Why we should kill some Biblical interpretations

We are often told that there are many interpretations of the Bible. This may be by an atheist attempting to pin some heinous crime on Christianity, when in reality the perpetrators weren't even Christian. It may be by a pseudo-Christian attempting to validate his religion. It may even be a faithful Christian attempting to defend one doctrine over another. But frankly, as a species, we're supposed to be above such folly!

Consider the following:

"I didn't say we should kill him!"

"I didn't say we should kill him!"

"I didn't say we should kill him!"

"I didn't say we should kill him!"

"I didn't say we should kill him!"

"I didn't say we should kill him!"

"I didn't say we should kill him!"

Here, we see 7 identical sentences with many radically different interpretations. Each highlighted word changes the context instantly. Thus, presented with this sentence alone, there are a wide range of plausible interpretations. However, a little extra context shrinks the number of interpretations.

Now, right off the bat, the interpretations are already eliminated. It is quite obvious that the phrase "I didn't say we should kill him" is not telling us how many eggs you need to break in order to make the perfect cake. In the same way, we can automatically rule out a large number of interpretations of Scripture simply by looking at the verse in question. Not that it is ever wise to look at one Bible verse on its own, but this can be done.

But for now, let's use our example phrase, and add two sentences to it:

"No, it wasn't me! I didn't say we should kill him!"

"You shot the wrong guy! I didn't say we should kill him!"

By adding these two simple sentences, we have added clarity. Both sentences indicate which word should be emphasised, and therefore which interpretations are most likely, as well as which interpretations just aren't feasible.

The first qualifier "No, it wasn't me" strongly suggests "I" should be highlighted. Highlighting the I suggests that someone said we should kill him, but it is not whoever "I" is. By contrast, the second qualifier "you shot the wrong guy" suggests whoever "I" is definitely said we should kill somebody. However, "him", who is likely now dead, was not the intended target. By emphasising either end of the sentence, we go from denial of attribution to acceptance.

Of course, interpretations may still vary wildly. Is the first sentence being uttered in a courtroom, for example? So far, nothing clarifies this.

So far.

Now, I can't imagine you have any more desire to read a short story than I have to write one, and so I will, at least for this article, refrain from doing so. Suffice to say for now, just as adding one sentence helps us discover the correct interpretation, and eliminate others, adding more information eliminates still more.

The Bible is a very large book. In fact, it is a collection of 66 divinely inspired, interconnected books, each one giving context to the others. It is, therefore, illogical to say there are many interpretations of the Bible. It is even more illogical to say they are all valid, and positively asinine to suggest they are all correct.

In truth, the situation we will unfortunately be stuck with until Christ returns is that, first of all, the Bible covers a multitude of topics. The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, is a sub-topic within the category of Monotheism, which is a theme in the Bible, but not the theme of the Bible. Second, human beings are thrice fallible. We are fallible in faith, knowledge, and integrity.

Naturally, this fallibility leads to differentiation. It leads to differentiation with each other because we are all fallible in different areas, and it leads to differentiation with the Bible because the Bible is infallible. Each element of fallibility will affect how one interprets the Bible, regardless of how it is intended to be interpreted.

The first element, knowledge, affects one's interpretations because it will alter what, exactly, one interprets. If you don't know what the Bible says, how will you know what it means? You could be the most faithful Bible believer who ever walked the Earth, if you don't know what's in it, you can't interpret it.

This is a common shortcoming, especially in the modern Church. Despite having such easy access to Scripture, and even a wealth of study tools, the vast majority of Christians do not study Scripture diligently enough to actually know what it says. Of course, in some cases, this may be because they are new to the faith. If you've only been a Christian for a month, you can hardly be blamed for not reading the book that takes some Christians a whole year. But often, it is due to sheer laziness, or even idolatry. Whatever the cause of this absence of knowledge, it's no surprise that there are so many different interpretations of Scripture when there are so many Christians who don't, or even won't read it.

Of course, even those who have read it do not always believe it. You only need to look at the aforementioned atheists to know that. Some atheists have read the entire Bible, even many times, but because they do not believe the Bible, they interpret it quite differently. I even met one atheist who rejected the very idea that Scripture interprets Scripture, simply because, in his eyes, it was never supposed to. How could Moses know what Daniel would write hundreds of years later? His faith affected his interpretation.

But even if one believes the words they are reading, they may be faithful to something else entirely, which will affect how they see the text. If you're a Calvinist, for example, you may have a certain understanding of the word "predestined", and so when you come across this word in Scripture, you will inevitably see Calvinism in Scripture, where other faithful Christians (myself included) do not.

But even if you know what the Bible teaches, and believe what it says, you may not have the integrity to follow through. This is, by far, the most common, and damaging shortcoming, as it actually causes us to lie. The other two shortcomings make it harder to eliminate wrong interpretations, but a lack of integrity causes us to stick to them even once they have been eliminated.

All of these shortcomings lead to different interpretations, but do not actually validate them. If a man does not know what the Bible teaches, what qualifies him to tell you his interpretation is correct? If a man knows what the Bible teaches, but does not believe it, will that not skew his understanding? And if a man knows what the Bible teaches, and believes it is true, but is willing to lie about it, why would we trust him any more than we trust the devil himself?

Ultimately, the logical thing to do here is admit that there is really only one interpretation of any given portion of Scripture. Furthermore, it may be found with diligent and faithful study, and woe betide the fool who continues to kick against it regardless. Variation in Christianity is due entirely to the frailty of man, and not to some ambiguity in the word of God.