"No Scripture Is of Private Interpretation"

By Ralph Sinclair

[Page 92]

     Words are like shining frigates, launched only to return encrusted with barnacles. The aging process often enhances rather than devalues. In this instance a "loaded" word has become debased. The church today has allowed a layer of barnacles to impede the good "ship of Zion" and an attack upon the barnacles need not be interpreted as destroying the ship. Within Christendom some words no longer serve as adequate vehicles of communication and should be sunk. Some have been fittingly termed theological swear words, used to rough-house an opponent (e.g., "fundamentalists," "liberal," "sectarian," "hobbyist," etc.) in partisan debate. Other words need to be re-defined and within the church a great host of scholars have done this for each generation.

     The burden of allowing the text of the Bible to be put into understandable words has always met with opposition. Witness the reluctance of the people to

[Page 93]

accept the Authorized (King James) Version, and in our day the Revised Standard Version. Not since Alexander Campbell has the Church of Christ been a vital part of translation efforts. Tyndale's complaint of "ecclesiastical words" (words designed for priestcraft) needs voicing again, for the Royal Priesthood (of all believers) has allowed scattered texts and words from a single Bible version to stifle free thought. We may well ask ourselves how valid a "scriptural" position be, if it has to be bolstered by a single translation. There is, however, the inherent danger of word study, which tends to become legalistic, stifling the Spirit himself. We need ever to remember, "The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life," or, "Knowledge breeds conceit."

     Among the "twisted scriptures" quoted so often (from the King James Version) by those who should really know better, is 2 Peter 1:20, "No prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation." This text used to clinch so many doctrinal sermons and tracts cuts two ways. For, as it stands, it would damn the very one using it to establish his own interpretation. He that uses it cannot understand that his sermon or tract is in reality his (or another's) interpretation.

     Further, it the verse "means what it says," the King James Version (convicted of over 20,000 errors, many of them serious) itself, which bears some private interpretations of the King, damns itself. What this text really means may be safely established from the context of the King James Version alone. Such context shows that Peter is not talking about how scripture is interpreted or read, but rather how the Old Testament prophets received the message and how they spoke. Recourse to other translations shows this to be the writer's meaning.

     ". . . every prophecy of scripture does not originate from any private explanation (held by the writer), for not by the desire of man did prophecy come aforetime, but being carried along by the Holy Spirit, men spoke words from God who is the ultimate source (of what they spoke)" (Wuest).

     As Wuest points out in his introduction to 2 Peter, Peter uses the Greek word analusis, unloosing; rather than hermenia, interpretation.

     We would do well to ponder today what the apostle was also saying in thee same context (2 Peter 2) of this passage, for if our interpretation that ours is the only interpretation, be right, that must place all others who differ with us as the false teachers of this second chapter. Thus with one swift verse we disfranchise many religious folk, and even place devout Baptists (for example) among these greedy, Christ-denying, Antinomian, false teachers. Had we used the words in the King James Version (covetous, pernicious, etc.) we might by priestcraft throw this cloak over devout Christians in other religious groups, and even over those within our own restoration movement who have varying views on instrumental music, Herald of Truth, the millennium, etc.

     The use of a clearer version and meaningful words makes it more difficult to stigmatize others. The Baptist folk whom I know personally are neither immoral nor greedy. No doubt some Baptist folk are greedy and immoral. Among members of the Church of Christ some who "doctrinally" are "sound" have been shown to be both greedy and immoral.

     It is readily apparent that the apostle is referring, in chapter two, directly to the Antinomians who wanted to be Christian but live like pagans. Their concept of sin was false. Devout Christians caught up in our modern denominational maze cannot by any clever stroke be lumped with these second century Antinomians.

     It is time now for us to mature in our knowledge and use of the scriptures. Church of Christ folk are no longer intimidated by those labeling each new translation as liberal, unsafe, etc. They are becoming increasingly free from religious arguments which depend upon a single version to be "established." No longer will it be necessary, as one preacher friend did, to cover a Revised Standard Version in black to smuggle it into, or out of, the pulpit.

[Page 94]

     A breath of fresh air (the Spirit of God Himself) is once again sweeping the Church of Christ. Perhaps again the test of a Christian will not be his interpretation of controversial passages, but his interpretation of the controversy of life itself, that is, that Jesus Christ came in human form. "For many imposters have gone out into the world, men who do not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in human form. That is the mark of an imposter. . . " (2 John 7).

     (Edtior's Note: Ralph M. Sinclair is a State Biologist, and member of the Otter Creek Church of Christ, near his home at 4303 Dale Avenue, Nashville, Tennessee 37204).