| UP |
Revised September 26, 2015
| Sections: | A. Difference – Tradition as authority |
| B. Difference – Inspiration of scripture | |
| C. Difference – Canon of scripture | |
| D. Difference – Interpretation of scripture |
The Roman Catholic Church places church tradition on an equal footing with the Bible as its source of authority.
It is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of devotion and reverence. (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, section 9)
In their attempt to justify this high and idealistic view of church tradition, Roman Catholic scholars pretend that there is a parallel between the oral tradition which preceded the writing of the New Testament and subsequent centuries of Roman Catholic tradition.
The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition. (1994 Catechism, par. 83)
But it is important to distinguish between oral tradition and church tradition. These are two entirely different things, and the first does not justify the second. The few decades of oral tradition leading up to the writing of the gospels (all within the lifetime of the original apostles and other witnesses, 1 Corinthians 15:6; Acts 2:22) is one thing. But the centuries of additions called church tradition, coming after the writing of the gospels and spanning scores of generations and hundreds of popes, is something quite different.
Even though some so-called scholars profess to have great insights into the oral tradition, the fact is that we simply do not have it. Nor can it be implied from the written gospels.
It is entirely illegitimate to try to penetrate from Scripture to the tradition behind it, as is done especially by Form Criticism … in the hope of reaching more objective truth. (H. L. Ellison, article on "Tradition" in Baker's Dictionary of Theology, Baker Book House, 1960, page 527)
The written gospels and epistles are the complete replacement for any oral tradition that preceded them. So authoritative were these New Testament writings that they were classed along with the Old Testament as sacred scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). And it is helpful to remember that the inspiration of those sacred writings focuses on the writings themselves, not on the writers, for "all scripture is inspired by God" (2 Timothy 3:16).
For us, long after the New Testament documents have been inspired and preserved, the notion of new information coming to light, even supposedly from the successors of the apostles or "at the dictation of the Holy Spirit," is an entirely different issue than that of the oral tradition which existed before the writing of the gospels, and needs to be evaluated on its own. Here is Ellison's evaluation of the first link in the chain of church tradition.
It is a striking fact that whenever we turn to Ante-Nicene exegesis for light on more difficult NT passages, we find the most divergent views. There is clearly no authoritative theological tradition linking the apostles with the second century. (Ellison, loc. sit.)
Yet, Roman Catholicism claims to follow both the Bible and church tradition as equal sources of authority. This was clearly spelled out at the Council of Trent in 1546, which referred to
unwritten traditions, which were received by the Apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or, by the same Apostles, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit … this Synod receives and venerates, with equal pious affection and reverence, all the books both of the New and the Old Testaments, since one God is author of both, together with the said Traditions …. (Council of Trent, Session IV, from Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., p. 368)
But the inclusion of tradition as a source of authority alongside the Bible creates an insurmountable problem for Roman Catholicism. The problem with tradition is that, since by definition it is not based on written biblical revelation, it may easily be no more than human tradition against which we are severely warned (Colossians 2:8). Thus tradition must always be subject to the judgment of the New Testament, for the Holy Spirit would not inspire one gospel in the New Testament and a different gospel later.
I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by grace for a different gospel (not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed! (Galatians 1:6-9)
The above passage is remarkable on two accounts. First, extreme emphasis is indicated by the near word-for-word repetition of an entire complex clause, a phenomenon that is very rare in scripture. (There are a few other examples such as Joshua 23:14-15; Luke 18:34; Philippians 4:4.)
But the above passage is also remarkable for another reason. Paul includes both himself and angels from heaven as theoretical sources for a different, perverted gospel. Now we may be tempted to argue that neither Paul nor an angel from heaven could ever preach a perverted gospel. But Paul's point here is neither that they would or would not preach a different gospel. Rather, his point is that the basis for determining the true gospel is not the messenger, but the message as previously preached. Thus, we do not go back to a person to find out what the gospel is. Nor do we go back to an institution. Instead, we go back to the timeless message of the gospel as preached by the apostles as recorded in the gospels and epistles, who in turn were preaching the message given by Jesus Christ. The finality of Christ as God's messenger/revealer is clearly taught in Hebrews 1:1 - 2:4. And that message has been "once for all handed down" (Jude 3).
No matter who the messenger, we must always go back to God's written revelation as the benchmark of truth. This is what the Bereans did when they heard Paul preach, and thus they were called "more fair-minded" or, as rendered in the NASB, "more noble-minded" (Acts 17:11).
When it comes to salvation, we must go back to the Bible, not to the church or the pope. The church, the pope, and any other modern day preacher, will be judged solely by his faithfulness to the gospel preached by Jesus and the apostles and recorded in the New Testament. Some will be found faithful; others will be accursed. Thus Galatians 1:6-9 becomes a clear statement for the Bible and against tradition as our most basic source of information about salvation.
According to the New Testament, salvation is remarkably simple and straightforward. It involves
But consider some of the additions to this simple gospel which have supposedly come from the apostles and through the dictation of the Holy Spirit:
These, along with other additions, all demonstrate that the Roman Catholic Church has, as part of its tradition, new "revelations" which differ from the gospel preached by Paul to the Galatians, which therefore cannot be from the Holy Spirit, and are by Paul's own words "accursed." We are warned against adding to the Word of God.
… you shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it. (Deuteronomy 4:2)
Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver. (Proverbs 30:6)
I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)
These additions have been recognized frequently through the centuries by such men as Wycliffe, Luther, and the anabaptists, to name only a few. We will deal with each of these traditions later in this book.
It is very instructive to consider the parallels between the nation of Israel and the Roman Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church can claim to be instituted by God, the nation of Israel can even more emphatically make that claim. God appeared to Abraham in human form (Genesis 17-18). God chose him and gave him promises not only for himself, but also for his descendants. And Israel had God's presence in the tabernacle and the temple, and a special class of priests and divinely chosen prophets. But all that did not guarantee that Israel would remain true to God. As it turned out, Israel repeatedly strayed from God and God had to bring the nation back through discipline. And in the end, after Israel's official rejection of Jesus Christ, God had to abandon Israel (Matthew 21:33-45; 23:37-38).
Whether it be ancient Israel or the Roman Catholic Church, God's judgment of mankind is always in relation to God's Word given to mankind. For example, with Israel, the basis of judgment was always the Law. Right from the establishment of the nation of Israel, even before their entry into the promised land, God spelled out a long list of blessings and curses (Deuteronomy 28-30). The sole factor which determined whether Israel received blessings or curses was their response to God's Word – his commandments given through Moses.
If you continue to heed the voice of the Lord, your God, and are careful to observe all his commandments which I enjoin on you today, the Lord, your God, will raise you high above all the nations of the earth. (Deuteronomy 28:1)
But if you do not hearken to the voice of the Lord, your God, and are not careful to observe all his commandments which I enjoin on you today, all these curses will come upon you and overwhelm you. (Deuteronomy 28:15)
Later, after the nation of Israel had its first king, Saul, the basis of judgment was still the same. God had to reject Saul because he did not heed his word. God said,
I regret having made Saul king, for he has turned from me and has not kept my command. (1 Samuel 15:11)
Later Samuel tells Saul,
Because you have rejected the command of the Lord, he, too, has rejected you as ruler. (1 Samuel 15:23)
Josiah, king of Judah, understood that the nation's fortunes were entirely dependent upon their obedience to God's commands as recorded in the "book of the law," for upon hearing the book read, he said
… the anger of the Lord has been set furiously ablaze against us, because our fathers did not obey the stipulations of this book … (2 Kings 22:13, compare verse 16)
Later, after the fall of both Israel and Judah, Daniel, in captivity in Babylon, gave the same reason for the nation's fate.
… we rebelled against you and paid no heed to your command …. Because all Israel transgressed your law and went astray, not heeding your voice, the sworn malediction, recorded in the law of Moses, the servant of God, was poured out over us for our sins. (Daniel 9:9-11)
And after God graciously allowed many to return to the land of Israel, Ezra and the Levites and all the people again recognized that all judgment (past and future) is based on fidelity to the law, the recorded word of God.
… our kings, our princes, our priests, and our fathers have not kept your law; they paid no attention to your commandments … (Nehemiah 9:34)
The rest of the people … take this oath to follow the law of God which was given through Moses … (Nehemiah 10:29-30)
When the nation of Israel was judged and punished, it was always in relation to the truths revealed through the law of Moses and the messages from God's prophets. In other words, what God had already said was the benchmark. And so it must be today, what God has said in his word, the Bible, is the final court of appeal for any individual and for any church.
Being a divinely established institution and receiving divine guidance does not erase the human element; and the tendency of the human element is always to go astray. This tendency was present in Israel, and it is present also in the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Protestant Church, indeed every human division of the church past and present, and every Christian organization. This fact highlights the desperate need for Christians to regard no human organization as their spiritual authority, but only the inspired Word of God, the Bible, which does not change (Psalm 119:89; Matthew 24:35; 1 Peter 1:25).
The words which Jesus spoke to the Pharisees can be applied to Roman Catholic tradition.
Why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? … You nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: `These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' … They are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit. (Matthew 15:3-14, quoting Isaiah 29:13)
Jesus' disciples reported that the Pharisees were offended when they heard Jesus say this (Matthew 15:12). While it must never be our purpose to offend, when there is a difference between what Jesus teaches and what someone else teaches, we take our stand with Jesus.
While Roman Catholicism says that the Bible is inspired, its understanding of inspiration is nothing like the Bible's own view of inspiration.
Here are two key biblical passages on the subject of inspiration:
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
… we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. … no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. (2 Peter 1:19, 21)
These passages establish the fact that God, through the moving of the Holy Spirit and not through human will, is the source of the inspired scriptures. The word "inspired" in 2 Timothy 3:16 comes from the Greek word θεοπνευστος (theopneustos) which literally means "God-breathed." Paul could hardly have made the point more emphatic that the scriptures are God's expression since they come directly from him, and thus they deserve to be called "God's Word." And notice that inspiration is not merely the act of inspiring the writers. Rather, inspiration extends to the writings ("all scripture is inspired …"). This is the reason that the scriptures are "altogether reliable." For a more complete discussion of the biblical doctrine of inspiration, see the paper "Your Bible," especially the section entitled Inspiration.
Roman Catholicism does affirm the inspiration of the scriptures.
… the books of both the Old and New Testament in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit … they have God as their author …. … since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation. (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, par. 11)
However, what appears at first to be a strong view of scripture is diluted by the addition of tradition and the teaching authority of the church. This dilution results in a very weak view – that scripture is unable to stand by itself.
… sacred tradition, sacred Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others. (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, par. 10)
The Roman Catholic view of scripture is lowered even further by their identification of divine inspiration with sociological inspiration and with artistic inspiration. The Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible (a Roman Catholic study Bible containing the imprimatur of Patrick Cardinal O'Boyle, D.D., Archbishop of Washington) contains an introductory article entitled "How to read your Bible" which explains the inspiration of scripture as follows:
… inspiration is related to a certain sensitivity which exists in a society at a given time. This sensitivity inspires gifted individuals in that society. These individuals in turn heighten that sensitivity in their fellow citizens. For example, we would never have produced our Jazz music, which has captured the whole world, without our Negro communities that are so sensitive to music and rhythm. From such communities we have seen arise such men as Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington and Ray Charles, who in turn have heightened musical sensitivity in this country and all over the world.
More or less by this same process of mutual influence Hebrew literature came into being. We see in the Hebrew people a highly developed sensitivity for God's presence in their lives. From these pius Hebrew communities we see arise prophets, preachers, writers, who offered their (first spoken) reflections on that shared experience of God's presence with His people. In turn these prophets, preachers and writers heightened that religious sensitivity in their people.
There is a similarity between Hebrew literature and all art. Both are inspired. (Saint Joseph Bible, "How to read your Bible," sec. 3, p. 21)
The last paragraph quoted above does go on to say that the inspiration of scripture is more than the inspiration of art because it is "inspired (breathed upon)" by God. But there is a significant difference between Paul's view of inspiration in which the writings are God-breathed, and this view in which the writings are merely breathed upon. In this view the source of scripture was man, and when certain men got an idea right, God "breathed upon" it and thus blessed it.
We find that the Roman Catholic view of inspiration goes even lower when we read in the next section that
everything in the Bible is inspired, but not everything is revealed. (Saint Joseph Bible, "How to read your Bible," sec. 4, p. 21, italics in original)
Their explanation is this: When the biblical writers searched out the mysteries of the human condition and got it right, that was divine revelation. But when they got it wrong, that was inspiration without divine revelation.
Sometimes inspired searching for meaning leads to conclusions which cannot be qualified as revelation from God. Think of the "holy wars" of total destruction, fought by the Hebrews when they invaded Palestine. The search for meaning in those wars centuries later was inspired, but the conclusions which attributed all those atrocities to the command of God were imperfect and provisional. (Saint Joseph Bible, "How to read your Bible," sec. 4, p. 21)
The same weak view of scripture is demonstrated in the following quotation about the early chapters of Genesis. (The book quoted below contains the nihil obstat and imprimatur as well as the disclaimer described above in the Foreword.)
… we are definitely rejecting the position … that the events and even many of the concrete details of the first Genesis narratives correspond in any way to what actually occurred. (Henricus Renckens S.J., Israel's Concept of the Beginning: The Theology of Genesis 1 - 3, Herder and Herder, 1964, page 36)
We have here an obviously mixed message, earlier stating that all of scripture is "without error" (see the quotation above from Vatican II, Die Verbum, par. 11), but here stating that parts of scripture are not inspired; they are imperfect, provisional, and lacking all correspondence with fact.
What a contrast! Paul speaks of all scripture being from God. Peter speaks of its message being altogether reliable since its writers were moved by the Holy Spirit. But the Roman Catholic approved study Bible says that the ideas in scripture came from men and, in spite of inspiration, sometimes they got it wrong.
This low view of scripture shows up throughout this Catholic study Bible. For example, in the same article, section 6.b, early events in the book of Genesis (the creation, Cain and Abel, the flood, and the tower of Babel) are labeled "allegory" and "folktales" and the point is made that these events are not necessarily historical.
Regarding the sources of the record of the flood,
biblical sources go back ultimately to an ancient Mesopotamian story of a great flood, preserved in the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic. (Saint Joseph Bible, footnote to Genesis 6:5 - 8:22)
And it is claimed that the flood record contains an inconsistency regarding the number of animals to take into the ark, Genesis 6:19-20 requiring one pair of each, but 7:2-3 requiring seven pair of each. If you have a low view of scripture, you will not search for a solution to such a supposed contradiction. You will simply account for it by reminding yourself that the source is man and the story may or may not be true. But when you have a high view of scripture, you will look for a solution to any such claimed contradiction, and the solution is not hard to find. Notice in Genesis 7:2 that "clean" animals are being discussed. Some of these animals may have been intended for food for Noah and his family, but they were certainly intended for sacrifice after the flood (Genesis 8:20). Obviously, more of the clean animals were needed in order to preserve some of them.
Regarding the speeches of King Solomon (1 Kings 8:14-21) and of Paul (Acts 17:22-31), the Roman Catholic view is that these speeches were probably fabricated by the writer.
It is not important whether or not King Solomon or Paul delivered these speeches verbatim as related here. It is the inspired author who wants to state something by putting these words into the mouth of a person with authority. This literary form is often used in the Acts of the Apostles. (Saint Joseph Bible, "How to Read your Bible," sec. 6)
Here is another example of this low view of scripture, which questions whether Mary ever spoke the words attributed to her in Luke 1, known as the Magnificat.
Because there is no specific connection of the canticle to the context of Mary's pregnancy and her visit to Elizabeth, the Magnificat (with the possible exception of v 48) may have been a Jewish Christian hymn that Luke found appropriate at this point in his story. (Saint Joseph Bible, footnote to Luke 1:46-55)
In other words, the view of this approved Roman Catholic study Bible is that, even though verse 46 states "And Mary said: …", perhaps Mary did not say!
Similarly, regarding Jesus' statements to his opponents recorded in the gospels,
One may ask: Was Jesus involved in these conversations? Did he answer exactly as related in the Bible? It is not certain. (Saint Joseph Bible, "How to Read your Bible," sec. 13)
It boils down to this. When you have a low view of scripture, you feel free to judge every passage according to your own human judgment rather than letting God's Word judge you. The Roman Catholic Church promotes this low view of the scriptures, and at the same time promotes the infallibility of the Pope when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. Thus Roman Catholicism falsifies its own claim to hold scripture and tradition as equal authorities and, instead, assumes complete authority over the scriptures. Far from joining the Bible with tradition, it replaces the Bible with tradition. And we will see that this same replacement takes place again and again as we look at the topics in many of the following sections.
When Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate of the Old Testament in A.D. 405, he placed the apocryphal books in a separate section so they would not be confused with the inspired canon of scripture. The Roman Catholic Church has long held that the authentic version of the Bible is this Latin Vulgate (translated originally by Jerome but revised several times over the centuries). The use of the Vulgate was mandated at the Council of Trent in 1546 and reiterated by Pope Leo XIII.
The Professor, following the tradition of antiquity, will make use of the Vulgate as his text; for the Council of Trent has decreed that "in public lectures, disputations, preaching and exposition," the Vulgate is the "authentic" version. (Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XIII on the Study of Holy Scripture, quoting the Council of Trent, Session 4, Decret. de edit. et usu. Sacr. Libr.)
Pope Leo XIII goes on to say that the ancient manuscripts and other versions should not be neglected in the interpretation of scripture. Later, Vatican II stipulated that various modern translations be made "from the original texts of the sacred books" (Dei Verbum). Today the Roman Catholic Church approves a number of modern translations which are based primarily on the Greek and Hebrew rather than the Latin, such as the Saint Joseph Bible, the New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha, and the Jerusalem Bible. In fact, in 1965 a new revision of the Vulgate was commissioned by Vatican II and the new version, known as the Nova Vulgata, was completed in 1979.
The apocryphal books, which had been introduced into various Roman Catholic editions of the Bible for centuries, were finally made official at the Council of Florence in 1451 and the Council of Trent in 1563. Currently, Roman Catholic Bibles contain seven additional whole books and several additional portions of books which were not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as canonical before 1451. For further discussion regarding changes in the canon, see the paper "Your Bible," especially the section entitled Canon of the Bible, and apocrypha. Keep in mind that the acceptance of extra books in the biblical canon is the same as adding to the Word of God, against which we are warned in Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:6; and Revelation 22:18-19.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the pope and bishops alone hold the right to interpret the Bible, and that individual believers must accept their interpretation.
The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. (1994 Catechism, par. 100)
The Saint Joseph Edition of The New American Bible, in its introductory article entitled "How to Read Your Bible," section 15, discusses two opposite approaches to interpretation (literalism "according to the letter" at one extreme and ultra-liberalism at the other extreme) and claims that Roman Catholic scholarship is somewhere between these two extremes. The article then says that
You may make your own choice as long as it is not contrary to the teaching authority of the Church. (Saint Joseph Bible, p. [28])
Similarly, Vatican II, after discussing various points of hermeneutics, says
… all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, sec. 12)
In contrast, the Bereans were commended when they went directly to the scriptures to verify what the apostle Paul had said.
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17:11)
Similarly, Jesus expected the five brothers of the dead rich man to be able to find the truths about salvation in "Moses and the prophets," with no mention of any necessity to go to the scribes or Pharisees to receive the correct interpretation of those passages. (Luke 16:27-31).
Most of Paul's epistles were written to the believers in various towns rather than to the church leaders. For example, the book of Romans is Paul's letter "to all the beloved of God in Rome" (Romans 1:7) and the book of 1 Corinthians was written
to the church of God that is in Corinth, to you who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be holy, with all those everywhere who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 1:2)
And Paul told the Corinthian believers, who had plenty of spiritual problems, that they could understand everything he wrote them.
For we write you nothing but what you can read and understand (2 Corinthians 1:13).
Timothy knew the scriptures from the time of his childhood, and from them he learned about salvation.
… from infancy you have known sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 3:15)
And the recipients of John's first epistle were told, "you do not need anyone to teach you" (1 John 2:27).
Scripture does not even hint that there is supposed to be a special group of official interpreters. Instead, everyone is expected to go directly to the scriptures in order to read, understand, and apply them. Although they were from God through inspired writers, they were written in the people's language and intended for the people to read.
In contrast, the Roman Catholic Church usurps your right to interpret scripture claiming that its leaders have the correct interpretation, all the time using as its authentic Bible the Latin Vulgate rather than the Hebrew and Greek, and including books which were added to the canon, as explained in the previous section.
In maintaining its opinion that the Magisterium of the Church is the only reliable interpreter of scripture, the Roman Catholic Church appeals to the following passage:
… there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, … (2 Peter 1:20)
However, the church's interpretation of this passage is clearly in error, which can be seen from the context, and which illustrates the danger of relying on the church (or any outside authority) for your interpretations. This passage, in context, is talking about the source of prophecies at the time they came into being, not about their interpretation after being written. The rest of the sentence, in verse 21, is clearly about the source of prophecy.
for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. (2 Peter 1:21)
The statement in verse 21 is offered by Peter as the reason for his assertion in verse 20 and thus forms a close link with verse 20. Indeed, this is in harmony with Peter's argument beginning back in verse 16, which also focuses on the certainty of the apostles' information about Christ because of its source. For a more complete discussion of 2 Peter 1:20 in its context, see the paper "Immediate Context," especially the section entitled Private Interpretation.
There is another passage which might at first glance be thought to support the notion that the people should rely on an official interpreter. When the Jews returned to Israel after the Babylonian captivity, Ezra instructed a large group of people in the Mosaic Law and explained its meaning.
Ezra read plainly from the book of the law of God, interpreting it so that all could understand what was read. (Nehemiah 8:8)
But this "interpreting" actually means "translating." The law was in Hebrew. Many of the people who returned to Israel had grown up in Babylon and were more comfortable with Aramaic than with Hebrew. (This phenomenon of the loss of Hebrew is illustrated in Nehemiah 13:23-24.) Thus it was necessary for Ezra to translate the scriptures into the language they understood.