Interpretation of Ambiguous Scripture Examples in Theology

The interpretation of ambiguous scripture examples in theology often involves careful consideration of textual variants, cross-references, and the historical context of the biblical text. Different theological traditions and individual commentators approach these ambiguities with varying methodologies.

One common source of ambiguity arises from textual differences across ancient manuscripts and versions. For instance, Adam Clarke notes that significant portions of 1 Samuel 17, including verses 12-31 and parts of chapter 18, are absent in the Septuagint, though present in the Codex Alexandrinus. He suggests that these portions might not be genuine parts of the original text ^[6]. Similarly, John Chrysostom's commentaries sometimes reflect differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text, particularly in the numbering of Psalms ^[3]. The absence of the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) from Chrysostom's commentary on John suggests that his copies may have lacked the passage, or he may have intentionally omitted it to avoid misinterpretation ^[7]. These examples highlight how the very text itself can present ambiguities that require scholarly discernment.

Interpreters also grapple with passages whose meaning is not immediately clear or which seem to contradict other scriptures. For example, in 1 Corinthians 14:2, Adam Clarke discusses the difficulty of understanding speaking in unknown tongues, particularly if no one present can understand the language. He considers the possibility that "unknown tongue" might refer to Hebrew, which God restored to some for teaching ^[4]. This demonstrates an attempt to reconcile a potentially confusing passage with the broader purpose of spiritual gifts.

The use of cross-references is a significant tool in addressing ambiguity. The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge provides extensive cross-references for verses like Revelation 2:3, linking it to numerous passages concerning endurance and perseverance, such as Psalms 37:7, Romans 5:3, and 1 Corinthians 13:7 ^[1]. Similarly, OpenBible.info shows cross-references for verses like 1 Thessalonians 5:24 to Psalm 138:2, indicating a perceived thematic connection ^[2]. These cross-references help to illuminate the meaning of a passage by showing how similar themes or concepts are expressed elsewhere in scripture.

Theological traditions also influence how ambiguous passages are interpreted. For instance, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown discuss Romans 2:26, noting two mistaken interpretations regarding whether Gentiles can please God by following the law. They reject the idea that the case is impossible or that it refers to heathens pleasing God by the light of nature, instead proposing an alternative understanding consistent with the apostle's teaching ^[8]. This illustrates how commentators within a specific tradition engage with and refine interpretations of challenging texts. John Calvin, as an interpreter, also engaged in verbal criticisms of texts, though he laid less stress on them himself ^[5].

Sources

Treasury of Scripture Knowledge “Revelation 2:3 cross-references: Psalms 37:7, Psalms 69:7, Micah 7:9, Mark 15:21, Luke 8:15, Luke 14:27, Luke 18:1, Luke 21:19, John 15:21, Romans 2:7, Romans 5:3, Romans 8:25, Romans 12:12, Romans 15:4, Romans 16:12, 1 Corinthians 13:7, 1 Corinthians 16:16, 2 Corinthians 4:1, 2 Corinthians 4:16, 2 Corinthians 5:9, 2 Corinthians 6:5, 2 Corinthians 10:15, 2 Corinthians 11:23, Galatians 6:2, Galatians 6:9, Philippians 2:16, Philippians 4:3, Colossians 1:11, 1 Thessalonians 1:3, 1 Thessalonians 2:9, 1 Thessalonians 5:12, 2 Thessalonians 3:5, 2 Thessalonians 3:8, 2 Thessalonians 3:13, 1 Timothy 4:”
OpenBible.info “Cross-reference: 1Thess.5.24 → Ps.138.2 (confidence: 15 votes)”
CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on John & Hebrews: sections are numbered throughout: where the division seemed to be inconvenient, the number is given in the margin. In the earlier Homilies a second series of numbers is employed to mark the sections in the translation; this was discontinued as unnecessary, and the Benedictine only retained. In some of the references to the Psalms, where the Septuagint differs much from the Hebrew, the numbers given are those of the Greek. Care will be taken in the Index of Texts to give always the reference to the Psalm and Verse according to the Hebrew reckoning fo”
1 Corinthians (Methodist/Wesleyan) “Adam Clarke on 1 Corinthians 14:2: For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue - This chapter is crowded with difficulties. It is not likely that the Holy Spirit should, in the church, suddenly inspire a man with the knowledge of some foreign language, which none in the church understood but himself; and lead him to treat the mysteries of Christianity in that language, though none in the place could profit by his teaching. Dr. Lightfoot's mode of reconciling these difficulties is the most likely I have met with. He supposes that by the unknown tongue the Hebrew is meant, and that God restored th”
CCEL (Reformed) “Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 1 (Gen 1-23), section 1.5: more recently been subjected. Still his verbal criticisms are neither few nor unimportant, though he lays comparatively little stress upon them himself. 5 5 The reader is referred, for full information on this subject, to a small volume entitled, “The Merits of Calvin as an Interpreter of the Holy Scriptures,” by Professor Tholuck of Halle. To which are added, “Opinions and Testimonies of Foreign and British Divines and Scholars as to the Importance of the Writings of John Calvin.” With a Preface by the Revelation William Pringle. ”
1 Samuel (Methodist/Wesleyan) “Adam Clarke on 1 Samuel 17:12: The 12th verse, to the 31st inclusive, are wanting in the Septuagint; as also the 41st verse; and from the 54th to the end; with the first five verses of 1 Samuel 18, and the 9th, 10th, 11th, 17th, 18th, and 19th of the same. All these parts are found in the Codex Alexandrinus; but it appears that the MS. from which the Codex Alexandrinus was copied, had them not. See observations at the end of this chapter, Sa1 17:58 (note). Dr. Kennicott has rendered it very probable that these portions are not a genuine part of the text. Notwithstanding what Bishop Warburton a”
CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on John & Hebrews: the pretensions of that sect to the perfect knowledge of Divine things. And the Benedictine Editor refers to them as containing a more complete array of the positive evidence of St. John to the Catholic doctrines than even this commentary affords. The history of the woman taken in adultery is omitted in this commentary, and the Benedictine editor was not able to trace it in any of the works of St. Chrysostom. It is suggested that his copies may have wanted the passage, or that he may have omitted it for fear it should be taken as an encouragement to”
Romans (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Romans 2:26: Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the . . . law, &c.--Two mistaken interpretations, we think, are given of these words: First, that the case here supposed is an impossible one, and put merely for illustration [HALDANE, CHALMERS, HODGE]; second that it is the case of the heathen who may and do please God when they act, as has been and is done, up to the light of nature [GROTIUS, OLSHAUSEN, &c.]. The first interpretation is, in our judgment, unnatural; the second, opposed to the apostle's own teaching. But the case here put is, we think, such as that ”

Ask Your Own Question