Interpreting the Bible

I was recently having this discussion with a brother about how we understand the Bible. There is this catholic way that believes only the Church fathers can interpret the Bible right and a common man cannot.

Then there is another extreme where any common man can interpret the Bible, but there is only one standard interpretation of verses and we can all come to that understanding by doing a detailed study like Greek or Hebrew study. This I believe is Baptist understanding. Bible interpretation based on knowledge and research.

My understanding is somewhere in the middle. God's word is spirit not letter and is living (John 6:63). So a living person can be understood by people in a different way. My colleagues may have a different understanding of me compared to my children or my wife. That is how a living person is always understood. Since God's word is living, it can be interpreted in different ways. The understanding comes from the Lord when his spirit reveals the deeper meanings of the scriptures based on our need. So the understanding comes not by knowledge or by Church position, but by revelation from the Spirit.

Is there any other belief that I am missing here? What is the common understanding of saints in SI.

The word is definitely living in the sense that I might read a passage today that doesn’t do much for me, but a month from now it may fly off the page and wreck me. There may be various reasons for this- I might be experiencing some issue in life, or the HS may simply be speaking to me about it, likely it is both.

There is more to scripture than simply interpreting what it "means”. You also have to take into account what it is "saying,” which is subtly different.

Long time no see Sree! Good to see you here.

Hi Sree,

This is a great question. Obviously, very good and sincere believers can often arrive to a different understanding of specific passages from the Bible. This is probably based upon different factors -- including the churches that we fellowship with, an upbringing (or training up) from either childhood or the point in which we came to Christ as well as our own perspectives based upon differences in language, culture, education, etc.

Growing up, I was a very good student in school. I also loved to read. In fact, I looked forward to reading my textbooks during the first week of school. I am naturally curious and would absorb as much of the content of those books out of that insatiable curiosity.

I also had a knack for remembering the things that I read too. More often than not, I never really needed to go over the material again before quizzes and tests -- because I had already absorbed quite a bit of it during my initial read-through at the beginning of the year/semester/quarter.

When I wasn't reading my textbooks, I was always reading something else. I would read through our family encyclopedia sets, history books, almanacs, etc. During my youth, I would read two newspapers per day (the two that my parents subscribed to). During college and grad school, this was increased to four that our school delivered to our dorms.

This curiosity and ability to absorb information helped quite a bit in high school and college. However, it really only worked in subjects/content that I was interested in. I loved most of the sciences and history. Yet, I was less interested in a few other subjects. Reading that material was a major (and almost tortuous) undertaking.

Prior to my conversion, I simply couldn't understand the Bible. It felt so foreign to me. I remember opening it up and trying to read and comprehend what I was reading. However, it might as well have been printed in its original languages -- because I couldn't really understand it at all. It didn't help that I didn't really believe. I remember a few occasions where I tried -- and failed -- to understand even simple parts of the New Testament.

This changed when I met the Lord. After I truly surrendered my life to Christ, I longed to know him. Yet, I was initially afraid that I wouldn't be able to understand God's Word (since this had been the case before). Yet, in those first few days of my conversion, I started with the Gospels and tearfully absorbed God's Word. I read through the entire Bible in a short time.

My wife once suggested that I am aided in my study by my ability to read, comprehend what I read and remember many details, I had to disagree somewhat. I pointed out that it is very different with the Bible.

Each time I read through the Word of God, I feel like I am gaining new insight. There are moments while reading in which -- no matter how many times that I have read the Bible cover-to-cover in the past -- I discover something that seems completely new and surprising. In fact, just this morning, my wife and I were reading in the Book of John and I "discovered" something that had never "sunk in" before. I've read that passage many times; yet, this was something that I somehow overlooked.

In terms of your question, I believe that the Bible is certainly available for ALL people. There is no need for someone else to "interpret" for me. Like when I first read the Bible after coming to Christ, believers can read it with little familiarity with the Scriptures, Biblical eras, cultures, etc. and find powerful truths that strengthen their faith.

This is not to say that others cannot help us. In fact, God called some to be teachers for this very purpose. The motivation, of course, is to know him (through his Word) better. It's a natural curiosity that differs from the curiosity of secular subjects -- because it is motivated out of love for God and wanting to know him better. It motivates me to learn more by reading the Word and learning more of the historic, linguistic and even cultural norms of the times in which the events contained within the Scriptures took place.

I would add that there is a danger in false teachers and false doctrines too. This is why no teaching or interpretative explanations can replace the breadth of knowledge derived from reading and studying God's Word yourself (and for/with your family).

At the same time, I (personally) welcome fellowship and discussion with others on matters of doctrine and interpretation. After all, iron sharpens iron.

When I was an undergraduate student, I enrolled in a tennis course for one of my required P.E. courses. I was actually a fairly decent athlete in high school too. I was tall, lean, quick on my feet and possessed great reflexes. I bought the best racket that was in stock at a local sporting goods store.

In the course, I was partnered up with an extremely good player -- one who was transferring to another university on a tennis scholarship. Apparently, the coach decided that I was the second-best player in the course -- and he encouraged me to learn as much as I could from this tennis partner. He was good -- but I did make enormous strides playing against him three times each week. In a way, I felt like I had my own private tennis instructor. I grew confident to the point that I could beat anyone else in the course -- including the actual professor-coach.

However, I had a close Christian friend from India. He was also a fellow engineering graduate student. When he learned that I played tennis, he invited me to play. He explained that he had played quite a bit growing up. Despite all of the confidence that I had after having completed the tennis course, my friend effectively annihilated me! His ball placement was incredibly precise. He had me running all over the place while he kind of could "see" where I was going to return a volley even before I volleyed. It was almost embarrassing.

After playing him, he explained that he had played in leagues back in India. His knowledge and skills for the game so greatly surpassed what little I had (despite having felt fairly confident before) that I almost felt discouraged by just how superior he was. Oddly enough, I was arguably more "fit" than he was. I was taller, faster and leaner. Yet, he played so much better than me that it wasn't even worth contending. He had put much more time, effort and mastery into the sport. He was even (much) better than the tennis partner who was by then on a full tennis scholarship at a large university.

Why am I saying this?

When I completed that tennis course in college, I felt that I had almost "arrived" to a high level of skill and knowledge of the game. In fact, I did have knowledge of the game (i.e., rules, terminology and many basic techniques). However, I discovered with a somewhat "rude awakening" that I wasn't nearly as skilled and knowledgeable as I had assumed.

I think that the same is true of the Word. I've met people who feel that they are experts in the Word. Yet, I believe that all people -- no matter how knowledgeable -- can receive something new from merely reading the Word or discussing it with other believers. Unlike tennis, it's not a skill that can ever be mastered. Like you said, the Word of God is living. However, it isn't necessarily that it can be "interpreted in different ways." Rather, it's just that you can read the same passages a hundred times and learn something that feels almost entirely new each and every time.

Forgive my long-in-the-keyboard rambling. I've read about great men of God who were mostly unschooled. A few of them testified that the Bible was the only book that they had ever read. Yet, their faith in God was pure and their Bible teachings were profound and faith-encouraging. However, they would be the first to remind us that understanding the Word of God is not predicated upon a group of "expert" teachers interpreting the Word for the rest of us.

Long time no see Sree! Good to see you here.

Yes, trying to get back to discussions in my spare time! Thank you for your thoughts.

Prior to my conversion, I simply couldn't understand the Bible. It felt so foreign to me. I remember opening it up and trying to read and comprehend what I was reading. However, it might as well have been printed in its original languages -- because I couldn't really understand it at all. It didn't help that I didn't really believe. I remember a few occasions where I tried -- and failed -- to understand even simple parts of the New Testament.

This changed when I met the Lord. After I truly surrendered my life to Christ, I longed to know him. Yet, I was initially afraid that I wouldn't be able to understand God's Word (since this had been the case before). Yet, in those first few days of my conversion, I started with the Gospels and tearfully absorbed God's Word. I read through the entire Bible in a short time.

Thats my experience as well. When I first came to Christ from a Hindu background, I got some ideas but when I read the Bible with fellow brothers and sisters, they got far more from the word than I had. I always considered myself has a person with decent intelligence. Still I could not interpret the Bible the way few believers did. For long time I longed to understand the word the way they did.

I had an experience of being filled with the Holy Spirit some 2 years after my conversion. After that Bible became a different book. I could also understand the word the way these people did. All these understanding first exposed my need. That is why I believe it is not with intelligence that we read and understand the Bible, but it is with the help of God's own spirit.

Like you said, the Word of God is living. However, it isn't necessarily that it can be "interpreted in different ways." Rather, it's just that you can read the same passages a hundred times and learn something that feels almost entirely new each and every time.

I gave an example about how my colleagues see me, how my children see me and how my wife sees me. All of them are right and all of them are different as well. For example my colleagues think I am very strict in work. My children have seen my funny side. My wife knows me far more than any other human being. She knows my weakness and human side which probably my colleagues and children have not seen.

Same way scripture too is living. There are certain things in scriptures that we cannot see because we have not associated with that aspect of it. Once the need comes, God will expose it to us.

I am a tennis player as well, I have played in many recreational tournaments in my single days. Still trying to get back to competitive level. Tennis is a sport in which skills develop with time, no matter how athletic a person is, a player with better skills can easily school an athletic person.

Hi Sree,

I agree with those very valid points. I suppose that another question to ask is what the difference would be from a "father" or "minister" of the Gospel and any other believer.

The Roman Catholic Church has long held that "fathers" are needed to interpret the Bible for the rest of us. This is egregiously incorrect. For one, a "father" or "priest" (in the RCC context) isn't a biblical ministry. Other denominations often cite the need for "teachers" (as a part of the "five fold ministry"); however, even Paul was adamant that the responsibility to avoid false doctrines is a personal one.

In fact, this is a central theme in the letter to the Galatians. Paul starts out by pointing out that he was surprised that the Galatian believers were "deserting" Christ for a "different gospel" (Galatians 1:6). He explains that there were individuals who were attempting to distort the gospel of Christ (Galatians 1:7). He then makes the profound statement that "even if we or an angel from heaven" contrary to the one that they had been preached to them, he is to be accursed (Galatians 1:8).

Authoritarians would point out the "we preached to you" as evidence of apostolic, priestly or "father" authority. However, Paul prefaced this by including himself as part of the "we" at the beginning of Galatians 1:8 who would be accursed for this. Still, the underlying point is that believers must be be careful when it comes to their beliefs and doctrines.

In fact, Galatians chapter 1 continues with this theme and leads Paul to write a personal anecdote about his background and the apostle Peter. In the conclusion of chapter 1, Paul is pointing out his zeal for the "traditions of my fathers" as a rapidly-advancing Pharisee of Judaism (Galatians 1:14). Yet, those traditions and teachings were wrong and Paul's zeal was misguided. Paul realized this only after realizing that God had "revealed his Son" to him (Galatians 1:15).

So, here is a new believer -- Saul changed to Paul -- who Christ met on the road to Damascus. Yet, this new believer didn't "consult with anyone" or immediately go to the apostles for instruction or "interpretation" (Galatians 1:17). Paul points out that he waited THREE YEARS before meeting the apostles. He stayed with Peter for 15 days and met no one else but James the Lord's brother (Galatians 1:18-19). He then went on with his travels.

Fourteen years later, Paul returned to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus. He did this to "set before them" his gospel message "in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain" (Galatians 2:2). The apostles gave the "right hand of fellowship" to Barnabas and Paul. Yet, while there, Paul noted that some "false brothers" were "secretly brought in" and taught a message of slavery (to the Law). Paul pointed out that he, Barnabas and Titus did not yield in submission to them or their message "even for a moment" (Galatians 2:5).

Subsequently, Peter visited Antioch. We read of how Paul "opposed [Cephas/Peter] to his face" over the matter of doctrine (Galatians 2:11). Apparently, Peter had gotten a bit off-track when it came to the Law -- possibly due to the teaching of those men in Jerusalem. So, Paul opposed him by saying, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews" (Galatians 2:14)?

My attempt at a key point in all of this is to point out what Paul said in Galatians 2:6 in context with all of this. He wrote, "And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)””those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me" (Galatians 2:6 ESV). This was while he was in Jerusalem among the apostles.

In fact, Paul continues by writing, "...and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do" (Galatians 2:9-10).

So, in all of this, the reputations of the apostles were of little influence when it came to the doctrinal truths of God and his Word (both the Law and its fulfillment via the Gospel -- and God's revelation to Paul mentioned in Galatians 1:12, 1:16 and, in this specific context, 2:2). Paul submitted his "revelation" and "gospel" that he was proclaiming to those in Jerusalem to make sure that he "was not running or had not run in vain" (Galatians 2:2 ESV).

Yet, despite this, he opposed Peter (to his face) shortly thereafter because he was wrong. This boldness likely comes from the realization (or revelation) that "God shows no partiality" (Galatians 2:6 ESV).

So, in respect to interpretation, I believe that we submit our message before the church. Yet, we are not meant to be bound or submissive to anyone's particular interpretation (Galatians 2:4-5). Paul demonstrated this by opposing the apostle Peter to his face. Why? Paul wrote that their conduct "was not in step with the truth of the gospel" (Galatians 2:14).

I can only imagine how this could have seemed. Yet, Paul opposed Peter to his face in this regard -- and not through gossip, dissention, etc. Peter obviously accepted this rebuke because the second epistle of Peter mentions Paul's wisdom and equates Paul's writings with the "other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:14-16).

Moreover, Peter also states in his first epistle that the elders should "shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; NOT DOMINEERING OVER THOSE IN YOUR CHARGE, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory" (I Peter 5:1-5).

The second epistle of Peter also includes a section about the need to beware of false doctrine and false teachers "secretly" bringing in heresies (2 Peter 2:1-22). How would the readers of the epistle beware? We must be knowledgeable of the Gospel. Peter continued by saying, "sincere mind by way of reminder" of the prophets and commandment of the Lord through the apostles (2 Peter 3:1-2). In that specific context, Peter referred to scoffers dismissing the coming of the Lord (verse 3). Yet, even again, it reminds believers to know the Word via the prophets and commandment of the Lord (which was given through the apostles).

Personally, I cannot say with absolute certainty that I have met actual apostles. I've met people who referred to themselves as "apostles." I've met people who others refer to as "apostles." Yet, I am not entirely certain of those claims. While I believe that apostleship is not a dead calling, I'm not inclined to accept the authority of the vast number of people who claim such a calling today. Like you, I was filled with the Holy Spirit and believe that the Spirit can lead me into all truth -- verified by God's Word. In this, we have the Gospels and God-breathed writings of several apostles.

The best way to know for certain the validity of the Word is by the Word itself. It's not for private interpretation anyway (2 Peter 1:16-21). In fact, I find it very interesting that the second epistle of Peter is addressed to "those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1).

So, I'm convinced that believers can read the Word of God and have the Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles themselves -- those who wrote the words -- to interpret their words for us. This is done with the guidance of the Holy Spirit who "guides us" into all truth (John 16:13).

I am a tennis player as well, I have played in many recreational tournaments in my single days. Still trying to get back to competitive level. Tennis is a sport in which skills develop with time, no matter how athletic a person is, a player with better skills can easily school an athletic person.

Very nice! I've thought about picking up a racket again. However, I'll likely be much a bit more realistic with my own skill and abilities than I was during college. Thinking back on that humbling experience with my friend, I hope that I didn't make myself out to be a better player than I actually was.