Ultimately, any thorough treatment of the topic of Bible interpretation must grapple with the implications of 1 Corinthians 2:14. If we take the Bible seriously and confess sola Scriptura, we cannot pretend Paul’s description of the unconverted is merely hypothetical, or assume it applies only to the illiterate or unscholarly. Paul’s statement—given by the inspiration of the Spirit Himself—is absolute.

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised—1 Corinthians 2:14

I remember the conversation vividly. It took place almost twenty years ago when I was participating in meetings related to the training of pastors in the former Soviet Union. Since it was held at an evangelical seminary, I took the opportunity to become acquainted with a professor there who shared my interest in hermeneutics. He kindly invited me into his office. Observing his collection of books, I asked him which textbook he believed was most helpful for training expositors in Bible interpretation. His answer was telling. He pulled out a volume and stated with notable enthusiasm, “Even though this author was not a believer, I believe he has written the best textbook on biblical hermeneutics.”

This professor’s optimism regarding the unbeliever’s ability to interpret the Bible is not atypical. A perusal of hermeneutics textbooks published in the last several decades reveals the substantial influence secular theories and methodologies have come to assert on evangelical hermeneutics. This is observed not only by surveying what fills the footnotes, subject indices, and bibliographies of these textbooks, but also by considering what is absent. One omission in particular stands out. It is the lack of substantive treatments of 1 Corinthians 2:14 and its implications for biblical exegesis.

The Context

In sum, 1 Corinthians 2:6–16 is a crucial text for explaining the inspiration of Scripture.[1] Paul’s focus in this paragraph is on “wisdom”—a term he uses as a synonym for “divine knowledge.” In vv. 6b–9, Paul explains where this “wisdom” comes from. It does not originate in man—not even in the most powerful or educated—but in God. In vv. 10–13, Paul then explains how this “wisdom” is made known. It is revealed by the Spirit of God to God’s spokesmen, and he ensures that their articulation of this knowledge to others is accurate—even to the specific choice of words. Finally, in vv. 14–16, Paul identifies who can understand this “wisdom.” It is not understood by the natural man, but only by the one who is spiritually alive.

The Assertions

It is this third section of the paragraph (1 Cor 2:14–16) that has direct relevance to the topic of the interpretation of Scripture, and especially v. 14: “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” Here the apostle Paul makes two stark assertions about the state of the “natural man” and his relationship to divine revelation. His argument can be summarized as follows:

1. The Natural Man Does Not Accept

The first assertion Paul makes—“a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him”(1 Cor 2:14a)—refers to the unbeliever’s active rejection of divine revelation. The verb “to accept” (dechomai) is a term used by Paul elsewhere to explain a characteristic of genuine conversion (1 Thess 1:6; 2:13). It implies receptivity and approval.

But the unconverted man, Paul states, does not accept or approve of the truths of God. Why? “They are foolishness to him.” Paul implies here that the unbeliever sees enough objective clarity in God’s verbal revelation that he can consciously reject its message. He does not merely dismiss the meaning of the biblical text because it is ambiguous or confusing. His judgment is a rational one. He reads the biblical text and assesses its message as “foolishness” or “moronic.”[2] As Kaiser states,

This is not to argue that there are two systems of logic in the world, one for the converted and the other for the unconverted. Instead, the natural man has a cognition of this teaching which he then repudiates. Indeed, he must first know at least to some degree what he then comes to despise.[3]

Read More