"Intrepretation" Who's right with the Biblical Text? (Part 2)

I was listening to a Q&A session once when Dr. R. C. Sproul was asked, “If the Bible is clear, why are there so many Christian denominations” He replied, “Because we are sinners”. His answer was simple, yet at the time unsatisfying. However, as I pondered his answer I came to understand he was simply striking at the root of the issue, not the tree. The fault does not lie in the Biblical text, but in the weakness of our human nature.

First the Biblical text, scholars have a term called, the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture? The word perspicuity simply means “clarity.” The Westminster Confession of Faith explains what Christians believe about the clarity of Scripture: “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. Yet, those things that are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or another, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them” (1.7). 

Simply stated, within the Biblical text, the necessary means of Salvation are so clearly stated, even the unlearned can sufficiently understand them. Even if unable to read, a simple hearing of the text is sufficient. On the other hand, other doctrines and discourses may not be so clear leading to various understandings and interpretations. 

However, various understandings can occur even in plain statements. It is common for the human mind to conceive various notions on any subject. Men can interpret a simple plain statement differently based on context or personal experience. For example, if someone says, “I need space,” one man might understand it as a request for alone time, while another might perceive it as a sign of relationship trouble. There's nothing wrong with the statement itself, the human mind is simply able to assign different meanings based upon current bias or previous experiences. These assigned meanings become rooted so deeply in our reasonings we don't let go of them easily, and therefore we divided ourselves over issues. Our divisions in Christian thought arise in much the same way. The problem is not in text, it may have a clear purposeful meaning, but our upstanding many times obscures that meaning.

One example is baptism, it is clearly a part of the Christian faith and clearly commanded in scripture. It falls within the perspicuity of Scripture, yet we find Christians highly divided over the issue.

 We have the command in Matthew 28:19-20
(19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.)

Then in Acts 10:48 we have the command (48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.) There is a clear command to baptize, but because of these and similar scriptures, divisions have arisen on just how to baptize. Some groups insist on baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. While others insist on baptizing in the name of Jesus only. 

One can easily see how the two views have arising, but how do we reconcile them? Because of how our minds form certain beliefs we usually can't. But is the text the problem? Let's examine what it says as well as what it does not say. It does not say it is giving us a verbal formula of what to say over a person being baptized. It is telling us the meaning and authority behind baptism. The Trinitarian wording of Matthew 28:19 seems to best capture the full biblical revelation of who God is as a triune God. 

The scriptures in Acts is not prescriptive command of what to say but a descriptive account of what was taking place and the authority behind it. In the verse previous to Matthew 28:19 Jesus said, (18, all authority is given to me), so naturally the descriptive verses we see in Acts concerning being baptized in the name of Jesus would agree with Matthew 28:18 & 19. 

We are arguing over what names to say over a person when being baptized. But the scripture is addressing the authority, not what name to be said or verbal phase to be sighted. When it is said, “stop in the name of the law” it is not talking about a specific officers name, but the authority behind that officer. The scriptures are telling us the meaning and authority behind baptism.  In Matthew 18:20, while discussing church discipline the scripture says, (For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the middle of them.) Obviously it's not instructing us to say the name of Jesus when we gather together to discuss church discipline, but the authority upon which we do so. 

In summary, Matthew 28:19 gives the full theological meaning of Christian baptism, it is into or unto the Triune God. The Acts passages are descriptive (telling us what happened) rather than prescriptive (giving the required words). They emphasize baptizing in the name/authority of Jesus because the early church was proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah. 

Because something is usually said when formality is administered, a formula is usually formed. Historically from the late 1st/early 2nd century onward, the church almost universally used the Trinitarian formula, for it most captures the essence of what is to be understood. (see the Didache ~AD 70–120). 

In our weak human nature, we have taken these formulas and turned them into beliefs that divide us, and we stubbornly hold to them with religious tenacity. Another problem occurs from this name distinction, using the “name of Jesus” formula lends itself to the misunderstanding of the triune nature of God. The result is an unorthodox view outside of Christianity called Modalism. The more precise formula using the trinitarian wording is to be preferred to avoid this error. 

Another divisive nature is sometimes we place more emphasis on a particular doctrine than someone else. We can look again at Baptism for an example. The Churches of Christ (part of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement) teach that water baptism is essential for salvation. For them, it is not merely symbolic or an optional “outward sign” of an already-completed salvation, but the moment when a believer receives forgiveness of sins and is added to the church. For them to die outside of Baptism is to die outside of Christ. They emphasize that baptism is not a “work” that earns salvation (salvation is still by grace through the blood of Christ, which would agree with the Baptist view), but it is God’s appointed means and act of faith/obedience through which He saves, (which would not fall inside the Baptist view.)

Baptist view that Salvation is received upon the expression of faith in the work of Christ alone, and baptism follows as a result and is a public testimony of that act of faith. Here both groups believe in the same formula of baptism, but one places more emphasis on the act than the other. Both form their beliefs from the text of scripture and are sincerely desiring to worship most correctly. 

Mark 16:16, would be a supporting text for the Church of Christ (He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.) Also, you have 1st Peter 3: 21, (And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ), These does appear to connect baptism to Salvation. So one can appreciate their view and desire to follow the scriptures.  

On the Baptist view you have Eph 2:8, (For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9, it is not from works, so that no one can boast.) Also, John 5:24, (I tell you the solemn truth, the one who hears my message and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned, but has crossed over from death to life.) These give assurance of salvation without any mention of the necessity of Baptism. 

These different views of scripture do not arise from a faulty text, it is simply a human problem that is wedged in our nature. Different interpretations of text is not limited to scripture. Different views of the United States Constitution include originalism, which interprets the Constitution based on the original understanding at the time it was written, and living constitutionalism. This view sees the Constitution as a dynamic document that should adapt to contemporary societal changes. Additionally, some justices may adopt a textualist approach, focusing strictly on the text's wording, while others might use a purposivist approach, considering the broader purpose and intent behind the Constitution's provisions. It's not that the Constitution is faulty in its purpose, the fault lies in what we want it to say and how we approach the text. These differing views reflect the ongoing debate about how best to interpret and apply the Constitution in contemporary legal contexts. The same can be said of Scripture and the denominational divisions of how to interpret it. 

In review, the perspicuity of Scripture demonstrates the clarity in which the Bible speaks concerning the necessity of Salvation. The denominational divisions demonstrate the lack of human patients when discerning the nuances of the faith that are not specifically stated with great clarity. These are only a few examples, of which thousands could be given, mostly all being influenced by some experience or bias within the human mind. The existing divisions and various interpretations of the Christian scriptures do not reflect fault with the text, but the nature of the human condition.

I hope this was helpful,

David  

"Interpretation" Who's right with the biblical text?

When it comes to the Biblical text and understanding what it says, can we know for sure? The question has been posed like this: 

1. The Bible: how do we know the interpretation of scripture is correct when you have different denominations/cultures/history, all interpreting differently. Who is to say who is “right”?

For example: Growing up in a Pentecostal church (Church of God, Assembly of God, 1st Baptist and some non-denominational) most had different interpretations of scripture. 

From Hebrew to English/languages then century to century and culture/cultures, how do we know who is right?

It is true most of us just follow where we are and avoid the question. Others simply think it doesn't matter, others believe they are right, and it's their calling in life is to convince you of your ignorance. But is that the best we can do? I truly believe there is a satisfactory answer and in this post I will attempt to examine this issue in a thoughtful and reasonable manner. 

The Bible is a collection of ancient text, thousands of years old of which we do not have any original extant documents. To address this subject we must first start with what we have, which is copies. Within these copies are hundreds of thousands of variant readings. So arriving at a correct interpretation of the text is no simple task. I don't mean to discourage you, but simple make you aware of the task set before us. 

Now is a good time to address inerrancy. Scripture inerrancy from a Reformed perspective is the belief that the Bible, in its original manuscripts, is complete and without error in everything it affirms, whether doctrine, history, science, or ethics, because it is the very Word of God. In clarification, certain distinctions are made. Not Dictation: God did not dictate mechanically; human authors were active. Not Modern Precisionism: Ancient standards of accuracy (e.g., rounded numbers, phenomenological language like “the sun rises”) are not “errors.” Phenomena of Scripture: Apparent difficulties (harmonization challenges, scientific descriptions) are resolved through careful study, not by limiting inerrancy to spiritual matters. 

However, this inerrancy is restricted to the original manuscripts, of which we no longer have, so where does that leave us? Some groups will claim that certain translations are inerrant, being inspired by the Holy Spirit. But all they can do is claim, there is no evidence for claiming such inspiration would occur. Of necessity, this inspiration would have had to occur in modern history, for it is certain that our ancient manuscripts are full of variant readings. If you apply logical and reasonable thinking to the assertion that the originals were inerrant, and for decades those documents were copied by hand, sometimes by unskilled scribes in not so favorable conditions. Those copies were copied and recopied, one would expect to have exactly what we have now, thousands upon thousands of ancient text with various readings, spelling mistakes and all kind of grammatical errors. 

What do we conclude from these facts? It depends on what you are trying to prove. If you are Bart Ehrman, who is an excellent scholar and biblical critic, this is enough to convince you that God does not exist.  He argues that if God wanted to give us his exact words, he would have miraculously preserved them, but the textual variations in the New Testament suggest this didn't happen. (Bart Ehrman) 

However, Mr. Ehrman is assuming for his part what God would do. I'm not sure Mr. Ehrman would know what God would do in bringing revelation into world. We notice almost every book of the New Testament warns about false teachers and deception. Yet we read not a word concerning how God was going to preserve His word in perfection throughout all history. To do so God would have to supernaturally work a miracle every time an individual picked up a pin to copy a scriptural text. He would also have to work a miracle to keep false teachers from purposely corrupting the text as the centuries passed. To demand this kind of miraculous preservation as proof for scriptural integrity exceeds reasonable expectations. 

The fact is, everything that enters into this world becomes subject to decay. Entropy (decay) is not just an abstract principle tucked away in physics textbooks. It is a concept that permeates every facet of reality, shaping the flow of time, the behavior of systems, and even the structure of information and life itself. To understand entropy is to glimpse the arrow of time, to perceive why decay is more likely than perfection, and to come to terms with the inexorable tendency of the universe to fall apart.

This concept reveals an intimate connection between entropy and information. To store or transmit information, we must reduce uncertainty, decrease entropy, in our signals. But doing so often requires energy, which in turn increases entropy somewhere else. Even the act of erasing a bit from memory, clearing a 1 or a 0, has an entropic cost, as shown by Rolf Landauer in the 1960s.

Thus, in our digital age, entropy is everywhere, in our computers, our smartphones, our data networks. Every click, every upload, every calculation dances to the tune of thermodynamic constraints. Information is not abstract. It is physical. And it is costly.(ScienceNewsToday) This decay was also in the pins of the scribes, thus reality would have errors induced into the sacred text. If indeed the text was perfect when it arrived, the moment it entered the time domain, it would began to decay. The paper it was written on would begin to rot, the scribes who copied would naturally err. As time passed the errors would increase. Time, it said, flows in only one direction: from order to disorder, from usable energy to waste, from structure to chaos.

So that explains why we have what we have in our ancient manuscripts. This brings us back to the question of can we know what the Bible says? Can we know if it has been faithfully transmitted? Dr. Dan Wallace says yes, and he does so quite compellingly. Because providence has delivered to us over 5 thousand manuscripts in the original languages, we have an enormous amount of data. Along with multiple thousands of Latin manuscripts and other ancient languages, it is possible through scientific processes to determine the most likely reading of any particular text. Through todays technologies and error correcting methods, we are getting closer to the original reading rather than further from it. 

Of all the errors induced into the text over the past two thousand years, less that 1% affect the reading adversely. There are no errors that affect or change any major Christian doctrine. In one sense Dr. Ehrman is correct, there are errors in the text, on the other hand, Dr. Wallace is correct, the Christian faith has faithfully been transmitted to us accurately. 

Here is one example: Papyrus 52, Date: 100-125 A.D. is a fragment old enough to be a copy of an orginal, or perhaps a second generation copy.

Discovered: Fayum or Oxyrhynchus, Egypt Location: Manchester England; John Rylands University Library

Contents: John 18:31-38 Notes: This papyrus is usually considered to be the earliest New Testament manuscript still in existence. 

It is in the orginal language, it was written around 60 years after the orginal documents pinned. This is the english reading of the text on the parchment. 

Pilate therefore said to them, “Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law.” Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is illegal for us to put anyone to death,” that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spoke, signifying by what kind of death he should die. Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, called Jesus, and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?”
Pilate therefore said to him, “Are you a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I have been born, have come into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”
Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”                                                                                              When he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, “I find no basis for a charge against him.

Here is the reading of this text in our modern ESV translation.

[Jhn 18:31-33 ESV] 31 Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” 32 This was to fulfill the word that Jesus had spoken to show by what kind of death he was going to die. 33 So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?”  [Jhn 18:37-38 ESV] 37 Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him.”

As you can see, the 1,900-year-old fragment reads the same as our modern translation. It is true there are grammatical errors in the fragment, but the content has been faithfully transmitted. There are no secrets or hidden conspiracies in the history of the Biblical text. Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. Sinaiticus has its own website and is available for anyone to access online and read in the original language. 

The resources we have containing the Biblical text is enormous. We know what the variant reading are and approximately when they were introduced. There is no doubt what we are reading now is what Christians were reading in the second century. Dr. Ehrman would accuratly argue perhaps that there is no evidence the second century manuscripts were copied accuratly from the 1st century original autographs. That would be true since we no longer have them. However, it seems that would be a weak argument to make since we do have evidence it has been transmitted faithfully for the past 1,600 years in its complete form and 1,900 years in its fragmented form.  

In our next post we will look into the method of intreptation.

David