Interpretation

No! That's Not My Interpretation

On many occasions, I have suggested to someone that their concept of what the Bible teaches on a certain subject is just their interpretation, and not what the Bible actually says. Consistently, the response is an indignant, "NO! That is NOT just my interpretation. That is what the Bible says!"

Fact is, that most of what all of us believe about the Bible, is simply our opinion of what the Bible means and not something the Bible actually says. We seem to be unable to accept that our convictions are based, not on specific, emphatic statements of Scripture, but upon inferences, we draw from general statements. In other words, most of what we believe is based on human reasoning, rather than Divine statement. It is obvious that most of us do not know the difference.

The best Biblical example of this malady is found in John 21:18-23. Jesus had just told Peter that he would eventually be bound by others, and led away to death. Peter then asked Jesus about John's fate. Jesus replied:

"'If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me.’ This saying therefore went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, 'If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?'"

Peter, and the other disciples, doubtless thought they knew the "plain sense" of what Jesus said. They did not think they had merely interpreted Jesus' statement. They were surely just "taking Jesus' words as He spoke them.” However, they had erroneously interpreted Jesus' words! It seems the whole church believed that Jesus said John would not die. Yet Jesus did not say that. It was a false interpretation of Jesus' words.

This incident demonstrates the vast difference between what Scripture actually says, versus what humans interpret it to mean. It also illustrates the fact that our interpretations are often very wrong; that our conclusions are not always justified by the words of Scripture.

The church is full of this very fallacy. From pulpit to pew, church leaders and church members insist that what they believe is "what the Bible actually says”, and not just their interpretation. They will proudly claim that their doctrines and practices are founded on the "plain sense" of Scriptures, and will often accuse those who differ with them, that they just need to "take the Bible for what it says.” Opposing religious camps stand apart from each other, each beating their breasts, egotistically claiming to be the ones who "take the Bible literally”, and who "honor Biblical authority.” Trying to reason with them is fruitless, for their legalistic pride has closed their minds to any thoughts but their own.

However, a serious Bible student must understand that what we think the Bible means is not always what it says. Indeed, most of what we believe is the result of human reasoning applied to non-specific, non-emphatic statements. It is no more than human opinion it is just our interpretation.

Interpretation - an explanation or establishment of the meaning or significance of something. Encarta Dictionary.

ONE EXAMPLE TO ILLUSTRATE THE POINT

Does God Require Weekly Communion?

The Bible does not actually say, "You must take communion every Sunday.” However, the Church of Christ emphatically states, "the Bible teaches that Christians must take the Lord's Supper every Sunday.” Moreover, they condemn all who do not do so as "not believing the Scripture," and "not loving the truth”.

What the Bible actually says in Acts 20:7 is this:
"Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul taught them...” That is the whole basis of this group's claim to be the only ones who "know and practice the truth about mandatory weekly communion”.

But this verse does not say, "the disciples came together on the first day of the week, as they did every week, in order to take communion weekly, just as Jesus commanded.” To get that slant on this verse, one must interpret its words to mean, "Weekly communion as it was commanded." However, here is the problem with that interpretation.

"Breaking bread" refers at times to simply eating a meal, (Acts 2:46). Therefore, the disciples in Acts 20:7 may have met simply for a fellowship meal. It is not possible to prove whether it was the Lord's Supper, or a regular meal. Whichever one decides is one's interpretation.
"Came together on the first day of the week" is not a statement that all Christians met every week. All it says is that these believers, in Antioch, met on this particular day. This may mean that they did so every week, but it is not stated. Moreover, it says nothing about the practice of any other believers, in any other city. Moreover, it emphatically says nothing about why they met to "break bread.” There is no indication that they were keeping some command that required them to meet for weekly communion. It is more likely that they chose to meet because they desired to do so.
The actual Greek words written by Luke are these:
"en de (and on) te (the) mia (one, or [first]) ton (of the) sabbaton (Sabbaths or [week])...” (Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Nestle and Marshall).

So possible translations of this phrase are:

"On the first of the week..."
"On one of the Sabbaths..."
"On the first of the Sabbaths..."
"On one of the weeks..."

It is not possible to translate this phrase this way:

"On this Sunday, as they did every Sunday."

Possible Interpretations of this verse are:

These believers may have met every Sunday, for communion, because they were commanded to do so.
These believers may have met every Sunday, for communion, by their own choice.
These believers may have been meeting, by their own choice, on this one Sunday, to take communion, but it was not a weekly practice.
These believers may have been meeting just to eat a meal together.
They may have met one Sabbath that month, to take communion.
They may have met one Sabbath that month to eat a meal together.
They may have met every Sabbath, either for a meal or for communion.

All of the above "interpretations" are possible. Which one is correct? No one can know. It is nothing more than spiritual egotism to claim that one's interpretations of these verses are the &