Just A Matter Of Interpretation
by Alan Adams

    A friend and I were recently discussing the Bible; unfortunately, we were in agreement on very few points. He finally made a statement that I could agree with: "It's all just a matter of interpretation." Although, I agree with the statement, I cannot agree with my friend's application of it. He, like so many, views interpretation as a purely personal or subjective exercise; along the order of watching a movie and saying, "I like it," or "I don't like it." I believe this matter calls for a bit more thought and analysis. Let's look at this matter of interpretation.

Typical Thinking About The Bible Applied To Other Areas of Life

    My Dad was a genius in the field of electronics and communications, but he was a terrible speller. He would often call home and ask the correct spelling for words he was using in some report. I clearly recall his asking one day if the word water had two Ts or one. I told him, "only one." Now, suppose my Dad had responded by saying, "Oh well, it's just a matter of spelling." It's true: Whether, w-a-t-e-r or w-a-t-t-e-r, in either case, you have surely "spelled." So, it is a matter of spelling, but, it doesn't follow that any spelling will do. There is correct spelling, and there is incorrect spelling. So it is with interpretation, one can do so correctly, that is in accordance with certain objective rules and principles, or can do in incorrectly.

Interpreting Interpretation

    A lot of my work in Taiwan involved translation or interpretation. I would translate things from Chinese to English, and from English to Chinese. Some times it would be oral translation, sometimes written. Good, clean, precise, correct translation/interpretation is based upon objective rules of vocabulary, grammar, syntax, etc. Then of course, one must also take into consideration culture, history, and other related things in order to understand what is meant in the original language. Many people operate under the misunderstanding that translating is a simple tit-for-tat, or this-for-that process, but it's not quite that simple. Then there is also poor, sloppy, ambiguous, incorrect translation. Would it be reasonable to simply say, "Oh well, it's all a matter of interpretation"?

    To interpret something simply means "to explain the meaning of." It's interesting that the Greek New Testament uses the word "hermeneuo," which is often translated into English as "interpret." Our English word hermeneutics also comes from this Greek word. Hermeneutics is the formal science or field of interpretation, especially the interpretation of literature. Yes. Understanding the meaning of the Bible is a "matter of interpretation." However, in interpreting the Bible, it doesn't follow that we are free to attach to it just any meaning that pleases us. Are there not certain objective rules and procedures that must be followed in order to correctly interpret the Bible, or even the newspaper for that matter? Paul says that we must "rightly divide [handle aright, ASV] the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15).

    The common practice of saying whatever you might wish that the Bible said, and then trying to cover your tracks by saying, "Oh well, it's just a matter of interpretation," makes no sense at all. Why not try writing an overdraft on your checking account, and then tell the bank that it's just a matter of arithmetic? or, get caught stealing and tell the judge that, it's just a matter of making a living.

Interpreting With An Agenda

    When my friend and I had the aforementioned discussion, he mentioned, as an example, that Jesus said the "first and great commandment" is to "love the Lord thy God will all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind" (Matt. 22:37-38). He went on to triumphantly say, "See, he didn't say anything about the church here." My friend believes that one can love God and not have anything to do with the church. His principle of interpretation is this: When a statement in the Bible specifically mentions one obligation, and does not mention any others, we may conclude that the one obligation mentioned is all that is necessary. This is a commonly held, yet patently false notion of interpretation. It is derived from wishful thinking on the part of a person who would like to have the right to go through the Bible and pick and choose what suits him.

    Back to Matthew 22:37-38. True, this passage doesn't specifically mention the church, but does it follow that the church is not involved in our obligation to love God with the totality of our being? Neither does this passage say any thing about faith or repentance. Is it possible for one to love God, but not be obligated to have faith in God, or be willing to repent of his sins? My friend would say (and, most people would say), "If you truly love God, then you will have faith in Him, you will desire to repent of your sins." Now, that is correct interpretation. Jesus said, "If you love me you will keep my commandments" (Jno. 14:15). Neither can a person possibly love God, nor Jesus, without also loving the church which the Lord "purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28).

Common Sense and Figures of Speech

    The Bible, like any other work of literature, often uses various figures of speech. Apparently not everyone understands figures of speech, notwithstanding the fact that most people use them regularly. Several years ago, I painfully learned that not all people understand nor appreciate figures of speech. In our congregation was an elderly sister along with her elderly daughter. These two ladies were faithful in their attendance, but they were a bit eccentric. One Sunday morning at dismissal, I was shaking hands and saying, "bye." With a typically beaming face, I shook hands with the mom and her daughter and said, "Y'all behave yourselves." Later my lunch was interrupted by the phone. It was the elderly mother and she wanted to know why I thought that she and her daughter needed to "behave," saying, "We always try to act right in church." This was one of the rare occasions in my life when I was at a loss for words. I frantically scrambled for a response, finally, thinking it appropriate to explain a figure of speech, I asked, "Have you ever heard anyone say, ëI'm so hungry I could eat a horse?'" She responded, "Well, I'm frying a chicken." That conversation went nowhere in a hurry. Anyway, I trust that most people do not have quite that much trouble with figures of speech.

    One such figure of speech is technically called synecdoche (pronounced: si . nek . duh . kee). This is a figure of speech where you use a part (like one representative of a group or category) of something to stand for the whole: like bread for food. Admittedly, the word synecdoche, is not a part of common parlance. But, even if you just call it plain Fred, it is still a common figure of speech we all regularly use.

If someone says, "Hey, let's go get something to eat," it doesn't take literary analysis to understand that eat also includes drink. When the Scriptures say that "upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread" (Acts 20:7), it doesn't take a professor to understand that "break bread" also includes "drink[ing] of that cup" (I Cor. 11:28).

    Think of how our denominational friends "willingly forget" (2 Pet. 3:5) this simple figure of speech. Denominational preachers will reel off dozens of passages which connect belief or faith with salvation (e.g., Jno. 3:16; Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8). Since these passages do not mention other things, particularly baptism, they conclude that sinners are saved at the point of faith: in other words, faith only. No, in all these passages "faith" is a part of what is necessary, and it is used to stand for the whole. Consider Acts 11:18, which speaks of "repent[ing] unto life." There is no mention of faith here. Do we conclude that faith is not required? No. Repentance, like faith, is part of what is necessary, but here it is used to stand for the whole. What about Romans 10:10, which says that "confession is made unto salvation"? It's the same principle. The part for the whole. When the Bible says that "baptism doth also now save us" (I Pet. 3:21), does this mean "baptism" without "faith, repentance, and confession"? Once again, this is the figure of speech where the part is used to stand for the whole.

    It is a terrible thing to see people playing word games with themselves. In the cool dawn of the morning, can people who excuse their disobedience with such sophistry really believe what they all too often glibly say? Somehow the claim, "It's a matter of interpretation," rings hollow in view of the judgment to come.

This item originally appeared in Banner of Truth (May 2000)