Triangulating the interpretations problem

One of the most common arguments against the Sufficiency of Scripture is that there are many different interpretations of it. If there are so many different interpretations, it is suggested that the Bible is insufficient in and of itself. This usually ends with a conclusion favorable to the speaker's institution.

One of the first problems here is that diversity is usually wildly exaggerated. There are said to be "thousands of interpretations of the Bible", as if one person sees it as the written word of the Living God, and another sees it as Grandma's coded message to conceal her family's secret cupcake recipe. Realistically speaking, once you exclude the cults (and you absolutely should ignore the cults), the division becomes both minor, and traceable.

From a "general overview" perspective, the division is always traceable to one key source: Man. Man is fallible, in ways that make diversity of thought inevitable. You may think of it like this: In a classroom, all students have the same teacher, but they do not all receive the same grade. Some will pass the class with flying colors. Others will fail miserably.

Of course, on occasion, this may be a genuine flaw in the teacher, the school, or even the textbooks. Human beings, after all, are always flawed. But we need not imagine this problem would be eliminated if the teacher was legitimately perfect. Why? Simply because the students would never be either.

Scripture is a perfect book. In fact, it was breathed out by God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Even its human authors were not writing their own opinions, but as the Holy Spirit guided them, and it is for this reason, along with its confirmation by eyewitness testimony, that we should heed it as a light in a dark place. (2 Peter 1:19-21). But for sake of argument, I do not need you to grant that. Of course, it is helpful if you do, but if you do not, all you need to do is imagine a perfect book. Every point I am about to make will ring just as true.

See, there are three elements in play when it comes to interpreting a perfect text. These three elements are knowledge, faith, and integrity. If any one of these three elements are lacking (and every single one of us lacks them to one degree or another), there is a high chance that an erroneous interpretation will be held or expressed.

Knowledge

Naturally, the first element is knowledge. If you don't know what the Bible says, you're obviously going to find it difficult to interpret it properly, or judge the interpretations you will inevitably be fed. This is probably the most common area of deficiency. It would be a huge exaggeration to state "no one reads the Bible", but surveys consistently show that a tragically low number of Christians actually do. But of course, even for those who do, there is quite literally a first time for everything.

Personally, while I don't know exactly how many, I've read the Bible cover to cover at least 10 times. I do not say this to flex, but to say that there was a time, early in my faith, when I had not read it even once. Suffice to say, my understanding of Scripture has changed dramatically since then, not because the Bible itself is imperfect, but because in order to understand it, I needed to first read it.

Scripture speaks to this directly. Speaking of his Jewish brethren, Paul writes "For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge." (Romans 10:2). Here, he goes on to speak of those who are ignorant of God's righteousness, and are seeking to establish their own, and thus are not submitting to His righteousness. The Jewish religion, lacking Christ, is incomplete. This, in verse 14, he writes "How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" We see, then, that in the absence of knowledge, faith itself becomes insufficient.

Faith

Knowing what the Bible is saying is one thing. Believing it is another. I don't mean this entirely in the sense of the Bible itself being the inspired word of the Living God. It is entirely possible to believe this, and yet hold certain preconceptions that may blind you to the meaning of Scripture.

One of the most obvious examples of this in the modern day is the origins debate. Historically speaking, this was fairly unified. There were distinct teachings, with some views differing only slightly from modern "Young" Earth Creationism, and others arguing that creation was instantaneous. Old Earth Creationism, by contrast, is fairly novel, corresponding with the widespread acceptance of secular theories of origins.

This correspondence is no mere coincidence. Rather, Old Earthers tend to confess the truth of the Bible, yet reinterpret it according to their stronger belief that the Earth is old. You can see this from their arguments. When they defend their interpretation, they very rarely go to the text itself, and even when they do, it is very obviously contorted. They have not drawn their conclusions based on the text, but rather, have drawn their conclusions, then found the text they believe can be made to sound supportive of their claim.

That's if they even bother going to the text. They are far more likely to either go to "science" (such as my most recent debate with a man who argued that scavengers seem designed to thrive on death, thus "proving" death was a part of God's original design), or even to outside sources. It's very popular, for example, to cite Augustine, despite him ironically being a hardcore "Young" Earth Creationist who would call them deceived by mendacious documents.

This element can be summed up in one simple sentence: "I know what the text says, but it's not what I believe, so it must mean something different". Obviously, this goes beyond the origins debate, and can actually apply to whole creeds and traditions. Anything you hold as a higher authority than Scripture, either in theory or in practice, will inevitably blind you to what it actually says.

Integrity

Of course, sometimes, the lack of faith is deliberate. The devil himself is a great theologian, not because of his love for God, but because of his hatred. The devil knows what the Bible says, and he knows it is true. But he has no intention of allowing us to do either of these. For this reason, he will interpret it correctly only when it is convenient for him.

Of course, we need not imagine this is limited to the devil himself. In fact, the word warns us "But what I do, I will also continue to do, that I may cut off the opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the things of which they boast. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." (2 Corinthians 11:12-15).

Now, if the devil and his ministers are so willing to twist Scripture, we should not be surprised when we encounter those twistings. In fact, ironically, this should not be assumed to be limited only to the liars themselves. How can a liar be sustained if his lies are not believed? Those who lack knowledge, or faith, may as easily be tripped by those who lack integrity as those who lack integrity will seek to trip them.

A good example here is Yvette Flunder, who recently made waves by declaring "I’m of the opinion that we need a third testament because the Bible has become problematic..." (1). Of course, it's not problematic for the faithful, but problematic for her lifestyle as a lesbian bishop. Neither her sexuality, nor her role in the Church, are supported by Scripture. Thus, rather than just admit she doesn't believe it, she has called for it to be "updated".

Conclusion

We see, then, that the different interpretations of Scripture are an entirely human issue. It's not that the Bible is insufficient, and that therefore we need an infallible interpreter, a third testament, or whatever the speaker happens to be promoting when denying the sufficiency of Scripture. Rather, we, as humans, have varying measures of knowledge, faith, and integrity. Some of us know more than others. Some of us believe more than others. Some of us are more willing to obey than others. And here's the irony: Even if you do not admit that the Bible is the perfect book, your substitute will do no better.

See, whether we like it or not, every house is divided against itself to some degree or another. Every cult, every denomination, every congregation, is made up of individuals. And individuals are flawed. Therefore, whether you study the Bible directly, or absorb what you are taught from other sources, you are going to form different views to your neighbor, even if only slightly. Such is the nature of man. But it is not the nature of Scripture.

References

1. Blair, L. - Lesbian bishop Yvette Flunder draws backlash for saying Bible needs a third testament, MSN, April 22nd 2026 (link)

AI usage

1. The header image was generated by ChatGPT.

2. The interpretations diagram was generated by ChatGPT.