The Ambiguity of Scripture

The Ambiguity of Scripture

            A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away… or, sometime during my studies at Western Seminary, in Portland Oregon, I had a rather engaging and slightly subversive conversation.  The gist of the conversation with a fellow seminarian was that we need to have a doctrine of the ambiguity of Scripture.  This was a rather subversive thought because if Scripture is the final authority on all faith and practice, then any ambiguity would undermine the certainty of how Christians ought to live and what they ought to believe. 

            We agreed that there are passages and verses that appeared to us to be intentionally ambiguous.  One of the things we discussed was the use of terms by the Apostle John in his Gospel.  An example of this is in John 1:5, “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”  The word here translated as “overcome” could also be translated as “comphrehended/ understood.”  The interesting thing is that both of these possible meanings work in this context.  It seems to me that John chose a term that both meanings were intended to be present.  This is a rather mild example, but it does demonstrate the fact that the authors of Scripture at time used terms and images that could have more than one referent ( possibly by intent).  This is the definition of ambiguity.

            Of course being aware of the implications of such conclusions we concluded that it was best to keep this quiet.  A doctrine of ambiguity of Scripture would cause a strong reaction in the circles which we were running in, along with casting great doubt upon the foundation of all our doctrines and practices.  Altogether a bad life choice for people looking at entering into Church ministry.

              Against our speculation there is the doctrine of the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture.  Classically (at least from a Protestant perspective), Westminster defined the perspicuity of Scripture to refer to those things which are necessary for salvation.  I have encountered some who have taken perspicuity of Scripture to refer to the whole of Scripture, but such opinions should be treated more as outliers than a serious tradition.  This broader view is even more problematic than the more limited scope of the perspicuity in the Westminster Confession.  However both the limited and broad scope of perspicuity of Scripture are untenable.

            The failure of perspicuity of Scripture is evident in the plainly observable fact that biblical interpreters rarely arrive at the same conclusion.  This even occurs with those who share very similar exegetical methods.  Indeed, this even occurs regarding those things which are necessary for salvation.  This can be seen in the difference between various soteriologies among Protestants.  There are a multitude of views even among evangelical Protestants: Once Saved Always Saved, the Calvinist TULIP, the Arminian view, Lordship Salvation, etc…  If one were to include Roman Catholics and Orthodox perspectives (both of which would rely upon Scripture) then there is an even greater range of understandings upon something as central as what is necessary for salvation.

            Therefore, I think that it is more appropriate to speak of the ambiguity of Scripture than the perspicuity of Scripture.  In affirming this, I would offer that the ambiguity of Scripture is not a problem if one is guided by the Tradition of the Church. Saint Vincent of Lerins aptly noted

“But here someone perhaps will ask, ‘Since the canon of Scripture is complete,[1] and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation?’ For this reason, because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters.” (Commonitorium 2.5) 

If one has ever read multiple commentaries, then the truth of this statement resonates.  There are as many interpretations as there are interpreters.  Now, the point that Saint Vincent was making in this passage was that heretics interpret Scripture unguided by the Tradition of the Church.  There is no hint of the clarity of Scripture here, but rather of the need to be guided by Tradition because apart from the Church’s Tradition, one can easily fall into error through their interpretation of Scripture.  Underlying this is the idea not that Scripture is clear and understandable, but that for one to rightly interpret Scripture it must be read in light of Holy Tradition.

---

[1] At the time of St. Vincent (he died around 450), the canon of Scripture was still not universally agreed upon nor fixed in the number or the book included therein.