Some of you will surely relate to the subject of this article. But if you don’t, keep your eyes open and your ears pricked—for the Scriptures are, beyond a shadow of a doubt, being assaulted, not only within worldly arenas, but also within our evangelical circles. I know this statement might surprise some of you, but bear with me for a few minutes and you might understand the reason for my concern.
Morals in the Bible
I think all of us will agree that the Scriptures are deeply impregnated with moral notions. The biblical canon begins with the story of Adam and Eve, which is submerged in a specific moral context, and continues with the narrative of Cain and Abel—a chronicle macerated in a pool of misbehaviors generally called sins. In brief, from cover to cover, the Bible lists clearly what is right and what is wrong. This should not surprise anyone of us, for since the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23), our heavenly Father cannot but speak unambiguously on these vital issues. To suggest that God is leaving His children in the dark concerning sin is to trifle with the subject, underestimating both the goodwill of our heavenly Father and His proven ability to express Himself conspicuously on such crucial issues.
Consequently, we can conclude, and conclude with certainty, that God has spoken comprehensibly and univocally about what is right and what is wrong. After all, if we are ordered to do His will—with the threat of chastisement if we don’t—it seems only logical that God would let us know, and let us know without confusion and disorientation, what He wants and what He doesn’t want. Now it is precisely this clarity that is being assaulted and trivialized by the late evangelical relativists. Granted that the assault is often camouflaged in tender intentions, it remains nevertheless an assault that must be confronted.
The new approach
The core of my concern can be expressed through the following scenario: Let’s say I have witnessed, for quite a long time, a moral discrepancy between what my church practices and what the Scripture teaches. Incited by a sense of responsibility, I approach the eldership at the right time, in the right way, with the right motives, and with respect, presenting to them—solely on the authority of Scripture—the evident discrepancy.
Surprisingly, they tell me that the Scriptures don’t condemn this practice in the slightest degree. Instead, they claim it is my personal, fallible interpretation that condemns it. When I point out that their interpretation is fallible as well, they nod in agreement, explaining that, for the moment, they must act according to their interpretation, not mine.
So we are told, and told repeatedly, that everything in the Bible is true, but that nobody can be certain they understand what is written in it. In that light, the Bible becomes irrelevant and doubly useless. After all, what is the point of reading a book we cannot be sure we understand? It is this sort of unscriptural onslaught that dissuades people from reading the Bible in our congregations, and something must be done about it. Now, I am not saying that this approach has permeated the entire evangelical world, but the trend is gaining acceptance at an amazing rate.
A major shift
There was a time when the vast majority of evangelicals believed that people had direct access to God’s word, but today a new discourse is imposed on us by the evangelical avant-garde. We are now told that we have access only to the human interpretation of God’s word, not to God’s word itself. Let me explain through an example.
I will refer here to the classic coffee maker, the one that brews coffee using a drip method. So, on one side, you have water in a reservoir and on the other side a pot where the coffee slowly drips.
Now imagine that the water in the reservoir is God’s Word, i.e., the Bible. The tragedy is this: New teachers in disguise are telling us that we cannot drink from the recipient, where the water is, but only from the pot, that is, God’s word must first pass through a filter full of human brains, which will yield human interpretations, and that the resulting product is ultimately the only thing we have access to. So God’s word is taken away from us, and we are left with mere human interpretations taking every possible nuance. In this light, God’s word is gone and we are left with man’s words. If this is not an attack on the Scriptures, tell me what is.
The myth of interpretation
When the Bible speaks of interpretation, it generally refers to interpreting a tongue or a dream. The only passage that talks about interpreting a text is found in Daniel chapter 5, where Belshazzar—of the lineage of Nebuchadnezzar—saw a human hand writing on the wall. Ultimately, Daniel is called in to interpret the writing. But take note: Daniel was absolutely certain his interpretation was valid. That’s where the thing gets interesting. How did he obtain this certainty? He obtained it because he knew his interpretation was not human but divine, that is, it was the result of a divine revelation.
The fact is, the New Testament doesn’t speak a word about interpreting a text. It speaks only of people twisting the Scriptures. Peter writes:
… and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:15-16)
Notice that it doesn’t say, “which untaught and unstable people interpret badly,” for it was never a problem of interpretation; it was a problem of evil intentions. Some people were actively twisting the Scriptures to their own destruction. Who were they? They were the untaught and the unstable—people who simply had difficulty accepting the Scriptures as they are.
What I am saying is that all this endless chatter about doubtful human interpretations is simply the result of a lack of divine revelation—and a refuge from moral responsibility. That is precisely why the Scriptures don’t promote it; they promote revelation. One thing is certain: revelation does not need to be interpreted. It stands firm in absolute certainty.
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:19–21 KJV)
According to these modern evangelical relativists, we may possess a “more sure word of prophecy” that is free from private interpretation—yet, because they claim it is subject to private interpretation, we are ultimately left with nothing but private interpretations. It follows, then, that the “more sure word of prophecy” is being replaced by the highly dubitable word of human interpretation. The “light that shines in a dark place” has been superseded by the tenebrous uncertainty promoted by religious saboteurs. Tragically, this disaster is hardly perceived by the evangelical status quo.
Brethren, if the only thing we are left with is mere human interpretations, we are doomed to grope about like blind men.
In my next post, I will herald the fact that we are not left with mere human interpretations. I will also point out the difference between interpretations and revelations, for therein lies the basis of Christian certainty, and therefore of Christian convictions.
Meanwhile, you might be interested in a post I wrote some years ago, entitled “The Need of Revelation”; here is the link.
If you think this post can help somebody, you can share it with the options presented below.
