Why Interpretational Disagreements?
Rules for civilized debate
Besides the Fundamentals, is there anything that all Fundamentalists agree on? The question is facetious … sort of. But somewhere in the tagline of most of our churches are three words: Baptist, Fundamental, and Independent. It’s the ramifications of that last one that this column addresses, especially the hermeneutical ramifications— that is, our differences in interpretation of everything from isolated passages to major theological concepts. In Exegetical Fallacies D. A. Carson identifies a number of flaws that are, unfortunately, common in Bible interpretation even among practiced and informed scholars. One of Carson’s driving concerns is what he describes as “hermeneutical disarray.” For example, the broader spectrum of Bible-believing Evangelicals is characterized by differences of opinion and interpretation over issues such as Calvinism vs. Arminianism vs. Amyraldianism, classic dispensational theology vs. progressive dispensational theology vs. covenant theology, the significance of the Lord’s Table, church polity, and various eschatological views. The fact is that, even as Bible-believing Fundamentalist Baptists, there is a wide variety of issues and passages and theological concepts we would disagree on among ourselves (including most of those listed above). These are not insignificant interpretational minutiae.
Often when we come to differing conclusions, it is because one (or both) of us has employed bad hermeneutical reasoning. But it does not follow that whenever we come to differing conclusions, one of us must be using bad reasoning.
Reasons We Disagree
Several factors contribute to such hermeneutical differences among us.1
Theological predisposition—Everyone has a basic theological system, which furnishes the lens through which we tend to read the Biblical text. We are inclined to see texts in ways that make them fit with the preconceived notions of our system or even with our own personal, paratextual opinions. If I am persuaded that this age will get progressively worse prior to the rapture, I may be inclined to read Jesus’ reference to “the days of Noah” as an “obvious” reference to the evil of those days–overlooking the fact that the text is not stressing that at all but, rather, the routine activities of life (eating, drinking, and marrying) that will be abruptly interrupted by the suddenness of eschatological intervention. Likewise, one is inclined to read references to “the world” in keeping with previous theological predisposition regarding the intent of the atonement and how it works.
Differing degrees of giftedness—Some interpreters are, quite frankly, more (or less) gifted than others. This is not necessarily a matter of raw intelligence but may involve one’s level of training, breadth of familiarity with the whole range of Scriptural revelation, and experience with handling the text. That’s not to say that a higher level of giftedness in such areas guarantees rightness of interpretation. But it is, nonetheless, one of the factors that explains the differences among us.
Differing perceptions of literary issues—Some are more attuned to the impact of genre, figures of speech, literary devices, and other issues that impinge (sometimes significantly) on the interpretation of any literary document, including Scripture.
Presence of genuine ambiguity—The preceding factors all focus on the human element in interpretation. But there is actually a textual element that contributes to such differences as well. Not all Scripture is equally clear. Take the epistles, for example. Whenever you are reading an epistle you are, in effect, reading someone else’s mail—and only one side of the correspondence at that. The original recipient, no doubt, understood the apostle’s meaning clearly enough because he knew the situation from his side as well, such as the precise questions and issues that the Corinthians had raised in their letter to Paul, to which he was responding in 1 Corinthians (see 7:1). But we’re not always sure of everything that was behind everything the apostle wrote. That example doesn’t even take into account that there are many passages where, for translational or lexical reasons, the meaning of the text is simply susceptible to two or more equally legitimate interpretations.
Why Are There Ambiguities?
That last factor raises another question altogether. Why does God build ambiguity into the Bible? Couldn’t God have made the Bible utterly unambiguous at every point? The answer to that has to be yes; but He chose not to. Even if He had, that still would not remove the impact of the human elements above; man is wonderfully adept at injecting uncertainty and fabricating ambiguity where none legitimately exists. But we have to acknowledge that not everything in the Bible is as clear to us as it could possibly be. The question is, why did God do that? Again, there are a number of potential answers to that.
Ambiguities force us to search His Word more diligently. That’s a good thing. The prophets did this even in connection with their own prophecies (1 Pet. 1:10).
Ambiguities prompt our meditation on Scripture. It is as if God constructed a revelation that forces us—if we are really serious about understanding it—to be preoccupied with His words (Ps. 49:3).
Ambiguities help us personalize truth searched out. Nothing gives you a more intimate love and personal conviction about certain truths than when that understanding comes at the expense of much labor and spiritual sweat and seeking God; such searching out makes a unique impact on us (cf. Dan. 9:1ff.).
Ambiguities measure our interest in God’s mind and will. Ambiguities test us, the level of our interest in understanding God, the seriousness of our commitment to discovering and following His ways, the priority we place (or not) on knowing what He has said. If we care little about knowing and understanding exactly what someone has said to us, we care little about the one who said it.
Ambiguities cultivate and exercise our maturity, charity, and unity when we disagree on what it says. God knows us so well, even in our fallenness. He knows our differences and our proclivities. Perhaps one of the major reasons He gave us a revelation that He knew was susceptible of misunderstanding in places was to give us the opportunity to grow in the grace of charity and unity with those with whom we disagree. The NT includes an extended passage that makes this very point. Read Romans 14, and give special attention to Paul’s conclusion to the whole discussion in 15:1–6.
That last point leads to a final question that needs to be investigated: Is it a bad thing that we have so many disagreements?
Is It Bad to Disagree?
Amid the disturbing “hermeneutical disarray” that bedevils God’s people, one of Carson’s express goals in Exegetical Fallacies is to contribute to a greater hermeneutical uniformity.
The importance of this sort of study cannot be overestimated if we are to move toward unanimity on those matters of interpretation that still divide us. I speak to those with a high view of Scripture: it is very distressing to contemplate how many differences there are among us as to what Scripture actually says. … [T] here is a disturbing array of mutually incompatible theological opinions (Exegetical Fallacies, 18).
Granted. But is such unanimity necessary? Indeed, given all the tendencies and vagaries of our fallenness, is hermeneutical unanimity even possible? Or desirable? It is practically heresy these days even to raise such a question; the call to unity often trumps all else. But we’re not even talking about unity here; we’re talking unanimity. There is a difference. Unanimity would be nice; but it is not a Biblical obligation. Unity is, and unity is possible without unanimity. Biblically speaking, lack of unanimity is one of the best tests of unity.
It is ironic that the very chapter that describes a remarkable unity of mind over the church’s first major debate should conclude with a falling out between the two men who are, at the beginning of the chapter, inseparable! After the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 Paul and Barnabas had a heated disagreement (Acts 15:36–41). The word translated “contention” (Acts 15:39) is the root from which we get “paroxysm.” A strong word that denotes a serious quarrel, it graphically portrays Paul and Barnabas as being provoked with one another and arguing heatedly over (don’t miss this) a very spiritual subject—who should or should not accompany them on their next missionary journey! Paul was unwilling to entrust the shared responsibilities of such a journey to John Mark, who had just deserted them on their previous journey (Acts 13:13). Barnabas (John Mark’s cousin, Col. 4:10) felt it important to give the young man a second chance.
This “paroxysm” between Paul and Barnabas was sharp, valid, and apparently unresolved. Whether Paul and Barnabas ever traveled or ministered together again, we do not know. But we do know that Paul continued to hold Barnabas in high esteem (1 Cor. 9:6) and, ironically, even ended up working closely with Mark as well (Col. 4:10).
The point is not whether Paul or Barnabas was right. Luke discreetly avoids taking sides. Rather than speculating where the text does not inform us, and assuming that Paul (or even Barnabas) was actually in the right, why should we not assume that both were actively seeking God’s guidance, and that God was directing each differently? This incident illustrates that the godliest of men act humanly, that such men may disagree on equally valid points of principle or opinion, and that God may even use such disagreement to further His purposes. This account can function as a paradigm for procedural or doctrinal disagreements that may end up reaching a greater variety of mentalities and temperaments, backgrounds, and experiences than if we all agreed on everything. What Satan sought to incite and inflame for the purpose of division, God turned to multiplication. The result of the unresolved argument was a doubled mission with many more reached and much more accomplished than if Paul and Barnabas had agreed.
Philip Henry, father of Matthew Henry, once remarked that “it is not so much our differences of opinion that doth us the mischief, but the mismanagement of that difference.”
It is not disagreement (lack of unanimity) that hinders God’s use of us, but ill will (lack of unity).
May God help us to ground our views in the most informed and careful study of His Word that we can render and then help us to learn how to manage our differences with each other well, with charity and unity.
Dr. Layton Talbert teaches theology and apologetics at Bob Jones Seminary, Greenville, SC and is a Frontline Contributing Editor.
(Originally published in FrontLine • November/December 2012. Click here to subscribe to the magazine.)
- I cannot tell to what degree the content in this section has been further developed over years of teaching it, but the basic points originated, for me, with my pastor, Dr. Mark Minnick. [↩]
Excellent. Thank you.
I recall many years ago hearing a particular brother who seemed to like to argue about non-essentials being described as “too much in the objective case.” How we take our position is nearly as important as the position we take. (Js. 3:13-18)