Many people try to close down any discussion about the meaning of a Bible passage by saying, “Well, that’s just your interpretation.”  It’s as if ‘interpretation’ of the text is entirely personal and subjective.  You have your interpretation, and I have mine.  End of.

But, often, the meaning (interpretation) of a fact is just as important as the fact itself.

Consider the ‘fact’ of a driver flashing his headlights.  What does that mean?  Well, in the UK it usually means, “You go first”  (and yes, I know that the Highway Code says something different).  But in France it will probably be taken to mean, “Watch out, here I come!”  And the difference in meaning could be a matter of life and death!

And the Bible itself teaches us, not only fact for us to believe, but also meanings for us to understand.  In the Gospels are related many facts about Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension.  In the Epistles those facts are explained.  ‘Jesus died’ – that’s a fact.  ‘Jesus died for our sins’ – that’s interpretation.  And that interpretation, too, may be a matter of life and death!

Some excerpts from an article by Kevin DeYoung:

‘When someone says “That’s just your interpretation,” or when critics slander conservative Christians as believing not just in the infallibility of the Bible but in the infallibility of their interpretation of the Bible, the next step is almost never to strive for a supposedly better interpretation. The critics don’t mean to dive deeper into the text so as to determine what the Bible teaches. The charge of “just your interpretation” has the opposite effect; it short-circuits the interpretative process altogether.’

‘The Westminster Confession of Faith gives a classic definition when it admits that “[a]ll things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all,” yet the things that are necessary for salvation “are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture” that even the unlearned—“in a due use of the ordinary means”—can gain a sufficient understanding of them (WCF 1.7).’

‘The reality is that “interpretations” are what we have in every area of intellectual inquiry. The problem of pervasive interpretation pluralism is not an evangelical problem. It is a human problem. Do we really think historians, economists, sociologists, and scientists don’t disagree on how to interpret matters in their field? And do we think they aren’t confident that their conclusions are much more sure than mere “interpretations”? If we are going to give up on reading texts and reaching firm conclusions, we won’t just marginalize the Bible; we will render the entire exercise of human reason fruitless and irrelevant.’

‘The prophets and the apostles, the early Fathers and the Reformers all assumed that the Bible could be correctly understood and applied. We dare to affirm the same.’

(An extended edition of an article first posted in August 2016)