Observations on the Protestant Notion of Extreme Perspicuity
We should make one more note regarding a fourth Greek principal of divine law, that it is a natural part of the cosmos. Law was embodied in the very nature of things and absolute. If humans tried to write it down or even apply it, they could only do so imperfectly. Today if you try to tell someone that absolute laws exist in an unseen reality that is more real that the physical world itself, they will back away from you as if you just said that the god Loki is incarnate as a giant rabbit, or that the Pikachu is real.
This article is from my book, When Humans Wrote Scripture.
In the Western secular-legal mind, all that would be preserved of this idea is that law should be “rational” and therefore perceivable or “evidence-based”, at least by the sage. This concept particularly grew around the time of what should rightfully be considered the dawn of the information age, when the combined technologies of cheap paper and the printing press allowed the dissemination, storage, and accumulation of knowledge like never before. This period, as we’ve noted, also birthed a revolution in religion, sparking the Protestant Reformation. In response to church authorities who claimed that the populace needed mediators to explain God’s message, reformers began to claim that the lay person could understand the word of God if they were just allowed to read it in their own language. They claimed this despite the myriad passages that show that many prophetic writings are difficult, a few examples of which we’ve already seen. Of course there are a few passages that support the idea that Scriptures, at least some of YHVH’s instructions, are not difficult, such as Deuteronomy 30:11-14.
Thus emerged an extreme doctrine of perspicuity—or clarity—the idea that the Bible was written to be understood, and is clear in its meaning, at least on matters essential for salvation. And the idea seemed to appeal to reason, for who does not write a book intending for it to be clearly understandable?[1] John Milton (d. 1674) espoused the view that a misunderstanding of Scripture could only come from an individual’s own prejudice, inhibiting our own God-given reason, and that even the simple-minded could understand.[2] Martin Luther too believed in perspicuity. In the conservative religious environment where I grew up, I often heard that only hardness of heart prevented one from understanding the doctrines of the Bible.
Despite that passage in Deuteronomy that said that the law of Moses could be understood and followed by anyone, note that the biblical authors as a whole had no such notion of perspicuity, at least not applied to all of Scripture. Jesus affirmed a passage from Isaiah, which says “keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive. Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”[3] So Jesus himself explained why he only spoke to the people in parables that actually veiled his message! Note too that this is a matter of life and death, for it is only Christ’s message that would prevent destruction,[4] just as Isaiah said the people were to be hindered from understanding so that they might not be healed.
Passages like 2 Peter 3:16 place the guilt for not understanding on the person who fails to understand, but even it admits that Paul’s writings can be difficult, with which I heartily agree. Several passages across Scripture clearly show that a hard or rebellious heart can cause an inability to understand God’s message.[5] Although such passages place some blame on the listener for not understanding, I would suggest that it is not a low bar, as I’ve seen believers who approach the Scriptures in good faith even attest. After all, if Christianity and/or Judaism are/is the one correct religion that keeps one out of damnation, just look at the vast majority of the rest of the world who are missing that boat. From the perspective of several biblical writers, look to the story of Noah, in which only eight souls out of an entire world were the only ones saved.[6]
Second Thessalonians 2 places blame for not understanding the apostles’ saving message on taking pleasure in unrighteousness. But it also says that God sends them strong delusion, that they may believe falsehoods. To understand such a God, it might be profitable to look at examples like David when he was incited to number Israel so God could punish them, as we’ll see in the next chapter. And throughout this book, we’ll see many examples of where Scripture is not easy to understand regardless of whether you have a rebellious heart.
There are some passages which speak of the need for spiritual maturity to understand certain writings; and some passages indicate that there is a tremendous amount of information that can be drawn out of even the shortest passages, such as the two short mentions of Melchizedek in the Hebrew Bible.[7] In fact, and this is key, Christianity itself is built on the idea that the plain meaning of passages from the Hebrew Bible are not the main meaning, and that these more difficult interpretations are in fact key to recognizing Jesus as Messiah and savior![8] One of the most glaring examples of this is the Ethiopian Eunuch reading from Isaiah 53: how can one understand without explanation, indeed.[9] Another great example is when Paul takes the story of Abraham’s household’s domestic dispute and claims that it is to be understood as an allegory for God’s rejection of the Jews, among other meanings.[10] Even more interesting, he flips the more obvious and historic interpretation on its head, and figuratively claims that the children of Israel are actually children of Ishmael.
In the gospels, many of the Jews are portrayed as constantly misunderstanding Scripture and tripping on the chief cornerstone, like incompetent builders.[11] And Jesus often has to “open” the Scripture to them.[12] Even Nicodemus in John 3, who came to Jesus ostensibly with a desire to understand his teaching, got an earful when Jesus accused him of not understanding rebirth of water and spirit, which Jesus seemed to indicate was to be understood from the Hebrew Scriptures. Even Jesus’ disciples are not immune from such castigation, which he directs toward them perhaps as much as his enemies. One of my favorite passages illustrating this begins in John 8:31, where Jesus tells those who had believed in him that the truth would set them free, surely one of the favorite passages of Christians to this day; interestingly though, which is often not mentioned in churches today when this passage is quoted, the Jews were offended by it, because they correctly understood it to mean that they were enslaved; by the end of the conversation, he has denied that they are children of the Abraham but are rather children of the Devil. I have shown this passage to believers and they typically claim that Jesus is addressing a group of believers first, then unbelievers: this could actually be correct, considering the looser “journalistic” standards of ancient writers, as I note below. But it’s still quite possible that it was the same group of believers who caught the brunt of Jesus’ highly invective diatribe. Understanding Scripture is not easy, and before the Reformation and the “need” to argue that we don’t need help interpreting it anymore, few would have claimed that it was.
A misunderstanding of God’s message leading even to destruction is not just found in the New Testament either. It was actually one of the first things man did; or I should say woman, for we are told, at least in the New Testament, that Eve was the one deceived by the Serpent.[13] Some of the best examples are found with the children of Israel during the Exodus, who were supposed to have seen some of YHVH’s greatest signs, yet still did not accept Moses’ word. God sent down fire from Heaven on Korah and his company who did not grasp or accept that God, not Moses, had given the law regarding the Aaronic priesthood;[14] but after God sent down fire from Heaven is when the really strange thing happened: the very next day, the people are still accusing Moses of injustice, saying that he had killed the people, for which God again starts a fresh slaughter, intending to kill the whole multitude until Aaron and his sons’ atonement stops him. Perhaps only Mark’s narrative shows people as more blind than this.[15] Of course the Hebrew Bible, as we’ll see, is so full of examples of Israel not understanding and/or obeying God’s message that there is eventually little sign of any of God’s promises left that they were supposed to enjoy in the Promised Land. And my guess is that most believers today would admit that we are no different than they today—that if we walked in their sandals, God would have scattered our cadavers through the wilderness as well.[16]
Another way to look at it is to try to read the Bible as if it’s the first time. Seriously, start reading, and try to imagine getting to the point where you now know how to live in-line with the way God wants. My guess is that you’ll be good up through about Genesis 11, where you see that you should be a good person, not murder people, and maybe a need for blood sacrifice (unless the Christians are right, and blood sacrifice is no longer literally performed by individuals, in which case you’ve got a lot more reading to do). After that, the questions grow exponentially as answers get sparser. You start getting into covenants that point to the future, and you have to read further to figure out what they all mean, like any other good book hooks you. And the Bible does this better than any other, else it wouldn’t be called The Good Book, even if moderns think it’s boring. They wouldn’t think it’s so boring if they truly knew what it was saying. As we’ll see throughout this book, even if you think that just the Mosaic law was God’s will for all time—which it actually claims[17]—then you’ll still be confused about what is required of you.
Of course, it’s possible that, from a Christian view, you can start reading, say, the book of John, and soon know all that is necessary to please God, or at least have enough of a start. Maybe so. But you’ll still start to have questions stacking up, which only countless hours of study can even help you begin to start to answer.
Of course, this book’s main premise is not that the God of the universe should be easily understood by a mere mortal. Our premise is examining the books that are believed to come from such a god, and seeing what they actually say to mere mortals. My argument, then, would be that those teachings do not easily fit together. And if they do, it is certainly a mystery of the ages, as the Bible itself claims. Maybe an idea of perspicuity can apply to understanding some basics—like you shouldn’t be a jerk, or that God is holy—but not to the bulk of the text, and even many matters which are portrayed as essential to salvation.
For my observations on the question of inerrancy, check out my book here: When Humans Wrote Scripture.
[1] Well, there’s Joseph Conrad, James Joyce, Franz Kafka, William Faulkner, Carl Jung, Joseph Heller, Virginia Woolf… Those are of course great writers who are difficult to understand. On the other hand, I intended my last book to be understood, which was non-fiction prose, but when a very intelligent and literate lady told me that she could not understand it, I realized that my sentence structures were too long and convoluted. I have since tried to correct that, as it does nothing for the quality of a work to make the sentences unnecessarily require more mental focus to read. I am in a few writers’ groups on social media, and after seeing the comments of several writers, perspicuity should not be assumed of any work, no matter how intent the author is on being understood, as writing is a skill that is not mastered by many who try to write. And only a couple of centuries ago, there were other norms of writing style that took precedence over clarity, such as flowery language. Just try reading Herman Melville or Edgar Allan Poe. Only in modern times has the stale but understandable essay been the height of most people’s writing education.
[2] “Of Reformation Touching Church-Discipline in England: and the Causes that hitherto have hindered it.”
[3] Matthew 13:10-16; Isaiah 6:9, 10
[4] E.g., Matthew 10:14, 15
[5] Jeremiah 5:21; Ezekiel 12:2; Ephesians 4:18.
[6] Compare Genesis 5-7 to several agreeing references: Isaiah 54:9, Ezekiel 14:14-20; Matthew 24:37-39, 28; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5.
[7] E.g., Hebrews 5; cf. Genesis 14 and Psalm 110
[8] E.g., Romans 5:12-14
[9] Acts 8:26-35
[10] Galatians 4:24
[11] Mark 12:10, 24
[12] Luke 24:45, 32, 27; John 5:39
[13] 1 Timothy 2:14
[14] And before you judge these people as simply rebels, ask yourself honestly: would you seriously have not wondered if some nepotism was going on if you had been there? Westerners tend to think a kingship is inherently corrupt, much more a hereditary dynasty; a hereditary priesthood is of the same nature, as these were not only judges over the people, but essentially lived off of them!
[15] One good example is when Jesus feeds the multitude, then a few days later the same situation arises (Mark 6 and 8), and his disciples say “How can one feed these people with bread here in this desolate place?”, as if the first incident never happened. Richard Carrier calls this “dumber than a bag of hammers”, and a red flag that the account is an obvious fabrication. But if you look carefully, you’ll see that Mark’s theme is one of blindness and a lack of understanding throughout the book; as we’ll see, he may have had them saying things at different places than they actually said it to develop that theme.
[16] Hebrew 3:17
[17] E.g., Exodus 12:14-24; 27:21; 31:16; 40:15; etc.