.