Interpretations of Ambiguous Biblical Passages Throughout History
Biblical passages can be ambiguous due to linguistic difficulties, intentional literary devices, or the need for interpretation across different historical and cultural contexts. One common source of ambiguity arises from the original Hebrew or Greek text itself. For instance, the Hebrew in Isaiah 28:13, which speaks of "one line at a time, a little here, and a little there," is noted as difficult to understand, possibly representing intentional nonsense to convey spiritual blindness [5]. Similarly, the term "Babel" means "confusion" or "mixture" in Hebrew, directly relating to the narrative of the confusion of languages [2]. The biblical account in Genesis 11 describes God confounding the language of humanity, leading to a "failure in utterance" that resulted in different dialects and the dispersion of people [8, 1]. This event is presented as the origin of the world's diverse languages and nations [8].
Interpreters have also grappled with passages where the meaning is not immediately clear, requiring deeper analysis. Allegory, defined as a representation of one thing intended to excite the representation of another, involves a "twofold sense"—an immediate historical meaning and an ultimate meaning signified by the words [4]. Parables, such as those Jesus used, are stories that typically draw an analogy between a common aspect of life and a spiritual truth [6]. Understanding parables requires identifying the central analogy within its historical and textual context, rather than seeking speculative allegorical meanings in every detail [6].
Historical and cultural differences can also introduce ambiguity. For example, the interaction between Joseph and his brothers in Genesis 42:23 suggests that while Egyptians, Hebrews, Canaanites, and Syrians could generally understand each other, there were "considerable differences between their dialects," necessitating an interpreter [9]. The Septuagint and Targums are ancient versions of the Old Testament that served to translate and interpret the Hebrew scriptures for different audiences, indicating the long-standing need to bridge linguistic and cultural gaps [3]. Even within the New Testament, words can carry nuanced meanings; for instance, the Greek word for "expecting" in Hebrews 10:27 is the same as "looking for," illustrating how subtle linguistic distinctions can be debated by scholars [7]. John Calvin, in his commentary on Genesis, discusses the "obscure interpretation" of Hagar's vision, noting that some interpreters suggest a "twofold" vision, one erroneous and one true, based on her perception of the divine nature of the encounter [10].
Sources
- Smith's Bible Dictionary “Smith's Bible Dictionary: Tongues, Confusion Of — The unity of the human race is most clearly implied, if not positively asserted, in the Mosaic writings. Unity of language is assumed by the sacred historian apparently as a corollary of the unity of race. (This statement is confirmed by philologists.) No explanation is given of the origin of speech, but its exercise is evidently regarded as coeval with the creation of man. The original unity of speech was restored in Noah. Disturbing causes were, however, early at work to dissolve this twofold union of community and speech. The human family en”
- Hitchcock's Bible Names “Hitchcock's Bible Names: Babel — confusion; mixture”
- Smith's Bible Dictionary “Smith's Bible Dictionary: Targum — [See [1199]Versions, Ancient, Of The Old And New Testaments, [1200]Versions, Authorized]”
- Smith's Bible Dictionary “Smith's Bible Dictionary: Allegory — a figure of speech, which has been defined by Bishop Marsh, in accordance with its etymology as, "a representation of one thing which is intended to excite the representation of another thing." ("A figurative representation containing a meaning other than and in addition to the literal." "A fable or parable; is a short allegory with one definite moral."--Encyc. Brit.) In every allegory there is a twofold sense--the immediate or historic, which is understood from the words, and the ultimate, which is concerned with the things signified by the words. The alle”
- Isaiah (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Isaiah 28:13: 28:13 one line at a time, one line at a time, a little here, and a little there: The Hebrew here is difficult to understand. The words might be intentional nonsense to illustrate the point that the people were so spiritually blind that God’s clearest revelation was nonsense to them (see 6:9-10).”
- Matthew (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Matthew 13:3: 13:3-9 This parable (interpreted in 13:18-23) addresses the mostly negative responses of the Jewish nation to Jesus and his message. • Parables (Greek parabolē) are stories that usually express an analogy between a common aspect of life and a spiritual truth. To understand a parable, it is necessary to locate the central analogy and understand it in its historical context and in the context of the Gospel text; then the central message can be understood. Speculative allegorical meanings that were not intended should not be found in every element of a parable.”
- Hebrews (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Hebrews 10:27: a certain--an extraordinary and indescribable. The indefiniteness, as of something peculiar of its kind, makes the description the more terrible (compare Greek, Jam 1:18). looking for--"expectation": a later sense of the Greek. ALFORD strangely translates, as the Greek usually means elsewhere, "reception." The transition is easy from "giving a reception to" something or someone, to "looking for." Contrast the "expecting" (the very same Greek as here), Heb 10:13, which refutes ALFORD. fiery indignation--literally, "zeal of fire." Fire is personifi”
- Genesis (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Genesis 11:7: confound their language--literally, "their lip"; it was a failure in utterance, occasioning a difference in dialect which was intelligible only to those of the same tribe. Thus easily by God their purpose was defeated, and they were compelled to the dispersion they had combined to prevent. It is only from the Scriptures we learn the true origin of the different nations and languages of the world. By one miracle of tongues men were dispersed and gradually fell from true religion. By another, national barriers were broken down--that all men might be bro”
- Genesis (Methodist/Wesleyan) “Adam Clarke on Genesis 42:23: For he spake unto them by an interpreter - Either there was a very great difference between the two languages as then spoken, or Joseph, to prevent all suspicion, might affect to be ignorant of both. We have many evidences in this book that the Egyptians, Hebrews, Canaanites, and Syrians, could understand each other in a general way, though there are also proofs that there was a considerable difference between their dialects.”
- CCEL (Reformed) “Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 1 (Gen 1-23), section 20.17: sense of this obscure interpretation. We may suppose Hagar to exclaim: ‘Have I indeed seen at last? yet, not till after the vision itself had passed away; so that when I saw it literally, I was mentally blind, and did not know what I was looking at.’ — Ed . According to these interpreters, the vision of Hagar was twofold: the former erroneous; since she perceived nothing celestial in the angel; but the other true, after she had been affected with a sense of the divine nature of the vision. To some it seems that a negative answer ”