Parameters of Meaning – Rule 8: Never ground a teaching on disputed, ambiguous or debated texts (e.g. Matt. 10:23). At best they may serve to support a given position. Doctrines should come from the strongest possible connections between text and teaching.
When one is setting forth a proposition, the cogency of it and the logical extent to which it may be propounded depends much on the quality of its substantiation. The gauge of “quality” would include things such as clarity, context, directness, and of course, relevance.
The descriptions “disputed”, “ambiguous”, and “debated” are somewhat interchangeable, and I do not want to set anything in stone, but for my purposes I have distinguished between them. Whether you choose to follow me is of little importance to the overall point that I am trying to make.
By a “disputed” text I have in mind the disciplines of textual criticism and Bible translation. (I want to make clear here that what is considered as spurious by liberal scholars with all of their historical critical biases will be considered authentic by an evangelical Bible believer. Disagreements with non-biblical forms of scholarship does not concern this subject). But, for instance, repairing to Mark 16:18 to get biblical permission to handle poisonous snakes in a worship service is wrong-headed in at least two ways. First, there is nothing in the context about church meetings. But second, the passage itself is considered a variant reading. Since the middle of the 19th century the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel have been doubted by many good Christians as being a part of the original text of this Book. Whether you think they ought to be retained or not (and personally I do), it would be unwise to try to settle a doctrine with a passage that many scholars and commentators are decidedly convinced shouldn’t be there.
In a related manner it would be imprudent to develop a (false) doctrine of a kenotic emptying of Christ’s divine attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence from the translation of Philippians 2:7 as “He emptied Himself” rather than the less literal but more advisable rendering, “He made Himself of no reputation” (see B.B. Warfield’s masterful article on the passage).
To the degree that there is some ambiguity in a selected passage it is wise to take such a text as a possible supporter of another clearer text. So, for example, 1 John 1:1 speaks of “the Word of life”. But is it referring to Jesus Christ or is it referring to the Gospel or the Scriptures? The majority say that the phrase is speaking of Christ, and it may well be. But the point here is that if one begins their doctrine of Christ with the verse, or even bases an assertion on the verse, that assertion is only as good as the argument for Christ as the subject of the verse. Better to go elsewhere.
We are all familiar with the slogan about deriving “the right doctrine from the wrong texts”, and a more serious error still occurs when we get the wrong doctrine from any texts. One should not start his teaching of any doctrine with a text which is disagreed upon among different Bible interpreters. Whenever setting forth what the Bible teaches (which is always loaded with the claim that this is what God says), one ought in every case to reach for the very clearest and least disputed passages.
If we wish to teach on the deity of Christ or the Trinity we should avoid the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7). Similarly, we should not be going to 2 Corinthians 3:14 to assert that the OT Canon was closed at the time Paul wrote his epistle, since it is very likely that the Apostle had in mind the Mosaic covenant, which he contrasts with the new covenant of which he is a minister (2 Cor. 3:6). The issue cannot be decided by such proof-texting.
This Rule also deals with what I have called “debated texts”. A debated text here is a scripture about which there may be disagreements about who exactly is being addressed. The text mentioned in Rule 8 says this:
When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes (Matt. 10:23)
Once we allow the idea that Jesus is speaking about His disciples in this verse, then the coming of the Son of Man in the context has to be spiritualized as a figurative coming in judgment in A.D. 70. (This will lead to a violation of Rule 9).
In Mark 11:23-24 Jesus makes a statement that has us all running for the hills:
For assuredly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be removed and be cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that those things he says will be done, he will have whatever he says. Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them.
What on earth is going on here? The Mount of Olives is still in the same place it was when Jesus made this announcement. Furthermore, we do not see flying mountains (or houses or people for that matter) unless we taking powerful substances which we should stop taking. So using the verse to teach on the limitless possibilities of confident prayer rather than using it to underscore the power behind confident prayer in line with the purposes of God would be a violation of this “rule.”
The next Rule picks up where this one leaves off.