UP

Immediate Context: Key to Interpretation

October 5a, 2015
Copyright © 1996, 2003 Ronald W. Leigh
Quotations are from the New International Version unless otherwise noted.

—————————————— Contents —————————————— A. The value and danger of direct quotation B. Types of context C. Singularity of interpretation D. Looking for the flow of thought and the main point E. Examples of interpretations that violate a passage's context    1. Psalm 14:1 and 1 Cor. 8:4 - God's Existence    2. 1 Corinthians 15:32 - Resurrection and Afterlife    3. Mark 3:21-22 - Jesus' Mind and Motivation    4. Romans 3:23 - Universal Sin    5. Philippians 4:13 - I Can Do All Things    6. Matthew 18:20 - God's Presence in Small Meetings    7. Luke 17:5 - Increased Faith    8. Genesis 2:5-6 - No Rain Before the Flood    9. 2 Peter 1:20 - Private Interpretation   10. James 2:14-26 - Works Required for Salvation   11. Isaiah 7:14 - The Sign of the Virgin Birth   12. John 15:16 - Jesus' Choice of Disciples   13. 1 Corinthians 2:14 - Ability of Unsaved to Grasp Spiritual Things   14. Romans 9:11-21 - Individual Election —————————————————————————————————

A.  The value and danger of direct quotation

Firsthand information is always preferred over secondhand information.  This is true in any field of inquiry.  Information directly from the source is more convincing than someone else's version of that information.

For example, suppose two reporters use different approaches in reporting the news.  The first reporter says, "the U.S. President said that he plans to drop a nuclear bomb on Libya tomorrow."  The second reporter plays a portion of a video tape in which the president says “I will drop a nuclear bomb on Libya tomorrow.”  Many people prefer the second type of reporting because it uses a direct quotation.

When we need to be sure what someone said, we like to hear it directly, in his/her own words.  When direct quotations are used, we are allowed to interpret the quotation ourselves.  But when a reporter supplies his own summary and interpretations of what was said, we wonder whether or not the reporter is giving a faithful representation of the original.  So, direct quotations are very valuable and convincing.

However, direct quotations can also be dangerous.  Suppose that, in the above example, the president's full statement was this:  “I know that some of you Rambo types would like to hear me say that I will drop a nuclear bomb on Libya tomorrow.  But we have ruled out the use of nuclear force and will seek a diplomatic solution.”  Now the interpretation is quite different, and it is the context that makes the difference.

Any statement can be ripped from its context and made to mean something different than what was intended.  This is the danger of direct quotations.  We need the context in order to interpret the statement correctly.

The use of context is especially important when we are interpreting the Bible.  There is probably no book that has been misinterpreted more than the Bible, and many (perhaps most) of those misinterpretations are due to the practice of ignoring the context.  This is done both by people who do not believe the Bible, and by people who do.  Your interpretation is not automatically correct just because you believe that the Bible is true.

B.  Types of context

For any particular Bible passage there are several types of context that should be considered.

Immediate Context

This includes the sentences that come immediately before and after the passage.  Very often, the immediate context is the paragraph containing the passage.

Section Context

This is the next larger portion of context.  It includes the paragraphs that come before and after the passage and make up the section of the book containing material related to the passage.

Book Context and Whole Bible Context

This includes the entire book in which the passage is found, and the general teachings of the Bible as a whole.

Parallel Passage Context

This includes passages from other books in the Bible which discuss the same events or ideas.  For example, most of the events recorded in one gospel are also recorded in other gospels.  Many of the events in 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings are also recorded in 1 and 2 Chronicles.  And doctrinal passages on the same topic are often found in two or more of the New Testament epistles.

Background Passage Context

Certain passages form the background for other passages.  For example, the events in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers supply the background for Moses' reminders and commands in Deuteronomy.  Some of the historical books of the Old Testament (1 Kings through Nehemiah) form the background for the prophets (Isaiah through Malachi).  And the book of Acts forms the background for most of Paul's epistles (Romans through Philemon).

Historical and Cultural Context

A wide variety of historical and cultural situations affected the people and events in the Bible.  When we are aware of these situations, we have a much better chance of interpreting the passage correctly.  They include such things as recent historical events, civil government, royal customs, economic practices, types of dwellings, modes of travel, marriage customs, farming procedures, metalworking capabilities, prevalent thought patterns, astronomical concepts, calendar systems, ways of expressing the time of day, clothing, etc.

Secular Literature Context

The vocabulary and types of word usage found in the general literature of the same period during which a biblical passage was written can shed light on such things as the various synonyms available to the biblical writer and the connotations of various words.

The serious Bible student will examine all the above types of context that are appropriate to the passage.  However, it is the first type, immediate context, that is violated most often with the most serious consequences.

The casual Bible student may claim that the last two types of context are not readily available to everyone.  Or he may complain that such things as parallel passages and background passages take a great amount of time to discover and absorb.  These rationalizations might be considered legitimate to a degree.  But we can admit no such rationalization about immediate context.  Every Bible student has the immediate context right in front of him whenever he reads any passage, and has no excuse for ignoring it.  It is the immediate context that most determines the meaning of any given passage.  Even the definitions of words within a passage are affected by the immediate context.

C.  Singularity of interpretation

Any passage, examined in context, will have one correct interpretation, not several.  When context is ignored, it is easy to assign a variety of meanings to a statement.  For example, you can easily imagine several possible meanings for the statement “The chair doesn't fit.”  This statement could mean that the chair is too wide to fit into a narrow space, or that the chair is the wrong shape for me (it's uncomfortable), or that the chair is the wrong style to go with other pieces of furniture, or that the chair is too expensive to fit my budget.  Only when we see the context do we realize that the statement had only one meaning from the start.  Here's the statement in its context: “Everything else in the room is Louis XIV, but the chair is Early American.  The chair doesn't fit.”  The context actually defines the word “fit” and thus limits the meaning of the statement to a single meaning.

We should be careful not to confuse interpretation with application.  While a statement can have many applications, it has only one interpretation when properly understood in its context.  Many biblical statements (particularly warnings, commands, and exhortations) can be applied by many different people at widely separated times, in different cultures, in varying situations.  The fact that a statement can have thousands of applications does not change the fact that the meaning or interpretation of the statement is still singular.

The notion that each statement has a single meaning makes sense when you remember that the interpreter's task is to grasp the mind of the writer.  Every communication involves two minds: the mind of the sender (writer/speaker) and the mind of the receiver (reader/listener).  It's easy to imagine five different receivers coming up with five different interpretations, especially if they neglect the context.  But it is not so easy to imagine the sender intending to convey five different meanings in one statement.  As you know from your own experience, whenever you make a statement, you intend to express a certain idea.  You may even go out of your way to clarify your statement so that those receiving it will understand exactly what you mean.

So, when there are three different interpretations of a certain statement, at least two of them are incorrect.  And if the statement relates to basic Christian doctrine, the incorrect interpretations are no small matter.  We cannot take an ecumenical approach to interpretation.  It really does make a difference whether or not we are able to discover the meaning intended by the biblical writers.

When we are interpreting a biblical passage, we are dealing with truth and meaning.  Some people want to approach these the same way they approach beauty, but that is a mistake.  Beauty is in the mind of the beholder.  In other words, a particular item (scene, object, etc.) may be beautiful to one person, beautiful in a different way to a second person, merely utilitarian to a third person, and downright ugly to a fourth person.  The beauty (or ugliness) is valid for each person even though it differs from the others.   There is no beauty inherent in the item itself.  Rather, beauty is an attribute which individuals ascribe to items.

But truth is not so subjective.  When truth exists in the mind of a writer, and that writer expresses that truth in a statement, that statement (the full statement, including the context) objectively contains a particular meaning.  The interpreter's task is to discover that single meaning and thus understand the original truth.  While different people may give different interpretations of any one statement, only one interpretation can be valid.

Don't confuse meaning and meaningfulness.  Granted, different individuals will find varying degrees of meaningfulness or significance in a certain truth, and have different levels of appreciation for that same truth.  But in this paper we are concerned with meaning and especially with the situation in which one person interprets a biblical statement differently than another.  Unlike beauty, truth is objective.  Of course, we want to make it subjective by understanding each biblical statement and applying each truth personally.  But the search is never merely for a meaning.  Rather, the search is for the meaning.

This issue of the singularity of meaning is discussed further under the heading "The difference between double fulfillment and double meaning" in the paper "'Fulfill', Matthew 1:22 and Isaiah 7:14".

D. Looking for the flow of thought and the main point

What you usually find when you examine a passage’s context is a particular flow of thought.  The author is often developing a particular main point.  This is sometimes referred to as the argument of the passage or the passage’s thought progression.  Authors often develop their argument through the use of certain techniques such as:

Presenting several points in a logical argument
Making contrasts or comparisons
Citing authorities (quoting Christ or Old Testament passages)
Using historical illustrations
Making up fictional illustrations

Finding the flow of thought is crucial in understanding each part of the passage.  When you understand the argument, you will see how each part of the passage contributes to the central idea.  Many times you have to expand your study into larger sections in order to discover the flow of thought.

E.  Examples of interpretations that violate a passage's context

Our purpose in this paper is to examine several biblical passages and their interpretations, looking at their immediate contexts in order to check up on the interpretations.  For some of the passages we will also examine the larger context or parallel passages to help us find the correct interpretations.

If you are a Bible believer, you will probably find some of the following examples easy to agree with because their cited interpretations (listed under "One interpretation" below) will be contrary to your beliefs.  When that is the case, you immediately suspect that something is wrong with the interpretation.  However, we will also examine some passages for which the cited interpretation fits our beliefs.  It is when the interpretation fits our beliefs that we are most in danger of neglecting the context.  But we will still need to study the context for these passages also.  For all passages, whether they fit our beliefs or not, we should make sure that our interpretation is true to the context.

We will begin with a few simple and obvious examples, then proceed to some more subtle and difficult ones.  While a few of the examples of context violation come from other religions, most of them come from conservative Protestantism.  We need to check up on our own misinterpretations of the Bible before we say too much about others'.  You should look up each of these passages and check out the context for yourself.

1. Psalm 14:1 and 1 Corinthians 8:4 – God's Existence

Direct quotation:  “There is no God”

One interpretation:  The Bible explicitly states that no God exists.

Context:  In both of these passages, the direct quotation is not even a complete sentence.  In Psalm 14:1, David is making the point that the fool says there is no God.  In 1 Corinthians 8:4, if we merely look at the rest of the clause, we see that Paul says there is no God but one.  Obviously these passages, as well as the rest of the Bible, teach the exact opposite of the “one interpretation” cited above.

2. 1 Corinthians 15:32 – Resurrection and Afterlife

Direct quotation:  “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

One interpretation:  Live it up now because there is no afterlife with rewards or punishments.

Context:  Here again the quotation is part of a longer sentence which begins by posing a hypothetical condition, “If the dead are not raised …”  In essence, Paul is saying that, if it were true that there is no afterlife, then go ahead and live it up.  But elsewhere in the immediate context Paul makes it clear that there is an afterlife, a resurrection from the dead (see verses 4-8, 20, 42-44, and 51-52).

The immediate context, verses 29-32, shows the absurdity of the idea that there is no afterlife.  In verse 29 Paul shows the inconsistency of someone claiming that there is no afterlife, but also being baptized for the dead.  (By the way, this is not meant to recommend the practice of being baptized for the dead.  Rather, it merely shows how ridiculous it is for someone to claim that there is no resurrection, then turn around and be baptized for the dead to better their condition in their afterlife.  Even here it is the context which straightens out our interpretation.)  In verses 30-32 Paul is pointing out how he put his life on the line for others, based on his strong conviction that there is an afterlife.  If there is no afterlife, Paul wasted his time and took unnecessary chances, all to gain nothing.  If there is no afterlife, he would have been better off living it up.  His point?  There is an afterlife.

3. Mark 3:21-22 – Jesus' Mind and Motivation

Direct quotation:  “He is out of his mind.” and “He is possessed by Beelzebub!  By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”

One interpretation:  Jesus was under the control of Satan.

Context:  In narrative passages it is important to know who is speaking.  We find from the context that the first quote is spoken by Jesus' family (verse 21) and the second quote is spoken by the Jewish teachers of the law (verse 22).  Jesus shows how ridiculous the second statement is by raising questions about how long Satan's kingdom would stand if it were divided against itself (verses 23-27).  (Also compare John 1:9;  Colossians 2:3.)

The Bible often records incorrect statements, beginning with the statement of the serpent (“You will not surely die,” Genesis 3:1-5) and continuing with statements from disobedient Israelites, false prophets, Pharisees, Sadducees, false teachers, and the like.  It is the context which both informs us who is speaking and whether or not the statement is correct.  The fact that the Bible records a statement does not mean that it affirms the statement.  The historic Christian doctrine of inspiration guarantees an accurate Bible.  But that accuracy may involve accurate records of false statements.  Regarding the Bible's infallibility:  the Bible is accurate in everything it records; true in everything it affirms.

By the way, it would be possible to combine the cited misinterpretation of this passage with the cited misinterpretations of the three passages in the first two examples to form a coherent system of belief.  This system would claim that there is no God, no afterlife, and that Jesus was out of his mind.  If we were to force this system on the rest of the Bible, we would have to reinterpret all other references to God and the afterlife.  We would also have to discount all of Jesus' teachings.  This illustrates the danger of locking into a system too early then interpreting every other passage according to that system.  It is obvious that the above system, based on only four passages, is directly opposite the general teachings of the Bible.  However, the problem may not be so obvious when a system is based on a hundred or a thousand passages.  Such a system may be widely accepted, or may even have the weight of history on its side.  Nevertheless, we must remember that every theological system is a human invention and as such it is subject to our human tendency to generalize and jump to conclusions.  All too often we interpret a Bible passage in the “context” of our theological system instead of allowing that passage's own context to be the principal guide to its interpretation.  We must let the Bible speak for itself and not systematize too quickly.  (Systematic theology must be based on biblical theology.)

4. Romans 3:23 – Universal Sin

Direct quotation:  “For all have sinned”

One interpretation:  Everyone is a sinner.

Context:  This is one of those interpretations which fits Christian beliefs.  In fact, this passage is often used by believers to show non-christians that the Bible says we are all sinners.  But this is not what this passage says at all!  We only need to look at the two verses that surround this verse to see the error.  Verse 24 shows us the problem with our interpretation, and verse 22 provides the correct interpretation.

If, as some claim, verse 23 teaches that all humans have sinned,  then verse 24 must teach that all humans are justified, since both verses are describing the same group of people.

Actually, the word “all” in verse 23 refers to “all those who believe” mentioned in verse 22.  In the larger context Paul is discussing two groups of people, the Jews (who had the circumcision and the Law) and gentiles (who had neither).  See 2:1,9,12-13; 3:1,9.  Some from both groups had become believers in Christ.  But, neither Jewish believers nor Gentile believers earned righteousness through the Law.  Verses 21-24 teach that, since both groups of believers were sinners, there is no difference in the way they got their righteousness.  “All” (both groups of believers) had to be justified, not through the Law, but through faith in Jesus Christ.  So the statement in verse 23, “For all have sinned,” is properly understood to mean: for all believers have sinned.

Of course, it is true that all humans have sinned, not just Jewish believers and Gentile believers.  The universality of sin is clearly taught in verses 9-18 as well as many other passages.  And this fact of universal sin underlies the truth that all those who believe have to obtain their righteousness through faith rather than through works.  But this does not change the fact that verse 23 is talking about all believers, not all humans.

5. Philippians 4:13 – I Can Do All Things

Direct Quotation:  I can do everything through him who gives me strength.

One interpretation:  God gives me all talents and all abilities.

Context:  There is an obvious problem with the above interpretation.  If it were true, there would be no room for Paul's teaching elsewhere (1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12) regarding spiritual gifts.  In those passages Paul explains that some believers have some gifts (or abilities to minister) while other believers have others (see especially 1 Corinthians 12:21).  But the above interpretation would make every believer fully gifted.  When we look at the context of Philippians 4:13, we see that the focus is not on abilities at all, but on money.

Verse 13 is part of a discussion in verses 10-19 of the Philippians' generosity to Paul.  In verses 10-14 Paul states how glad he is that the Philippians have been able to give to him again, even though he has learned to get along either with or without adequate supply.  In verses 15-16 Paul reminds them that in the past they had given to Paul when others had not.  In verses 17-19 Paul explains the reason for his happiness, which focuses on the benefits the Philippians receive for giving.

In particular, verses 11b-13 all relate to one idea — that Paul has learned to be content in all financial circumstances.  In verse 12 he points out the extremes he has learned to live with:  need and plenty, being well fed or going hungry, having plenty or wanting.  There is nothing in the context about Paul's talents or abilities.  Everything relates to the adequacy of Paul's provisions.  Certainly the "I can do everything" of verse 13 means “I will be content whether I have enough provisions to meet my needs or not."

6. Matthew 18:20 – God's Presence in Small Meetings

Direct Quotation:  “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them”

One Interpretation:  Even the smallest church meetings have a special presence of God.

The word “special” is very important in the above interpretation.  Many who hold this interpretation are aware of the Bible's teaching on God's omnipresence (Psalm 139:7-12; Hebrews 13:5), as well as Jesus' promises that he and the Holy Spirit would be with his disciples forever (Matthew 28:20; John 14:16), as well as Paul's teachings on the Holy Spirit's indwelling (Ephesians 1:13-14; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Corinthians 1:22).  So they recognize that God is present with individual believers at all times, and in that sense is also present whenever believers meet with other believers.  However, they feel that Matthew 18:20 guarantees that whenever there is a church gathering (formal or informal) the Lord also “attends” the meeting — He is present in a special sense, beyond individual indwelling.

Context:  Some would divide the last half of Matthew 18 into several segments, as though Jesus were covering different subjects:

The brother who sins (15-17)
Special powers of the apostles (18)
Group prayer (19)
God's presence in meetings (20)
Forgiveness and a parable on forgiveness (21-35).

However, these 21 verses form one continuous unit.  Everything in the passage relates to how you treat the brother who sins against you.  There are two links which tie these supposedly separate sections together.

First, the small group (“two or three”) is mentioned five times in verses 15-20 (“one or two others” in verse 16, “two or three witnesses” in verse 16, “them” in verse 17, “two of you” in verse 19, and “two or three” in verse 20).  The small group mentioned in verse 20 must be the same small group mentioned in verse 16, which is clearly a group formed for the purpose of approaching the unrepentant brother.

Second, notice the wording of Peter's question in verse 21.  “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me?”  This clearly links Peter's question with Jesus' statement in verse 15 “If your brother sins against you.”  So Jesus has not moved from subject to subject.  Rather, all five sections form a single unit.

This means that the promise in verse 20 guarantees the Lord's presence in a very specialized gathering — when you select one or two others to join you in approaching the unrepentant brother.  It says nothing about the general meetings of the church.

7. Luke 17:5 – Increased Faith

Direct quotation:  “The apostles said to the Lord, 'Increase our faith!'”

One interpretation:  It's good to ask the Lord to increase your faith.

Context: When we examine the context of the apostles' request for increased faith, we see that it was actually a bad request, and was later rebuked by Jesus.  The context includes verses 3-10.

Notice that the apostles' request was in response to a command that Jesus had just given them to repeatedly forgive the brother who had sinned against them and repented (3-4).  This is certainly a difficult command, and we tend to sympathize with the apostles in their request for help.  However, Jesus was not pleased with their request.  He responded by pointing out that, at least in connection with this particular command, they had no faith to begin with.  If they had had even the smallest amount of faith they would have been able to relocate a tree at command (v. 6).  In other words, if the smallest amount of faith could enable them to perform such a miracle, then their admission of inadequate faith to carry out Jesus' command was in reality an admission of no faith at all in regard to that command.  Their request for more faith implied that they had some already, when they really did not.

It also implied that, even after they had received a command from Jesus, the responsibility was still on Jesus, not on them.  Jesus clears up this second misconception by reminding them of one of the most basic facts in their culture, namely, that a slave is expected to obey his master (vv. 7-9).  Then Jesus clearly states the implication for his disciples:  they should see themselves as slaves of the Lord Jesus and should obey him (v. 10).  The clause “when you have done everything you were told to do” links verse 10 with verses 3-4 and helps the reader see that all the intervening verses are all related.

Thus, Jesus' command in verses 3-4 and Jesus' response in verses 6-10 make it clear that their request was not good.  A far better response to Jesus' command would have been “Lord, we are your slaves, and we will do what you have told us to do.”

8. Genesis 2:5-6 – No Rain Before the Flood

Direct Quotation:  “The Lord God had not sent rain on the earth”

One interpretation:  It did not rain before Noah's flood.

A number of prominent Bible interpreters have held this view.  According to Whitcomb and Morris, there was

No Rainfall Before the Flood [heading].  This fact is specifically alleged in Genesis 2:5,6 . . . .  This verse is applied specifically to the initial completed creation . . . .  (The Genesis Flood, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961, p. 241).

Based on the assumption that these verses apply to the completed creation, and on the observation that there is no mention of any change after the fall of man, they contend that the lack of rain

continued until the time of the Deluge. (ibid.)

Context:  There are clear indications right in the same sentence that creation was not complete.  Verse 5 says that at this time there was no shrub, no plant, and no man.  So the statement that “the Lord God had not sent rain” is describing the situation early in the creation process.  That situation may have been quite different by the time creation was completed.  Verse 5 does not tell us anything about rain or the lack of rain from the completion of creation until the flood.

It is also helpful to look at the larger context.  In the first two chapters of Genesis there are actually two accounts of creation.  The first account occupies 1:1 - 2:4 and the second account occupies 2:5 - 2:25.  The second account begins at the beginning, just like the first account does, but emphasizes different details.  The statement “The Lord God had not sent rain” (2:5) comes very near the beginning of this second account, and this placement alone (without the references to shrub, plant, and man) would suggest that the statement is describing the situation well before the completion of creation.

Also, there is a parallel between the two creation accounts that is worth noting.  In both accounts there is a before and an after.  In the first account, the before is described as formless, empty, and dark (1:1-2).  In the second account, the before is described as the absence of shrub, plant, rain, and man (2:5).  Both accounts go on to tell how God completely reversed the situation and created the world we recognize today.  The first account is organized around the six days of creation, and the final result can be easily described as well formed rather then formless, full rather than empty, and light rather than dark — the exact opposite of the initial situation.  The same can be said of the second account.  At the end of this account we have a garden, rivers, and man.  The garden contrasts with lack of shrub and plant.  The creation of man contrasts with the lack of man.  And it seems reasonable to interpret the rivers as contrasting with the lack of rain, since both rain and rivers are major parts of the water cycle as we know it.  Indeed, if general geologic conditions were the same at the completion of creation as now, the water cycle would have to be in place for a garden, trees, and rivers (8-14) to survive.  Remember that, based on Genesis chapter 5 and 7:6, the flood would not come for another 1600 years (and perhaps considerably longer if there are gaps in the genealogy of Genesis 5).  In the meantime, the water cycle would have been an integral part of nature.  So it is certainly within reason to interpret Genesis 2 as indicating that it probably rained before the flood.  On the other hand, conditions (including the exact nature of the water cycle) may have been different, as Whitcomb and Morris claim.

There is a subtle point here which is important to understand. We are not saying that the Bible clearly states that it rained before the flood, only that that view is allowed (perhaps even encouraged) by the context.  Whitcomb and Morris may be correct when they say that it did not rain before the flood.  However, their view is based on scientific speculation, not on any explicit biblical statement to that effect.  In particular, Genesis 2:5-6 definitely do not support their view.

9. 2 Peter 1:20 – Private Interpretation

Direct quotation:  Several quotations from different translations are listed below to illustrate the fact that different translators have adopted different interpretations.  This verse, isolated from its context, can be understood in two different ways, even in the original Greek.  The translators in group one did not take sides.  Those in group two think Peter is talking about the source of the original prophecies, that is, the idea that the Old Testament prophets made use of their own private interpretation of events and trends and thus thought up their own prophecies.  Those in group three think Peter is talking about his contemporaries (false teachers) who apply their own private interpretations to existing prophecies.

Group One (neutral)

"No prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation"  (American Standard Version, 1901)

"No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation"  (New American Standard Bible, and New Revised Standard Version)

"There is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation"  (New American Bible, a Roman Catholic version)

Group Two (focus is on the source of the original prophecy)

"No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation"  (New International Version)

Group Three (focus is on contemporary interpreters)

"The interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual"  (Jerusalem Bible, an approved Roman Catholic version)

"No prophecy in Scripture is to be interpreted by one's own mind"  (Charles B. Williams Translation, Moody Press)

"No one can interpret any prophecy of Scripture by himself"  (New English Bible)

"No one can explain by himself a prophecy in the Scriptures"  (Good News Bible, American Bible Society)

"No one alone can understand any of the prophecies in the Scriptures"  (Contemporary English Version, American Bible Society)

One interpretation:  If Peter was denying private interpretation for his contemporaries, then private interpretation should also be denied for us.  We should not try to interpret Bible passages ourselves.  We need an outside authority to supply us with the correct interpretation.

This has long been the position of the Roman Catholic Church.  For example, the Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible, in its note on the phrase “personal interpretation,” explains it as the “personal interpretation of false teachers” (those mentioned in chapter 2).  And according to the new universal Catholic catechism,

The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magesterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.  (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Liguori Publications, 1994, section 100)

All that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God.  (op. cit. section 119, see also sections 82 and 85)

Context:  This passage is part of a section (verses 16-21) in which Peter emphasizes the certainty of the apostles' message about Christ.

In verses 16-18 he states that the apostles did not merely follow a made up story.  Rather, they were eye witnesses who actually heard the Heavenly Father identify Jesus Christ as his son.  In these three verses the focus is on the origin of the message, not on its subsequent interpretation.  The next three verses also have the same focus, namely, the origin of the message.  Indeed, verse 21 cannot be understood any other way.

Notice how closely verses 20 and 21 are connected.  Verse 20 states an idea, then verse 21 restates and amplifies that idea.  In short, verse 20 says that the scriptural prophets did not make up their prophecies, and verse 21 says that those prophecies did not come from man (this is the re-statement), but from God (this is the amplification).  So verses 20 and 21 form a very closely reasoned argument which perfectly fits the emphasis of the larger context.

However, if verse 20 is taken to refer to the interpretation of existing prophecies, then verse 21 (which clearly refers to the origin of prophecies) must be understood as Peter's attempt to supply a reason for his claim in verse 20.  But since the divine origin for a particular prophecy has no necessary implications for whether or not that prophecy can be interpreted privately, verse 21 is actually very weak support for verse 20.  So this interpretation destroys the inherent unity of the passage, whereas the interpretation suggested above (that verse 20 refers to the source of the original prophecies) maintains that unity.

If Peter had wanted to make a point about interpreting existing prophecies, there is another context later in this letter which would have served his purposes much better.  In 3:16 Peter states that Paul's letters

contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

This would have been a perfect opportunity for Peter to state that, since some passages are hard to understand and some people distort them, these passages should not be interpreted privately.  But since Peter did not make that point here, where it would have fit the context perfectly, it is doubtful that he intended to make that point in 1:20, where it does not fit the context.

Granted, the above argument (involving 3:16) is an argument from silence.  Of course, arguments from silence are never conclusive in themselves.  But some arguments from silence are more compelling than others.  For example, here is an argument from silence that is much more general:  Nowhere else in the entire Bible is there a statement that existing prophecies should not be interpreted by lone individuals.  This argument from silence would be quickly nullified by a single clear statement to that effect.  So this general argument from silence is very weak.  However, our argument in the preceding paragraph is much more “to the point” since it deals with a passage which is (1) in the same letter to the same audience, and (2) forms a perfect logical basis for making a statement against lone interpretation of existing prophecies.  When we find that Peter fails to make that point here, we have a much more significant silence.

By the way, this passage illustrates the fact that even translators need to pay close attention to context.  Translation is an interpretive process.  Translation is not merely a matter of replacing a word in the source language with its equivalent in the target language.  Each language has, not only its own unique vocabulary, but also its own unique syntax and idioms.  So the translator's task is first to interpret the passage in the source language in context, then state the same meaning in the target language.  Regarding 2 Peter 1:20, the translator in group two understood the context correctly, while those in group three did not.

10. James 2:14-26 – Works Required for Salvation

Direct quotation:  Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead . . . faith without deeds is useless . . . a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone . . . faith without deeds is dead (verses 17, 20, 24, 26)

One interpretation:  Salvation (justification) requires more than faith.  It also requires good deeds.

Many religions and cults believe that salvation is based on works.  This has long been the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.  For example, consider these statements from the new universal catechism and an older local catechism:

“The whole power of the sacrament of Penance consists in restoring us to God's grace and joining us with him in an intimate friendship.”  Reconciliation with God is thus the purpose and effect of this sacrament.  (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Liguori Publications, 1994, section 1468)

One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God . . . must confess to a priest all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience. . . .  The confessor [priest] proposes the performance of certain acts of “satisfaction” or “penance” to be performed by  the penitent in order to repair the harm caused by sin . . . .  The spiritual  effects of the sacrament of Penance are: reconciliation with God . . .  remission of eternal punishment.  (op. cit., sections 1493, 1494, and 1496.   See also sections 1446 and 1477)

Our good deeds, moved by the grace of Christ, build up the Body of Christ and merit eternal life for us. . . .  We ourselves could never initiate or draw out of our own resources acts meriting life forever with God. . . .  When He has given us the power to do freely such sublime deeds, then, in virtue of God's promises and of the genuine abilities He has given us by His graces, those deeds genuinely merit eternal life.  (The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, edited by Lawler, Wuerl, and Lawler, Our Sunday Visitor, 1976, p 274)

Some Protestants have also held that this passage teaches the necessity of works for salvation.  In fact, this passage has been much debated in Protestant circles because of Paul's clear statements about salvation by grace through faith alone  (Romans 3:28; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9, etc.).  In fact, it is this passage which led Martin Luther to refer to James as a “right strawy epistle”.  And liberal theologians (and others taking an evolutionary view of the development of Christianity) have also claimed that James and Paul differed on this issue.

However, when properly understood, this passage does not contradict Paul at all.  Yet, it is a difficult passage, so it is all the more important to examine the context carefully.

Context:  The immediate context extends from verse 14 through 26.

Some have assumed that the basic contrast in this passage is between faith and deeds, as follows:

Faith

← assumed contrast →

Deeds (good works)

The “one interpretation” cited above makes this assumption.  But verse 14, which introduces this passage, raises the question “What good is it . . . if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?”  So the basic contrast is actually between claimed faith and deeds.  James immediately gives an illustration in which a person responds to the needs of another merely by wishing him well, then states that such “faith” is dead (verses 15-17).  So the real contrast is between dead claimed faith and deeds.

Those who claimed to have faith, but did not have any works, thought you could separate genuine faith from works.  But James shows that genuine faith and deeds cannot be separated.  He does this by quoting someone who says “You have faith; I have deeds.” (verse 18).  James' reply is twofold and is intended to show that genuine faith and works always belong together.  He challenges the person, “show me your faith without deeds,” which cannot be done because one person cannot see into another's heart, he can only see what that person does.  James also says, “I will show you my faith by what I do” indicating that in James' mind genuine faith will always bring about good deeds, and the good deeds will be a witness to the genuineness of the faith.

Then James shows that mere factual belief (mental ascent) is also in contrast with genuine faith by referring to the fact that even the demons believe that there is one God (verse 19).

So in these first six verses James has shown three things: (1) claimed faith is in contrast with deeds, (2) genuine faith and deeds belong together, and (3) mere factual belief is also useless.  Thus, the real contrast is as follows:

Claimed faith (dead/useless) and mere factual belief

← real contrast →

Genuine faith and deeds (good works)

Then James gives two examples of genuine faith, Abraham and Rahab (verses 20- 25).  In both cases, the reality of their faith was shown by their actions.  It is significant that twice in this section James begins a sentence with the words “you see” (verses 22 and 24).  In English, the idiom “you see” can mean “you understand.”  But in dozens of occurrences in the Greek New Testament, “you see” always refers to the literal act of observing, not to understanding.  And that is what it means here as well.  In other words, deeds are a visual verification of genuine faith, which agrees perfectly with James' statement in verse 18, “I will show you my faith by what I do.”

This means that James uses the terms faith and justification differently that Paul.  James uses the term faith at the beginning of this passage and at various points throughout the passage to refer to the mere claim of faith, which is no faith at all.  Also, James' concept of justification is not the divine justification which God declares because God can see into a person's heart and can see the genuineness of his faith.  Rather, James' concept of justification is visual verification by other people.

By the way, this notion that real faith results in actions is repeated elsewhere by James and appears to be one of the overall themes of the letter.  Note the repetition of the same idea in different words:

"Don't merely listen to the word . . . do what it says." (1:22)
"As believers . . . don't show favoritism" (2:1)
"Speak and act . . ." (2:12)
"Who is wise and understanding among you?  Let him show it by his good life" (3:13).

So James, rather than contradicting Paul, complements him.  Paul, in the passages cited earlier, is explaining that salvation is initially gained not by works but by grace through faith.  Paul also taught that once a person is saved, he is supposed to do good works (Ephesians 2:10, plus the many exhortations at the end of all his epistles).  These good works are not the way a person gets saved, but they do demonstrate the genuineness of his faith.  This last point, of course, is the one which James states so forcefully.

11. Isaiah 7:14 – The Sign of the Virgin Birth

Direct quotation:  The Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

One interpretation:  In this passage, “virgin” refers to Mary and “child” refers to Jesus.  This passage is a prediction of the virgin birth of Christ over 700 years ahead of time.

For an explanation of the context of Isaiah 7:14, see the paper "Fulfill," Matthew 1:22, and Isaiah 7:14, especially section F.

12. John 15:16 – Jesus' Choice of Disciples

See the section entitled Key Passages Used by Calvinists in the paper "Calvin and Arminius."

13. 1 Corinthians 2:14 – Ability of Unsaved to Grasp Spiritual Things

See the section entitled Key Passages Used by Calvinists in the paper "Calvin and Arminius."

14. Romans 9:11-21 – Individual Election

See the section entitled Key Passages Used by Calvinists in the paper "Calvin and Arminius."

A few other Passages to Consider

2 Samuel 12:23 — David’s comment regarding his infant son who had just died, “I will go to him.”  The context favors the interpretation that David was referring only to the fact that he would die, his son would not return to life.

Matthew 5:30 — "If your right hand offends you, cut it off" is part of a larger attempt to evangelize the gathering crowd by showing that sin is internal, not external.

Luke 18:12 —  "I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get."  Who said this?  Is his approach approved or disapproved by Jesus?

Romans 10:9-10 — Public Confession Required for Salvation.  This passage no more requires public confession than Romans 10:17 and Ephesians 1:13 require listening to the gospel (as opposed to reading the gospel). Compare the context (Rom 10:5-11) with the passage Paul is referring to in Deuteronomy 30:11-15.

Matthew 24:36 — "this generation" (compare 25:34).  Immediate context is 24:29-39 and the discussion of the "forefathers."  There is a focus on Jesus listeners in 33-34 and "upon you" in 35, therefore "this generation" refers to the generation of Jesus listeners, not some distant generation.