Do all verses in scripture require interpretation?

[thomat65]

That’s the anti-Catholic forum where I posted your other question.

Put C.A.R.M. in your rear view mirror and you will be far better off.

I get the feeling that folks around here don’t appreciate Matt Slick.

Whenever anyone says anything negative about anyone I like, the first urge that wells up from deep within my heart is to say something good about them. Especially when others’ feelings are especially strong. Especially when it’s past my bedtime. Perhaps it’s graciousness overflowing. Or perhaps it’s obstinance.

So I’ll derail my own thread for a bit. Here is some free bait:

Matt Slick is my favorite apologist. I really appreciate how Matt is able to take callers from wildly different backgrounds with completely different questions back to back and still give profitable answers.

Feel free to think less of me for being prepared to defend this and not some fundamental aspect of Christianity.

 

[po18guy]

I said what I said.

First of all, Matt Slick uses only 91% of the bible. He cannot interpret, rightly or wrongly, what he does not have. Pertaining to your question, if even a single verse needs authoritative interpretation, what are your reasons for thinking that Matt Slick has divine authority to do so?

 

[De_Maria]

I get the feeling that folks around here don’t appreciate Matt Slick.

Although I’ve been on his forum for many years, I don’t know the guy. Although, from his writings, I get the impression he’s sincere about what he believes. That just makes him sincerely wrong, in my opinion…

So I’ll derail my own thread for a bit. Here is some free bait:…
Feel free to think less of me for being prepared to defend this

What this are you defending? You came on the forum claiming you were asking questions about Catholicism. Now you’re defending something?

Are you here under false pretenses?

and not some fundamental aspect of Christianity.

Are you getting upset? Is it because we disproved your thesis without even realizing that you were debating with us?

 

[ZMystiCat]

Yes, in a couple ways.

First, all Scripture should be read thoughtfully, and any thoughtful reading includes an immediate interpretation of what is read. That interpretation may be good or bad, but it has to be made. In that sense, all Scripture should be interpreted by nature of how it should be read.

Second, pretty much any verse of Scripture can be twisted and molded into some bizarre theology, if not downright ignored. On the fringe, this may be someone finding some obscure pattern in a genealogy and creating a massive prophecy from it, and someone needs to tell them, “Calm down.” The most common case of this, though, is in how a major branch of Christianity has built itself on top of a doctrine that very blatantly contradicts Scripture, specifically James 2:24. Ultimately, no matter how clear or innocuous, someone will find a way to be led to seemingly unthinkable places in their theology, and it is very much possible millions will follow.

With that said, though, you could reasonably say no Scripture requires interpretation, in that the truths taught in Scripture are true whether or not they are properly interpreted. The proper interpretation is for our own benefit, not for God’s or for the sake of somehow preserving or creating truth. Proper interpretation, such as found in the Church’s teachings, is a mercy on God’s part, not a strict requirement.

I get the feeling that folks around here don’t appreciate Matt Slick.

Most of what I read from him came when I was looking into Catholicism (was a member of the PCA at the time). Obviously, it didn’t convince me. I think he’s more knowledgeable than whoever runs GotQuestions and is less arrogant than James White, but from what I remember, he still makes some pretty critical flaws, like not properly engaging with Catholic rebuttals, strawmanning rather than steelmanning, and making assumptions on matters that are part of the debate, if not completely begging the question.

 

[Dovekin]

you could reasonably say no Scripture requires interpretation, in that the truths taught in Scripture are true whether or not they are properly interpreted. The proper interpretation is for our own benefit, not for God’s or for the sake of somehow preserving or creating truth. Proper interpretation, such as found in the Church’s teachings, is a mercy on God’s part, not a strict requirement.

I think I understand what you are saying, but there is something wrong with it imo. Yes truth is truth, and God does not benefit from anything we do. But God chose to write Scripture, and wrote it for our benefit. We have a responsibility to interpret Scripture in order to hear God. We cannot just ‘make up’ meanings, but must be guided by the Holy Spirit who inspired the human authors. I owe something to any author, to not take his words and use them for my private conspiracy theory; how much more do we owe to the Holy Spirit, who not only inspired the authors but also accompanies me as I read?

It is a mercy from God that the Spirit accompanies us when we read Scripture. But it also part of what we mean when we say Scripture is inspired. There is an inspiration when the books were written, when they were translated even, but there is another component of inspiration when we interpret. Not as large as the others, I suppose, but it looms large in our understanding and interpretations.

 

[thomat65]

Pertaining to your question […]

Most of what I read from him […]

I admire how you guys stayed on track and didn’t go veering off into the woods.

Are you getting upset?

LOL I’m sorry for being so confusing. No, I’m not.

^^ Ok, those are another two confusing sentences which I have just written. “No I’m not” what?? I’m not sorry for being confusing? As you can tell, being confusing is probably an essential attribute of my being. Let me try again:

LOL I’m sorry for being so confusing. No, I’m not getting upset.

Are you here under false pretenses?

Also no.

What this are you defending?

Here, I’ll narrate my little episode:

Especially when it’s past my bedtime. Perhaps it’s graciousness overflowing. Or perhaps it’s obstinance.

Translation: “I’ve been more well rested at other times in my life. I feel like doing something stupid.”

Matt Slick is my favorite apologist.

Well, he is. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion. Now you know mine.

Feel free to think less of me for being prepared to defend this and not some fundamental aspect of Christianity.

Translation: “A dozen things immediately fly into my mind as possible defenses when anyone wants to say Matt Slick doesn’t give profitable answers. Yet sometimes only one thing enters my mind when defending something that’s way more important, like some fundamental aspect of Christianity, and only with much more mental effort. I’m an idiot and you should all feel sorry for me (facepalm).”

 

[De_Maria]

What would life be without a little confusion. Looking forward to your next question.

 

[thomat65]

In that sense, all Scripture should be interpreted by nature of how it should be read.

I hadn’t thought of that. Thanks.

pretty much any verse of Scripture can be twisted and molded into some bizarre theology, if not downright ignored.

I totally agree. Sounds like 2 Peter 3:16 “ignorant and unstable people distort the scriptures to their own destruction”.

very blatantly contradicts Scripture, specifically James 2:24.

I’d like to take a peek into this can of worms.

First, since all scripture requires interpretation, James 2:24 does as well, correct?

Second, sometimes a verse’s “face value” is not the correct meaning, correct? I feel like this is simply a restatement of “all scriptures require interpretation”. For example, I suspect most Catholics believe the correct meaning of Matthew 23:9 is not its “face value”.

The proper interpretation is for our own benefit, not for God’s or for the sake of somehow preserving or creating truth.

I think this ties back in with what the definition of “interpretation” is. Good thoughts. Thanks.

 

[PatK63]

Read the 6th chapter of John; it means exactly what it says.

 

[thomat65]

Read the 6th chapter of John; it means exactly what it says.

To get maybe too technical, what do you mean by “what it says”?

Do you mean “what I and a large organization believe it means”? Or do you mean something different?

Also, would you say that no “interpretation” was required to arrive at that meaning? (Those aren’t scare quotes… I put “interpretation” in quotes because that word has only been loosely defined so far.)

 

[Hodos]

All scripture requires interpretation. The correct interpretation involves taking into account the type of literature and taking the natural reading of the text in context with the larger work. That being said, scripture was written with the purpose of being understood by the audience.

 

[thomat65]

The correct interpretation involves taking into account the type of literature and taking the natural reading of the text in context with the larger work.

I feel absurd asking this, but I’m interested to think about the possible consequences so please bear with me: Why wouldn’t an incorrect interpretation always arise from taking those things into account along with the context?

 

[PatK63]

Matt,
R U just wanting to argue?

What I say is read it and use the common understanding of the words. That is what is says and that is what it means.

 

[ZMystiCat]

But God chose to write Scripture, and wrote it for our benefit.

That’s what I was getting at in the first point. The question is incredibly vague, and I could imagine it coming in a sense of, “Does Scripture require interpretation for there to be truth?” I figured I’d cover that possibility as well.

First, since all scripture requires interpretation, James 2:24 does as well, correct?

Sure, that’s what I was getting at there.

Second, sometimes a verse’s “face value” is not the correct meaning, correct?

Sure. Sometimes that’s a convention of the genre, such as poetry or fables or apocalyptic. Some forms of rhetoric, such as hyperbole, are based around saying something that isn’t meant at face value.

However, taking a verse out of its context is no longer a matter of asking about face value. It’s just simply bad reading and quote mining.

Even then, sometimes our assumptions about matters under discussion make it difficult to read a passage at face value. In fact, certain assumptions about what works are and what justification is is at the core of much of the debate over James 2:24. It’s not so much that anything James says indicates a lack of clarity, but assumptions made create the seeming conflict between James and Paul.

All that said: Yes, some passages aren’t meant to be taken at face value, but we should have good reason for doing so (e.g. genre, context, etc.), and we should be cautious against letting outside assumptions we’ve made being the driving factor of the decision to read it at face value or not.

 

[Hodos]

I feel absurd asking this, but I’m interested to think about the possible consequences so please bear with me: Why wouldn’t an incorrect interpretation always arise from taking those things into account along with the context?

Because words have meanings. If we look at the historical and contextual settings, the grammatical and syntactical content of what was written in a given sentence there is no reason to believe that we can’t understand the gospel writer’s narrative, or Paul’s understanding of the gospel. To put this in context, if your mother wrote you a letter, we wouldn’t be having a conversation about how we have no way of knowing what your mother was trying to say apart from an infallible interpretation given by a majority of bishops. So while all scripture requires interpretation, the meaning of scripture can usually be known pretty easily when read in context just as any other type of literature is similarly understandable.

 

[thomat65]

R U just wanting to argue?

Not pointlessly I hope.

What I say is read it and use the common understanding of the words.

I’m assuming you mostly mean John 6:52-58.

From the below I’m supposed to understand that “feeding on Christ” is “coming to Jesus in faith and believing in him, which is all that’s necessary for eternal life and necessarily leads to eternal life”, right?

• There’s a general progression in John of people becoming more and more polarized toward Jesus, leading to people fabricating a farcical trial and killing him
• Jesus responds in vv. 26-27 to a question in v. 25
• Then Jesus was asked increasingly hostile questions; he gave increasingly shocking answers
• The offense climaxes in v. 66. Most are offended and the disciples leave in droves
• The shock either climaxes in v. 70 or plateaus in vv. 62-70
• Jesus said something shocking: “unless you cannibalize me, you’re dead”
• Jesus was under the Law
• The Law (and Prophets) seem clear that cannibalism is evil
• Jesus elsewhere says oblique things: he’s a door, a shepherd, and Lazarus is asleep. And he’s not made of wood, didn’t tend mutton, and Lazarus stank
• Truth statements are made:
  1. The enduring food that leads to eternal life is a gift from the Son of Man. v. 27
  2. It’s important to work for it, which means believing in Jesus. vv. 27-29
  3. There is a true bread from heaven, “given” by the Father even to the obstinate crowds, which is actually Jesus himself, who gives life. vv. 32-35
  4. Some kind of hunger and thirst is satisfied by coming to and believing in Jesus. v. 35
  5. The Father gives people to Jesus who necessarily come to Jesus and are automatically in. v. 37
  6. Jesus does the Father’s will which is that all those people look on and believe in Jesus and are raised up on the last day, meaning they get eternal life. vv. 38-40
  7. It’s impossible to come to Jesus unless the Father draws them, and they all get raised up on the last day. v. 44
  8. People who come to Jesus have heard and learned from the Father, even though they haven’t seen the Father. v. 45
  9. Whoever believes has eternal life. v. 47
  10. Jesus is the bread of life, different than other bread which didn’t give eternal life. vv. 48-49, 58
  11. One may eat of Jesus and not die but live forever. vv. 50-51
  12. What Jesus is talking about giving is his flesh. v. 51
  13. Eating Jesus’s flesh and drinking his blood is necessary for eternal life, and necessarily leads to eternal life. vv. 53-54
  14. Either the definition or the consequence of (I cannot tell which) feeding on Jesus is mutual abiding. v. 56
  15. It’s a chain of life from the Father, given by the Spirit, through Jesus’s words, with no help from the flesh. vv. 57-63
  16. Coming to and believing in Jesus is different than just seeing and being with him, even being an Apostle. It’s impossible unless the Father lets it happen. vv. 36, 64-65, 70-71
  17. Peter said Jesus has the words of eternal life, they have believed, and know that Jesus is the Holy One of God. Which is true except for Judas. vs. 68-70

 

[PatK63]

Matt,
I am impressed! I did not want to start with all the symbolism and interpretation. Because I do not want to argue. I should have been more specific.

Jesus said this is My body when he held up the unleavened bread that He had broken. I believe that needs no interpretation. He said it. He meant it. When people try to intrepid it they usually change the meaning of what Jesus said.

Now, as you said many people could not accept what He said. They left and Jesus did not say that He was speaking symbolically. They thought as you intimated that that would be cannibalism.

Well that is not a problem in interpretation but one of understanding. I think you said that Jesus was under the Jewish law. He clearly did not believe that. Being God, Jesus is lord of the sabbath . Of course that requires faith.

Now I am about to go to a Good Friday mass where I will consume Jesus body. It will look like bread. No one can prove in court it is anything but bread. But Jesus said it was His body and that is good enough for me. It does take faith.
I am willing to die to protect the host if someone wanted to harm it.

 

[thomat65]

I think you said that Jesus was under the Jewish law. He clearly did not believe that.

Can you back up this claim that Jesus didn’t believe he was under the law?

Galatians 4:4 says “Jesus was born under the law”. At what point would you say he stopped being under the law?

I do not want to argue.

Feel free to bow out and not answer my questions above and I won’t think less of you I don’t always feel like duking things out myself. And I don’t mind if my questions go unanswered.

At the same time, let me know if you’d like me to engage “this is my body”.

It does take faith.

To drop a bug in your ear, it’s not the presence of faith but the object of the faith that matters. A quick proof of that: everyone has faith in something, yet the scriptures are clear that there will be people who do not end up in heaven. I’m happy if people are growing in their faith in Christ’s work on their behalf.

Have a blessed Easter!

 

[PatK63]

Matt,

You and I agree we all have faith. I said that when I said it takes more faith to not believe in God. When I said it takes faith I was referring to what I had stated.
It is late but Jesus is above the law because as God He makes the law. There are a couple cases where he demonstrated that. “Pick up your mat and walk” is one case. He said that on the Sabbath.
Your original challenge was something like all scripture needs interpretation. I said “this is my body” needs no interpretation.
If you want to duel, I am not up to it. If you are searching for the truth, I think I can point you in the right direction.
Perhaps you can state what you believe and what you are unsure of.
Indeed, have a blessed Easter!

 

[Emeraldlady]

Matt Slick is my favorite apologist. I really appreciate how Matt is able to take callers from wildly different backgrounds with completely different questions back to back and still give profitable answers.

Being a devotee of Matt Slick, can you state what his argument against needing authority to interpret Scripture is?