Why are there so many different Christian interpretations?

The fact is, that Scripture differs from mere books of information and science, inasmuch as these are wholly irrespective of moral condition and may be mastered alike by the evil and the good, while that depends on our measure of subjection to the Spirit of God. And as the children of God are not equally spiritual, so they differ in the degree of their understanding of and relish for all that is of God. If all Christians had a single eye, every one would be full of light. But this is not so. Each has to contend with influences, prejudices, prepossessions, etc., which, as far as they work, obscure the judgment, and thus lead to differing views and practice. Hence it is that the evidence of the word which is irresistible to one is weak or null to another, rightly or wrongly, of course, as a man is led by the Spirit. To take the same example as before, a man better taught than Bishop Marsh would see ground, in Jude 11 and Heb. 12:24, for interpreting Cain and Abel typically. And if they are to be so taken, why not Lamech and Seth, of whom serious and interesting facts are recorded in the same chapter? Again, the hardest exactor of express New Testament authority can scarcely deny a formally typical force to the deluge. (See 1 Peter 3.) Has then the subsequent altar which Noah built no future bearing? Nor God's blessing of him and his sons, with His solemn committal of the sword of government and the covenant with the earth and all flesh? And the city and tower in the plain of Shinar, has it no language for our ears, — that Babel, where language was confounded by the judgment of Jehovah, and the various tongues of men began? if Sarah and Hagar, if Isaac and Ishmael have the explicit sanction of Scripture, is it not implied as to Abraham and Lot? If Melchizedek cannot be disputed, what are we to infer about the combinations of the Kings and their conflicts, what about the intervention of the head of promise and the deliverance of his earthly-minded kinsman? Are all these great connected circumstances unmeaning, save as moral and historical? Is "the possessor of heaven and earth" an immaterial title there and then, because, "the most high God" merely is cited in Heb. 7?

Interpretation: The sceptic, if ever the eye of such scanned these humble pages, might well point mockingly to the divisions of Christendom as evidence of sorrowful divergence in the interpretation of the word, for all alike appeal to the same word. And this may be carried a stage further; even those, such as Christadelphians, who are not recognised as Christians by orthodox belief, appeal to the word as the basis and ground of their destructive doctrines. And nothing would be more foolish than for us to attempt to hide the solemn fact that true men of God have not only disagreed concerning the interpretation of scripture, but have also divided in the Church because of that disagreement. However, in the overruling mercy and goodness of God, a very great body of essential truth has been held throughout the Church, (or, perhaps, I should say, the churches), in all ages. And it is profitable study to consider that body of truth, and to rejoice that it includes so much that is infinitely precious to every redeemed soul.

Thus, we might consider the earliest ages in three distinct epochs, (See W. H. Simcox, "Early Church History.").viz: (1). the sub-apostolic church, (2). the church of the apologists, and (3). the church of the martyrs. Now these three epochs are all ante-Nicene, yet they never fail in the character of their interpretation of scripture regarding the great truths of the Trinity. I speak, of course, of the general position. And when we come to the strictly Nicene period and the ages following, we discover a truly wonderful harmony in the interpretation of the Word as it unfolds the real Godhead and true Divine Sonship of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now this character of interpretation has been permeated with a deep simplicity. Thus, for Athanasius our Lord's language in John 10:30; "I and the Father are one;" could convey but one meaning: such words could have, on His blessed lips, but one interpretation. Rationalism has laboured to lower that meaning, to weaken that interpretation, Socinianism has rejected the Divine sense of the words altogether; but the true simple-hearted believer continues in the faith, certain in his knowledge that the Son of God cannot deceive. His faith is living, because it centres and rests in One whom he knows is God's OWN Son, the true, real, proper Son of the Father. The name of "Son "is no mere title to him; rather does it speak of the most blessed relationship, perfect and eternal, essentially Divine, proper to the very Being and Nature of the eternal God. And this interpretation is verified for him throughout Scripture; so that John 1:14. harmonises with Colossians 1:15, and John 5:17-19. harmonises with Hebrews 1:1-3. No matter where we turn in Scripture there is only faultless accord between all its parts as regards the Divine Sonship of our Lord Jesus Christ.

If an artist in furniture designed an exceptionally fine wardrobe and entrusted the work in twelve sections to twelve different joiners, anybody who endeavoured to "interpret" any one of the resulted pieces of joinery by itself would surely reach some strange conclusions. No reliable or satisfactory interpretation would be found until it was seen as related to the whole design. Thus it is with every prophecy of the Scripture, and here is found the reason of the many opinions and even heresies which we have to deplore.

This leads us to remember how one ought to lean upon the Spirit for the right use of scripture, and also in speaking on it, for He alone knows its right and suitable application. We also learn why the best commentators must be so entirely imperfect, or I would say, we see the evil of the best commentators. For they cannot express the applicable power of the divine mind in the circumstances of the person reading, but merely what their mind has received out of it at the time of writing. But this may not be at all what the individual or church needs, or the Spirit would give at another time: and this too, on the supposition that every comment is right as far as it goes, — is a part of the divine mind in the scripture. Hence the poverty of understanding, and the systems also into which men have fallen, and hence also, partly, that divisions in the church have been established as they are.

We must have faith, then, in what the grace of God has given us, in order to be able to get on with it; but more, we must have faith also in the ability He gives to possess ourselves of it. Here, how many questions naturally assail us! When we think of the centuries during which the Church has been in possession of the completed Word, and think again how little of unity of interpretation there is at the present time, — divisions only increased, as one might think, by coming to it, — divisions for which Rome reproaches Protestants, so far with justice: but her remedy is to take Scripture out of our hands altogether, and to give us only just what and how she may deem fit, — certainly any amount of division is incomparably better than this. Nevertheless, the ruin of everything seems only to become continually more manifest. New heresies start; creeds multiply; Scripture, as is the common urging of unbelief, is appealed to for all, and Satan can boast of the success he has in making that which is the truth itself in some way the apology for error everywhere. But what are we to conclude as we think of it all? That after all there is indeed before us an open door to enter into and take possession of the word of God, to an extent only limited by our lack of faith in Him? Is it humility even to judge others in the way this seems to necessitate? And is it not presumption on our part to think that we may even possibly succeed where the generations have so much and so uniformly failed? Nevertheless, there abides for us one word of Christ which, if we keep it, will outweigh them all: "And when the Spirit of truth is come, He shall lead you into all truth." Is this a sufficient assurance? Is the failure His or ours? Are we given up to failure? To take any such position as these is only, in one way or another, to charge failure upon God Himself. No, rather the fault has been that we have trusted other guides more than this one sufficient One. We have given those whom God has given to us, in order to help us with the interpretation of His Word, a place of authority which belongs to nothing but to the Word itself. We have been the followers of men too much; and thus oftentimes the best meant attempts to preserve the truth to us have only resulted in hindrance and stagnation. If God has given a little revival, if He has recovered for us a few truths that we had lost, the way has been immediately to make that which we have the measure of everything; and this, enshrined in creeds and confessions, has been a sorer hindrance in the path of progress than we may be willing to allow that it could be.

But there is a notable sign appended. "When he had said this, he breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." Probably there are many in this place who are not ignorant of the correspondence that has been carried on but recently on this very passage. It has clearly proved the conflict of opinion, even in leaders of the same religious system. Nevertheless, many more now present will be surprised to learn the total uncertainty of professing Christian teachers, and that they only agree in being all far from the mark. You, who are accustomed to read the Scriptures in faith of God's teaching by the Holy Ghost given to you, will hardly conjecture the aberrations of Christian men from the truth. We all know that in our day most flatter themselves that there has been a great advance in the knowledge of the things of God. What means, then, this inability to gather and give out with clearness the revealed mind of God in a matter of such moment as these words of our Saviour? How is it that, now eighteen centuries and more since, one hears no better than the crudities of the fathers or the guesses of their children?

The variety and even discordance of the popular expositors I have already allowed to be a feeble disproof. The truth might be in a few without being apprehended by most men or even by all true Christians. Spirituality of mind is needed to discern truth, nor is it difficult to muster objections to that which is most certain. How many saints are cloudy in their views even of grace as well as righteousness! How many fail to see intelligently the return and the kingdom of our Lord Jesus! Besides, the variety is not small among the futurists themselves. To be distracted by such clashing of opinions on either side is really to give up certainty as to all truth.

History given before-hand, as One alone is competent to give it, is given; not to gratify curiosity about the future, but as practical wisdom for the wise in heart, that the servants of the Lord may find the path wherein to walk and to serve Him (Rev. 1:1). Exercise of conscience will be needed to understand it, far more than grasp of intellect, and we need not wonder at diverse interpretations. Yet the Lord expects us to be able to see clearly through the veil (Mark 4:13); and without certainty no application can be safely made: Scripture must first of all be for "doctrine," in order that it may be for "reproof, for correction; for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16).

One perplexity often encountered when seeking to study scripture seriously is that the various translations of the Bible often contain significant differences. A frequent cause of these differences is that the translators have used different Greek manuscripts as the basis for their work. One might ask, 'If these renowned scholars can't agree, how can I as a simple believer possibly know which is right?' An example of such a discrepancy occurs here and provides us with one technique for determining the correct translation.

Christendom has suffered for centuries from the insistence by some of a title to interpret Scripture, with disastrous consequences to the individual and to the Church of God: meanings have been read into, and out of, large portions of the Word of God which the terms of Scripture themselves, in the passages concerned, do not authorise or clearly express.