Welcome back to the second installment of our series – “Putting our Heads Together”. In the previous article, I discussed how many of our theological controversies stem from apparent contradictions in the bible, not unlike those that we jointly tackle when seeking solid answers for skeptics and seekers. I argued that we need to cultivate a collaborative attitude in Biblical interpretation, similar to the attitude we convey in such apologetics discussions.
In this follow up article, I’d like to continue this encouragement, focusing on the interpretive technique I employed to resolve the contradiction alluded to in the last article, a technique which is prevalent in many apologetic contexts, yet often a source of contention in normal theological discussions. I’ll call this technique “categorical interpretation”. Let’s go back to our original passage to see what I mean by this.
The passage that inspired this series is Exodus 6:3. In this passage, God tells Moses that the patriarchs, including Abraham, did not know Him by the name “Yahweh” (Ex 6:3). Yet, in earlier passages, we read that Abraham did call on the name of “Yahweh” (Gen 12:8, 13:4, 22:14). To reconcile these passages, we need to understand that while Abraham may have used the name Yahweh in his prayers or worship, he likely did not have a full understanding (i.e. “knowing”) of the significance of that name or its implications. The revelation of God’s name (and associated acts) was progressive throughout the Old Testament. The name Yahweh carries with it a deeper revelation of God’s character, particularly in relation to His redemptive purposes for His covenant people. So Abraham “knew” the name Yahweh in one sense (Creator, covenant keeper, provider) but He did not know it in another sense (Redeemer, savior, deliverer); a sense that Moses would be intimately familiar with after the Exodus. This is categorical interpretation – identifying when a word or idea has more than one sense in scripture.
There are several groups of passages in scripture that elicit categorical interpretation:
- According to 1 Samuel 3:7, Samuel did not “know” the Lord, yet he had “ministered before the Lord” (2:18) and “grew in the presence of the Lord” (v21). So He “knew” the Lord in one sense, and not in another.
- In the New Testament, there appears to be a bogus “faith” possessed by demons (Jas 2:19) and temporary Christ-followers (Lk 8:13), yet also a real “faith” that is characterized by its endurance (Heb 10:39). So one can have “faith” in one sense, but not in another.
- Cornelius was a “righteous man” (Acts 10:22) who was still unsaved (11:14). Yet, Paul forcefully claims that there are none “righteous” (Rom 3:11). So Cornelius was “righteous” in one sense, and not in another.
- In the New Testament, there appear to be two kinds of justification – Abraham was justified by faith apart from any works (Rom 4:1-5), but, in another sense, was justified by his works and not faith alone (Jas 2:21-24).
- There are different senses of “death” in the Bible – A death while we are physically living (Gen 2:17, Rom 7:9), a death that terminates our physical living (Gen 5:5), and a second death that potentially follows that one (Rev 2:11, 20:14)
- There are multiple senses in which someone can be “saved”, including a past sense (Eph 2:8-9), a present sense (Jas 1:21), and a future sense (Rom 13:11, 1 Pet 1:5)
- The Bible states that evil human desires are contrary to the will of God (1 Pet 4:2), but at the same time are somehow in alignment with the will of God (Acts 4:28, c.f. Gen 50:20). Evil is the will of God in some sense, but not in another.
This sampling should suffice, although I could go on and on. This presence of multi-faceted words and ideas in the Bible is a recipe for differing interpretations, especially when some passages don’t offer clarification in the immediate context. This begs for an attitude of open-mindedness and humility when interacting with opposing positions. While many of us slam our theological opponents for employing “categories” on a word or idea, we can’t deny that we all face countless passages that have such categorical flexibility; and we all use categories at some point, especially in the realm of apologetics.
Am I claiming that we should simply accept all categories of a word as equally valid in every passage the word is used? Not at all. We should study the context as meticulously as possible to see if any of the interpretive categories fit better. In doing so, we should be open to the insights of the broader church, such as accomplished theologians and pastors who have a recognized gift of teaching. We should also consult historical sources (preferably pre-Nicene) to see if the church fathers nearest to the apostles had unanimous agreement on a given interpretation. This could indicate that they had direct apostolic insight regarding the original intended meaning of the passage. If so, perhaps we should place more credence on that interpretation and be more skeptical of other novel interpretations. If we find a lack of consensus, perhaps it is best to grasp our interpretation with a loose grip and be open to respectful dialogue with other views.
Click the SUBSCRIBE button at the bottom to get emails when new articles publish!
Click the link to our FACEBOOK Group at the bottom. Come and join the conversation!
The Middle Ground 