Chapter 6: Systems that don't work. Let's begin by looking at three of the most popular methods of interpreting Scripture. Although all three of the systems have some merit, they all three fall quite short of the mark. First subheading: "Let the clear passages interpret the unclear." It had been a very special evening. About 25 people had come over to our house to hear a Gaelic speaker talk about The Incredible Christian, and to spend some time together in prayer and fellowship. In fact, it was after 11:00 p.m.
by the time everyone had left. Yet after the rest of the family had gone off to bed, the speaker and I, along with another brother, sat up on into the night talking about various spiritual subjects. As the hours ticked away—until 3:00 a.m.—we moved from one topic to another. We eventually ended up talking about the Scriptural view of divorce and remarriage. The issue is a bit thorny because of the seemingly conflicting statements made by Jesus on the subject.
In his footnote, David Bercot relates that "this is not intended to be a comment on the merits of the divorce issue, but only a comment on the hermeneutical principle involved." As recorded in Luke 16:18, Jesus said, "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery." But as recorded in Matthew 19:9, Jesus said, "Whoever divorces his wife except for immorality and marries another woman commits adultery." The passage from Luke
mentions no exceptions to the matter.
But the passage from Matthew adds the phrase "except for immorality"—the Greek word is porneia. The three of us talked about how to resolve this apparent conflict. One of the brothers mentioned that he had just read a book pertaining to divorce and remarriage. The author had proposed that the solution is "let the clear passage interpret the one that is not clear." I agreed that this was a fairly valid principle. "But how does it apply to this present case?" I asked.
The brother replied, "The passage from Luke is clear; the one from Matthew is not. So the passage from Luke controls." "Well, even though I agree with the principle," I replied, "I don't agree with that application of the principle here. It seems to me that, standing alone, each passage is rather clear. The only thing that is unclear is how the passages relate to each other." That, unfortunately, is the inherent weakness of this principle: none of us can agree on what is clear and what is unclear.
A person's preconceived ideas invariably influence his assessment of what Bible passages are clear and what are not. However, even if we could agree on what is clear and what is unclear, this principle would not always lead us to the truth. Let me illustrate. We are all familiar with the words of Jesus: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:3). Probably most of us would agree that the phrase "the poor in spirit" is capable of more than one interpretation.
I know I've heard at least three different explanations of this phrase. No doubt many more have been proposed. Some say the poor in spirit are those who are free from materialism. The poor in spirit might be monetarily wealthy, but their use of their wealth makes them poor as to the man inside.
But others say the phrase means "low in spirits" or "downtrodden." Still others say that the phrase means "spiritually impoverished." People who propose this latter interpretation contend that Jesus was really saying, "Blessed are those who recognize their spiritual poverty." But now let's look at the parallel passage found in Luke: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." (Luke 6:20).
In contrast to Matthew, Luke's rendition is quite clear: "Blessed are the poor." There is no room for misunderstanding here. But does that mean that Jesus never said the words "poor in spirit"? Should we just ignore Matthew's versions and accept only Luke's because it is more clear? If it's not fair to do that here, is it fair to do it anywhere else? Furthermore, how can this principle help us to understand the passage we have been discussing from 1 Corinthians 11? What are the clear parts of that passage?
Which parts are unclear? I don't think we could come to any kind of consensus. Of course, we would probably never want to use the unclear verses of Scripture to interpret those that are clear. Yet forcing the unclear passages to fit the clear passages may not lead us to truth either. Next subheading: "Let the many interpret the few." Another principle frequently used is letting the majority of the verses control the few. And there is a considerable amount of validity to this method.
After all, where there are seeming contradictions in Scripture on a given doctrine, it would hardly make sense to ignore the majority of the verses in favor of the one or two. Yet I am not so sure that it is right to ignore the one or the two either. Just because a particular account or teaching in Scripture does not find support in other passages, that does not make it invalid. To illustrate, let's look at the accounts given in the four Gospels about the slave who had his ear cut off when Jesus was arrested.
Matthew gives us this description of the account: "And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place.'" (Matthew 26:51-52). Mark's account is nearly identical. However, John's account differs slightly: "Simon Peter, therefore having a sword, drew it, and struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear. And the slave's name was Malchus.
Jesus therefore said to Peter, 'Put the sword into the sheath.'" (John 18:10-11). Finally, Luke gives us the following description of the same event: "And a certain one of them struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, 'Stop! No more of this.' And he touched his ear and healed him." (Luke 22:50-51). All four Gospel writers describe this event, and their accounts are generally in agreement. But only Luke states that Jesus restored the slave's ear.
Since the other three accounts make no mention of this, do we simply ignore what Luke says about the ear being restored? Again, only John identifies Peter as the swordsman. Since the other three do not say this, do we just ignore John's statement? Do you see my point? The principle "let the many interpret the few" is usually not valid when applied to historical passages of Scripture. So is it any more valid when applied to doctrinal subjects? Let's see.
Only four or five verses in the New Testament directly address Jesus by the title "God." But there are dozens of passages that address his humanity. Do we therefore accept only the passages that speak of his humanity? Do we ignore or refuse to believe the passages that tell of his deity? Of course not. Often, the few passages in Scripture contain important truths that must not be ignored by forcing them to fit the many passages.
Once again, would this principle help us to understand the passage from 1 Corinthians 11? Not at all. What are the few passages? What are the many passages? Next subheading: "Go to the root of the words." Another very popular method of attempting to clarify or harmonize Scripture is the use of etymology. Etymology is the branch of language studies that traces words back to their origin and development.
It is very popular today for writers or speakers when delineating Scriptures to discuss the various root meanings of the Greek words used by the New Testament writers. This often makes for some very interesting and instructive sermons, and it usually sounds quite logical. But is etymology really a valid tool to use in interpreting Scripture? Let's see how much sense it makes in interpreting documents written in English. Joe Bob Richards owned a sprawling ranch in West Texas.
He raised cattle on the ranch, which provided him with a moderate income. However, what was underneath the ranch was far more valuable than what was on top. About a mile underneath the surface, there lay valuable deposits of oil and natural gas. In fact, the royalties from the oil and gas enabled Joe Bob to eventually retire. So he sold his ranch to an Italian immigrant, Mario Rossini. In his deed to Mr.
Rossini, Joe Bob Richards reserved all of the oil, gas, and other minerals—a typical reservation found in many Texas deeds. Mario recognized that the climate of West Texas was quite similar to that of some of the Mediterranean countries where olives are grown. So he planted a vast olive orchard and soon began processing and bottling Rossini's "pure virgin olive oil" from a factory and warehouse built upon the former ranch. Mario's olive oil venture was an instant success, and he soon became quite prosperous.
However, one day the sheriff came by and delivered a citation to Mario, notifying him that he was being sued by Joe Bob Richards for the value of all the olive oil produced from the ranch. Mr. Richards was claiming that the reservation of oil, gas, and other minerals included olive oil. In court, Mr. Richards produced an English professor from Texas Tech University in Lubbock as an expert witness.
As the professor accurately explained to the jury, our word "oil" comes from the Latin word "olium," which was derived from the Greek word "oleia," which means "olive." Therefore, he argued the reservation of oil, gas, and other minerals would clearly include olive oil.