Clarity or Casuistry
Devotions for Growing Christians
Clarity or Casuistry
2 Peter 3:16 - Paul writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
When you read the Bible do you take what it says at face value - even the parts you don't like? Or do you try to find an alternate meaning for the verses or passages that make you uncomfortable? Recognizing the clarity of Scripture is one of the first and foremost principles for interpreting Scripture. It’s often called the "Golden Rule" or "common sense" principle of interpretation. It assumes that the divine Author of the Bible is not playing guessing games with us when it comes to understanding His Word, and it also assumes that the human authors were not trying to hide the real meaning behind the apparent meaning of a Scripture passage.
One way to formally state the clarity of Scripture principle would be as follows: "Always go with the simple, straightforward, ordinary, obvious, plain, direct, normal and natural meaning unless there is a very good reason not to do so"! The "unless" must always be because of other clear Scriptures - not just an alternative which has been contrived by subtle reasoning.
For example, James 2:26 says, "faith without works is dead." It must be acknowledged that a "simple, straight-forward, ordinary, obvious, plain, direct, normal and natural" interpretation of this verse would favor salvation by works. But other clear Scriptures guard against that interpretation. They are "a very good reason not to" go with what at first appears to be clear. God has protected His Word in this way so that exceptions to the clarity of Scripture are backed up by other clear Scriptures - not by subtle logic.
Practicing the principle of the clarity of Scripture does not ignore the fact that there may be a "fuller meaning" that God has incorporated into a particular text - the “types” in the Old Testament, for example. However, the fuller meaning of a text never denies the clear and obvious and normal "surface" meaning of the passage. Looking for a “fuller” meaning, while ignoring the plain and direct meaning, breaks the clarity of Scripture principle.
Recognizing the clarity of Scripture means that we don't try to come up with new and sensational ideas or teachings from the Bible. In fact, we should be very cautious - even skeptical - when someone gives unusual meanings to a text - interpretations that differ from what seems to be the obvious meaning. And when practicing the principle of the clarity of Scripture we don't look for ways to "get around" certain passages of Scripture that happen to bother us, nor do we "add to" certain texts of Scripture to make them fit our biased and prejudiced opinions!
Unfortunately, we don’t always practice the principle of the clarity of Scripture. Some Christians come up with novel interpretations to suit their own fancy, and may even force the Bible to say (or not say) what they want it to say (or not say)! The problem is not that the Scriptures are unclear. Most of Scripture is quite clear and easy to interpret. 2 Peter 3:16 states that some of the things that Paul wrote are hard to understand, so this implies that most of what Paul wrote (as well as the rest of Scripture) is not hard to understand. So the root of the problem is not in the Scriptures. The root of the problem is the sinful human nature of the ones who are interpreting. Instead of practicing the clarity of Scripture, the pride of man is prone towards practicing casuistry.
What is "casuistry"? It’s a way of determining what's right and wrong by deciding how far the limits of ethics can be stretched or altered. Because the sinful heart of man always moves in selfish directions, the word casuistry is normally used negatively or disparagingly, involving subtle and evasive reasoning about questions of duty. In this sense, casuists are reasoners who make excuses, who rationalize, and who use faulty logic to suit their own purposes. A good contemporary example would be a lawyer who gets a defendant who is clearly guilty off the hook by using legal loopholes or rationalizing the circumstances.
The use of casuistry in interpretation of the Scriptures rears its ugly head when a Scripture is "stretched" to include areas and situations which go beyond the obvious intention of the Author. Casuistry limits the application of a Scripture and excludes it from areas or situations that it’s clearly meant to address. The sin of casuistry subtly hides behind a too-broad or too-narrow interpretation of a text.
In Mark 7:9-13 we see an example of casuistry. In order to get around the clear command of God to "honor your father and mother," the self-righteous Jews of Jesus' day excused themselves of this responsibility by using the “Corban escape clause.” They “declared” that all of their money and possessions were “Corban,” or dedicated to God, and therefore they had nothing left with which to support their parents in time of need or old age. But in reality they hadn't given up any of their money to the service of God - it was just words! They had only made a sanctimonious statement, and used it as a legal loophole to get around God's clear command to care for their parents. The Lord denounced them in no uncertain terms, and stated that they had invalidated the Word of God. They were guilty of practicing casuistry by willfully ignoring the clarity of Scripture.
The sin of casuistry was not confined to the unbelieving Jews of Jesus' day. The early Church was not immune to this sin. Casuistry was exactly what Peter was talking about in 2 Peter 3:16 when he related what some early Christians were doing with Paul's writings. They were making the Scriptures say what they preferred to believe by "twisting" the difficult statements in Paul's letters.
The Greek word that’s translated "distort" is used only once in the New Testament - in 2 Peter 3:16. This Greek word described the hideous fate of victims who were put on the Roman torture rack. The arms and legs of the victim were locked in place, and as the rack was turned, the whole body was painfully stretched and pulled and twisted out of joint. The result was a horribly distorted and contorted human body. The use of this Greek word conveys the fact that some early Christians were torturing Scripture in the same way, with the same distorted results!
Sadly, 2 Peter 3:16 is not just a description of the habit of certain early Christians. It describes the practice of Christians today as well. In fact, the casuistic approach to Scripture has become a way of life for some Christians today.
No one would deny that some of the things written by the apostle Paul are "hard to understand," and interpreting these hard passages is not easy! In fact, we'll have to wait until we get to Heaven to see who had the correct interpretation of some of the difficult things in Paul's letters. But difficulty and distortion are not the same. The point of 2 Peter 3:16 is not just that some difficult passages are misinterpreted, but that they are mishandled and cleverly misinterpreted - with an ulterior motive!
The verse goes on to say that "other Scriptures" besides the difficult passages in Paul's writings are subjected to the "torture rack" as well. That would include the clear passages in Paul's writings - along with the rest of the Bible! Can you believe - instead of practicing the clarity of Scripture principle, some Christians are guilty of intentionally using casuistry when “interpreting” the Scriptures!
Notice, by the way, that the letters of the apostle Paul were assumed to be Scripture, right from the start of Christianity. The early Christians were not confused about the status of Paul's writings. Christians didn’t have to wait until the Church got around to officially canonizing Paul’s letters! Even the Christians who were distorting Scripture didn’t question that Paul's epistles were Scripture. In fact, had there been questions as to the inspiration and authority of Paul's writings, those early critics wouldn't have bothered to stretch, twist, and misinterpret them to suit their own purposes - they simply would have dismissed them!
Their sin was not a wrong view of the canon of Scripture, but the deliberate use of casuistry when it came to the interpretation of Scripture. Like the "It is Corban" Jews of Jesus' day, these early Christians were "practicing casuistry" instead of "practicing clarity." And it’s still true today. There are Christians who would be willing to die for the doctrines of the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, but they are guilty of casuistry in their interpretation of the Bible. They twist and distort even the clear and straightforward Scriptures to make them fit what they want to believe, and what they want to do.
What kind of Christian would be guilty of the terrible sin of casuistry - distorting even the clear passages of Scripture - for selfish reasons? Peter tells us: it is people who are "untaught and unstable." It's not hard to see how untaught people might distort the Scriptures to suit their own liking. Untaught people are ignorant of the truth, and it's only natural for them to lean towards easy-to-live-with interpretations.
But the other group that's mentioned are the “unstable." This word means "not fixed" or "not steadfast." This describes Christians who, for whatever reason, are not steadfast or firm in their faith and lifestyle. This could apply to any Christians, even mature believers, if their own pet ideas or selfish motives cause them to manipulate and force Scripture to mean what it does not mean!
According to 2 Peter 3:16, then, it is possible for any Christian to fall into the sin of practicing casuistry. We must ask ourselves: "Do I consistently use the clarity of Scripture principle - or am I sometimes guilty of using casuistry to suit my own purposes?
Let's briefly mention a few examples of the practice of casuistry today - typical ways Christians deliberately ignore the clarity of Scripture in order to satisfy their own ends. 1 John 2:16 indicates that selfish ends could be categorized as the "lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life." An example of casuistry in the area of the “lust of the flesh” would be how the sin of fornication is condoned by some Christians. Fornication is any practice of sex outside of marriage. The Bible leaves no doubt that this is a serious sin. Ephesians 5:3 states that it should "not even be mentioned" in the Christian community.
However, Christians who commit fornication attempt to get around the seriousness of this sin by casuistry - by rationalizing. Some say, "I want to be sure I have the right partner for marriage. Sex is a gift from God, so sexual compatibility is an important part of marriage." Others say, "We're not committing the sin of fornication because we're involved in a beautiful love relationship, and our intimacy does not involve lust." Some even say that they are actually "married" because they prayerfully said some private vows to each other "before God." And there are Christians who justify this sin by comparing themselves with other Christians who, in their estimation, are guilty of "worse" sins such as hypocrisy, pride and greed. All these are casuistry - attempts that Christians have used to compromise the clear teaching of God's Word.
An example of casuistry in the area of the “lust of the eyes” (the strong desire for gain) would be how some Christians justify suing other Christians in civil courts. 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 is quite clear that Christian vs Christian lawsuits are deliberate disobedience to the Law of Christ, regardless of how wrong or right one side appears. The point of 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 is not that wrong between Christians should be swept under the rug, but that such cases should be settled "in-house." Certainly there should be enough fair-minded, wise and godly believers within the church to rule on such cases, without having to resort to a worldly law court of unbelievers! But the strong desire of human nature is to not suffer loss in any way, so a number of rationales have been twisted and torn from Scripture by Christians who bring lawsuits against fellow believers.
Excuses such as "the Church is corrupt" or "the Church cannot deal with this case" are casuistic arguments to get around the clear implications of 1 Corinthians 6:1-8. The idea that we are God's stewards, responsible for all the material possessions He has given, has also been used as an excuse by Christians who seek to make money by suing fellow believers. And a downgrading or redefining of certain lawsuits as non-binding judgments or "something less than what Paul had in mind" has been used by willful Christians.
All of these casuistic arguments (and more!) could be shot down with counter-arguments. It should be obvious that if the clarity of Scripture is not acknowledged, then any Scripture can be set aside by skillful casuistic reasoning. The lust of the eyes and the strong desire for gain have caused many distortions of Scriptures throughout the history of the Church.
In the area of “the pride of life,” or vanity, Christians have rationalized their disobedience to the clear teaching of Mark 10:43. Here Jesus clearly declared, "if you want to be great in God's Kingdom, serve one another." So often, however, we do everything but serve one another - or if we do serve one another, it's done with self-serving motives. Would we be involved in Christian service activities, for example, if we got no recognition or credit whatsoever here on earth? One tactic we take is to say, "I’m serving my fellow believers in a leadership capacity!" That may be true, but too often Christians grasp after leadership positions out of a desire for power and prestige, rather than out of a true desire to serve.
And what about the "serving-one-another-is-mutual" reasoning? The logic is scripturally valid, but many times this is our casuistic way of saying "I'd rather have you serve me than me serve you"! Often the "servees" take advantage of the servers, and don’t thank or appreciate them. This can be very discouraging. This situation needs correction, but it should never be a reason for distorting or disobeying the command to serve one another. Perhaps you know of (or have even used!) other casuistic reasoning as your rationale for not serving other believers. Not a single one of our excuses would pass the "clarity of Scripture" test.
So from 2 Peter 3:16 we see that we’re all vulnerable to committing the sin of casuistry. We all need to examine ourselves constantly (right now, in fact) to make sure we’re not guilty of this sin. Peter states that if we practice casuistry we incur our own destruction, and we will - not maybe! - we will suffer some type of ruin and loss in our lives as believers.
In the final analysis, there are no benefits to the use of casuistry. Let's make sure that we always practice the principle of the clarity of Scripture as a safeguard against the sinful and destructive practice of casuistry.
- Dave Reid