I took the naked text and followed common sense; I read the Bible, subject to the ordinary rules of interpretation, and thus it was that it became to me a new book. – Alexander Campbell, Millennial Harbinger, 1830, p. 138.

  This reveals how Alexander Campbell, once a typical Calvinist (sort of) in a Presbyterian sect, was diverted to the path of reformation and became himself a reformer of reputation. In the same context he tells how when he was 24 (he was now 42) he was considered a "systematic preacher and textual expositor" of some ability. But he confesses that while in those days he "strew my sermons with scores of texts in proof of every point" he did not understand the New Testament – not a single book of it!

  He read the commentaries – Thomas Scott and Matthew Henry were his favorites – and critical studies in the Greek text. While these were helpful, the Bible as a whole, and the religion of Jesus Christ in particular, was hidden from him. It was only when he took the "naked text," by which he meant the Bible itself, apart from the usual "helps," that he began to understand.

  It figures that the original documents were intended to be read in this way. When Paul wrote to the Romans or to the Corinthians it was the text itself that concerned the readers. They didn’t have commentaries to consult. They probably read the letters over and over, usually with someone reading their only copy, while the others listened. For everyone to have a Bible is a modern luxury. Their understanding would deepen as they grew more familiar with the text. Copies would be made, sometimes only in part, and there would be memorization – more probably from constant saturation rather than intentional effort.

  This is not to suggest that there is no place for commentaries and various helps. Campbell is not saying that, but he is saying what we should all recognize, that we become too dependent on them, and we sometimes allow them to eclipse the Bible itself. Campbell is saying we should allow any portion of Scripture to speak to us on its own, that we should saturate our minds with what the Bible actually says, and not feel obligated to reach for a commentary. Give the Bible the chance to speak for itself, even to interpret itself. This is more likely to happen when we read the Bible itself rather than books about the Bible.

  Campbell’s reference to "common sense" as a way of interpreting the Bible is particularly informing. There was in his day a philosophical school, centered in the Scottish universities, known as the Common Sense school of thought, led by such stalwarts as Dugald Stuart, whom Campbell referred to as the greatest of the metaphysicians. This school sought to get behind the muddled thinking and terminology of speculative philosophy and view the world in practical, understandable, and sensible terms. Its leaders came to be called "Common Sense" philosophers.

  Campbell applied this method to the interpretation of the Bible. He once illustrated this by a reference to John 11:28: "Martha went her way and secretly called Mary her sister and said, ‘the Teacher has come and is calling for you.’" He was reading a Calvinist divine who found basic Calvinist doctrines in that verse, whether unconditional election or irresistible grace.

  Seeing a little girl playing near his study, which was in his front yard, he called her in and had her read the verse in context and tell him what it says. The girl read for a moment and then said to "the Bishop," as they called Campbell around Bethany: "Jesus came to Bethany when Lazarus died. He first saw Martha and then asked to see Mary, Martha’s sister. Martha quietly went to Mary and told her that Jesus, the Teacher, had come and was calling for her."

  Common sense interpretation! Campbell had made his point. The divine read the text with pre-conceived theological notions, while the little girl read the naked text and took it for what it said. One might wonder if the Calvinistic acrostic TULIP – the other three letters stand for Total hereditary depravity, Limited atonement, Perseverance of the saints – would ever have been concocted if the creators of such dogmas had read the Bible as did that little girl.

  By the rule of common sense Campbell meant that one should interpret the Bible by the same rules that she would use to interpret any other book – or the newspaper or a letter from Aunt Emma. These rules include the familiar W’s – Who, What , When, Where, Why. Sometimes we can’t be sure what is meant by a particular word or phrase, and so we postpone judgment. Aunt Emma might make it clear what she meant by what she said about Uncle Robert in her next letter. And so we might better understand Paul in one letter by noting what he said in other letters. But generally we get the message of a document when we "apply our minds to it" – as John Newton put it – and follow the rules of common sense.

  Campbell spelled out his "rules of interpretation" in his book, The Christian System, which were based mainly on the traditional five W’s referred to above, but there was one unique rule – We must come within understanding distance of the text. He is saying here that we are to read the Bible with heart as well as mind. One is within understanding distance of the Bible when he is sincerely seeking the truth, when he hungers and thirsts, when he really wants to know. The heart must be open, not allowing the plaudits of men or party loyalty to blind his eyes to what Scripture really says.

  Campbell may have been applying this rule to himself when in the same context in which he appealed to common sense, he wrote of himself: "Experience has taught me that to get a victory over the world, over the love of fame, and to hold in perfect contempt adulation, and popularity will do more to make the New Testament intelligible, than all the commentators that ever wrote."

  Contempt for worldly honor and popularity as a rule for biblical interpretation! One will not find the likes of that in books on hermeneutics. It is Campbell’s heart rule, of coming within understanding distance. We see it in Isaiah 66:2: "But on this one will I look: On him who has a humble and contrite spirit, and who reverences my word."

  When one has a "heart" for it, and opens his Bible with the prayer of Psalm 119:18, "Open my eyes, that I may see wondrous things from your law," one is more likely to ascertain the true meaning. On the other hand, if one is concerned to find harmony with what his church teaches or what he was taught in seminary – or what is politically correct – he may not find the gold.

  The naked text and common sense – exercised by one who is "crucified to the world" and has a heart that longs for truth, at any cost. Not bad hermeneutics!

For many years Ouida and I have been reading to each other at breakfast. These days she does most of the reading. We make time for it, however busy the day. Sometimes it is Scripture, sometimes a devotional book. Presently we are reading one of William Barclay’s old books, Daily Celebration (1971), a reading for every day in the year, and on a multitude of subjects. He tells lots of stories, shares personal experiences, and passes along home-spun wisdom. I am sometimes reminded of things he said when I had the pleasure of visiting with him in Glasgow, Scotland back in 1963. We take special note of his purple comments, as we discern them. One that recently caught Ouida’s eye: " A conversion is incomplete if it does not leave a man with an intense social consciousness, if it does not fill him with a sense of overwhelming responsibility for the world."

All previous essays are available at www.leroygarrett.org, along with other of my writings.