“How We Feel Led to Interpret”

In the second volume of his commentary on The Majesty of Jesus, Tom Wacaster includes articles that relate to the main text he is analyzing. The text is Matthew 21:23-27, and the accompanying article is titled, “How Does That Make You Feel?” The main topic is authority; a quote found there is quite interesting.

The author of it, Chip Blankenship, was evidently trying to account for differences of interpretation in the Scriptures. After all, Paul said that the Corinthians should be “…perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). So how do we explain the various denominational doctrines? Why don’t we believe the same teachings when we read the Bible? Don’t we believe the Scriptures to be authoritative?

Chip’s quote evidently tries to answer that question, and it was published in U.S. News and World Report on July 7, 1997. His explanation for disunity is: “The issue is not whether we view the Scripture as authoritative but how we feel led to interpret it” (339). Really? What kind of gobbledygook is this?

So, we all believe that the Scriptures are authoritative. Great! They are. And that statement indicates we should, therefore, all believe the same teaching. But we do not. So, what can the problem be? If we did not believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures, the problem would be solved. If they were just written by men, then we could understand different interpretations—because they would not possess the consistency that they do. We would be reading the various opinions of men and therefore we would not expect everyone to agree on every major doctrine.

But the Scriptures are inspired of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17), and they do not contradict each other. We need some other explanation, then, for disunity. And Chip thinks he has discovered it. The differences among those who profess to be Christians can be traced to the idea that we are “led to interpret it” differently. Okay. So, what is the obvious question to ask? The curious Bible student wants to know: “Led by whom?”

Who is leading us in our interpretations? Well, it might be that the devil is doing so. He is the main individual who does not desire for Christians to be united; therefore, he is a logical choice. But how is it that so many “Christian” preachers and commentators are being led by the devil? That’s rather disconcerting.

But it’s better than the alternative. Many claim to be led by the Holy Spirit. Is God therefore the author of all the confusion? Does He teach that we all have free will and, at the same time, everything is predestined? Does He teach that baptism means “immersion,” but sprinkling is equally effective? Can women both be and not be pastors?

The Holy Spirit, quite obviously, cannot be leading Christians to hold 100% diametrically-opposed doctrines. How else could we be led to contradictory teachings? Perhaps the answer lies in the word feel. Do our feelings drive our interpretations? That would explain the differences, but who teaches that the exposition of the Scriptures comes from our feelings?

Is this what seminaries, Christian colleges, and schools of preaching are teaching now? Do these institutions advise their students that a passage means what you feel it means? What happened to the idea of getting out of the text what God put into it—no more and no less? Has the concept of context disappeared? Do we no longer consider the overall theme of the book or observe how all the parts relate to the whole?

Do we no longer study the original words used in a verse to see what their meaning is? Do we not care how they might be used elsewhere in the Bible? Don’t we still want to know who is speaking, as well as to whom? Have we arrived at the point where we allow our theology to dictate what a passage teaches? Is that the new hermeneutics?

If it is, we have adopted a tremendously flawed system—one that rejects Biblical authority. If we make a text say what we want it to, how is that different than rejecting the authority of the Scriptures? At best, it only pays lip service to Biblical authority.

An Example

Let’s take the subject of singing, in which all Christians are expected to participate (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Suppose I like instruments of music and want them to be part of worship. The only problem is that I cannot find any authority in the New Testament for their use. Verses mention singing; but they do not authorize accompaniment. Now if all of us adhered to what is written, unity would exist, and we would just sing.

But I like instruments; so, why not say that I feel led to interpret singing another way. But what would make me feel that way? Or to be “led” that way? Not the New Testament! Instruments become part of congregational worship because I like them and insist they be included. Besides, visitors expect their presence. “Besides, various rationales have been provided to justify their use.” Yes, and every one of them has failed—from the Hardeman-Boswell Debate in 1923 to the Highers-Blakely Debate in 1974.

What it boils down to is that no authority exists for using instruments in worship, but we like it, and we’re going to use them. And if it divides Christians, then that’s the way it will have to be. It’s sad, and we feel remorseful at times, but nothing is going to change. Besides, we feel led to use them.

The Upshot

What could not be justified by reasoning this way? Could we have pizza and Mountain Dew for the Lord’s Supper, if we felt led to do so? We could change all of worship from what pleases God to what entertains the folks—if we were led to do so. Where is the stopping point with such a philosophy?

Many of the rabbis during the two centuries before and after Christ were quite inventive regarding the interpretation of the Scriptures. Some claimed that when Genesis said there was an evening and a morning in a day, it was a reference to Esau (darkness) and Jacob (light). When God said, “Let there be light,” they concluded it was a reference to Abraham. These explanations are silly and usually harmless, but where did they come from? What led the rabbis to come to such unwarranted conclusions?

Such flights of fancy lack credibility. God communicated with us in a way that could be understood—not only understood—but understood alike by His creation. Paul expected the Ephesians to comprehend what he wrote them (Eph. 3:4). He intended for the Corinthians to have the same understanding of his words (1 Cor. 1:10). Jesus said that if we continued in His words, we would know the truth (John 8:31-32). We can do so by considering what each writer of the New Testament actually wrote—not by being led by our feelings.