I read a post on social media today.  The author of the post was quoting a foreword he had written for a book. 

“Ever since the reformation it has been fashionable in certain Protestant circles to speak blithely of the perspicuity of the Scripture.  A desire to democratize the Bible led to the wishful thinking that the proper interpretation of all Scripture is self-evident.  But if anything is self-evident about the Bible, it is the glaring fact that a myriad of possible interpretations set forth by well-meaning exegetes compete for our allegiance.  And this is never more the case than when we consider the Pauline epistles. The New Testament itself admits that when it comes to Pauls’ letters, ‘there are some things in them hard to understand’ (2 Peter 3:16). So the notion that one can just open the Bible to Romans and easily grasp Pauls’ often dense arguments is wildly over optimistic.  Though it may offend our individualist and egalitarian aspirations, the truth of the matter is that we often need some scholarly assistance if we are to properly interpret our sacred text.  Thankfully, the church has such scholars…”

I’ve not read the book, but I like the work of the guy who wrote the foreword (and who posted it).  I’m intentionally not mentioning his name because I am not trying to cast him in any kind of negative light, but I do want to explore a question that this foreword brings up for me.

(I have to write an aside about “perspicuity” – maybe you are more literate than I, but I felt the need to look that up to be sure I knew what it meant -  the ability to think, write, or speak clearly.  Ok, so with that out of the way, on to my questions)

I wonder about all the discussion that goes on in religion around the subject of “interpretation of Scripture.”  It seems to me that what is at the heart of it is authority and control.  The debate seems to revolve around what/who gets to decide what is right or correct.  I agree with the author that the Bible has a myriad of possible interpretations.  I agree that those who put forth these interpretations compete for our allegiance. The author here seems to conclude that the solution is not a swing toward individualism, but to lean upon scholarly assistance to obtain “proper interpretation.”

I have no beef with scholarly interpretation of scripture.  I consider myself a scholar of scripture.  I’ve learned a ton from my studies and my understanding of scripture has widened and broadened from it.

But for me, there is a bigger issue at work here.  An issue deeper and more important than how much scholarship one has or whether or not someone has interpreted scripture poorly.   That issue is this … Why are we competing to try to “win” the contest over correct interpretation of scripture at all?  Isn’t this simply the pursuit of a kind of knowledge of good and evil?   

Isn’t the bigger issue here the belief that if we just know enough / have enough scholarship informing us, we can attain to the knowledge of good and evil?  ( In this instance, “good and evil” being good vs. bad interpretation of scripture.) 

Isn’t the quest for proper interpretation of scripture rooted in control? If we have the proper scholarship, or give authority to the proper person, place or thing (i.e., biblical scholars, the bible itself, the pope, the priest, the minister), then we can be more assured that we are right.  Authority imparts control.  Someone or something has the authority to determine what is right and thus we don’t have to rely completely and entirely on grace.