“The Dynamic Action of Reading/Interpreting Texts—Understanding the (Rather Complicated) Process”

James W. Voelz

June 9, 2026

1. Introduction: Basics of Interpretation

   
   

In this opening lecture, we are going to be focusing on the process of textual interpretation, including all of the complex factors that it entails.  But, let’s start with some basics, some very foundational factors that are crucial to a basic understanding of a text—any text—not just a Biblical text, though what I am going to say characterizes Biblical texts, as well.  First is the physical text itself—a page made of papyrus, animal skin, or paper, that contain marks that convey meaning (technically, they can be called “signifiers,” for they sign meaning), generally in the form of words.  And decisions generally arise regarding what text should be followed, for there are always competing readings, especially before the rise of the printing press, with no two manuscripts of a given work ever exactly alike.

Second is the matter of the meaning of those words.  As you know, there are discussions about word meanings with all literature, but this is immediately more complex than it may seem, and that in two ways.  First, there is the question of how meaning is to be determined.  Sometimes it is simple; you can use a dictionary (especially with technical vocables like “centurion”), but often the dictionary offers multiple meanings (e.g., the word λόγος in John 1:1, usually translated “word,” can [also] mean “thought,” “reason,” “argument,” and more), and then what do you do?  Go with an “original” meaning, or the most common meaning, or the meaning that most easily fits the context?  Second, there is the matter of the relationship between/among meanings, what is often called “syntax.”  In the following two sentences: “Jim struck Andy” and “Andy struck Jim,” the meaning of each word is identical, but the overall meaning of each sentence is quite different, because a different relationship among the meanings of each word/each component part obtains.  (This is the major reason “word studies” take you only so far.)

Third is the matter of referent.  What or whom is someone talking about?  The Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:34 gives us an excellent example, when he asks Philipp concerning the description of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53, “About whom is the prophet saying this [Is. 53:7-8], about himself or about some other person?” Note that he did not ask, “What is the prophet saying about the Servant?”  The issue here is referent, not meaning.  (In a few moments we will discuss the curtain of the temple torn at Jesus’s death, concerning which there is also a question of referent.)

Finally, there is the matter of the content of the text and its interpretation.  In addition to interpreting the words of a text for meaning, we also interpret for meaning the actions described in a narrative or an account.  Otherwise expressed, the language of a text depicts actions and events, and, therefore, when we interpret a section of a text (also of Scripture), it is possible, indeed, natural, to ask about the meaning of the events depicted.  I have called this reading on Level 2.  Reading on Level 1 comprises reading for meaning the marks on the page (as signifiers); reading on Level 2 comprises reading for meaning (as signifiers) the actions/situations/ideas, etc. that are depicted or evoked in your mind by activating the marks on the page (remember the saying “Actions speak louder than words?).  A clear example of what I am saying here is revealed by considering Mark 6:48.  In this verse we encounter the following Greek marks on the page: ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτοὺς περιπατῶν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης.  When activated as language, they convey/depict Jesus walking on the Sea of Galilee (the words “mean,” literally, “he comes to them walking upon the sea”) in so many words.  That is Level 1.  But now we ask, “What does it mean that Jesus was walking on the sea?  What is the meaning of that event?”  Now we are no longer interpreting the marks/words on the page; rather, we are interpreting the picture that arises in your mind, the depiction evoked when you encounter and interpret the marks/words on the page.  That is interpreting on Level 2.  That concerns textual content.

These, then, are the basic elements for textual interpretation: the text itself, the meanings of words (and larger units), referents, and content with its meaning.  Let us now proceed to the process of interpretation.

2. Textual Interpretation Generally Considered

Having reviewed a number of basic elements that are involved in the interpretation of texts, including biblical texts, we can now explore what actually happens when readers/hearers interpret a text, including a text of Scripture. By understanding the details of the process of interpretation, we will come to understand several things related to the difficulty of textual interpretation, including why two reasonable people can interpret the same text in different—sometimes radically different—ways.

We begin by asking a fundamental question: What is a good analogy or model for what goes on when an interpreter reads and understands a text? Most people think that it is something like dumping marbles out of a jar or coins out of a purse. In such an understanding, interpretation is basically emptying a text of what it contains, as one would empty a container of its contents. But we should be suspicious of this analogy—the container model—for at least two reasons. First, as interpreters grow in knowledge of the contents of a writing—especially a writing such as Scripture—and of the world of which it is a part (and knowledge of the languages in which it is written), their understanding of what a writing is saying and conveying will change and grow. Second is the matter of competing interpretations. Why is it that two interpreters, both educated in matters related to the same text (like Scripture), can produce radically different, even contradictory, interpretations of that same text? (For example, why are Jesus’s words τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου/touto estin to soma mou in the words of institution of the Lord’s Supper understood to mean “This is my body” by some readers of Matthew 26:26, while others understand them to mean “This represents my body”?)

More adequate is a dynamic analogy or model. When interpreters read a text, they encounter the features of that text, and, as that happens, meaning arises. In other words, the meaning of a text emerges as an interpreter interacts with the features of that text. The meaning of the text does not leap off the page apart from a reader, neither does the meaning appear without the personal involvement of such a reader.  Apart from a reader, a text is silent.

But note what is involved with the interaction that I have described. I understand the features of a text against the background of, or within the context of, my own abilities, understandings, beliefs, and attitudes as an interpreter. In other words, the way I understand a text will have a real dependence upon my abilities with the language of the text, upon my knowledge of the world of the text, upon my knowledge of the contents of other documents related to the text, and so on.  Whenever reading takes place—including the reading of a given text of Scripture—the reader’s abilities, understandings, beliefs, and attitudes affect what the text is understood to say; from the likelihood of variant readings to the meanings of words and sentences, to issues of referent, and to the nature of the activities depicted or of the truths asserted.

The characteristics of my understandings, beliefs, etc., then, are similar in nature to the characteristics of the understandings, beliefs, etc., that are evidenced in a text. For example, I have beliefs about Jesus, just as each of the Gospels has a view of, or beliefs about, Jesus, who is the chief person in the narrative of each Gospel. Thus, we can describe the process of interpretation as the interaction between two “texts”: the writing that I am interpreting as the “target text” or “first text,” and myself as a sort of “personal text” or the “second text.” This means that the interpretation of any particular text actually involves two texts, because it is in relationship to the personal, second text of the interpreter that the first or target text is interpreted. This fact is the genesis of the name of our conference.

Examples of the dynamic, two-text phenomenon that I have been describing abound in all literature. Here are representative basic examples from the New and Old Testaments.

1. Which textual reading is to be preferred in a given text or passage?  Especially in older writings that are manuscripts, there are myriad variations in the wording compared to other versions/manuscripts.  An excellent example occurs in Luke’s version of the Lord’s Prayer in chapter 11, verse 2.  For what Jesus says his disciples should pray, the KJV, following manuscripts available in the 16^th and early 17^th centuries AD, reads: “Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed by thy name.  Thy kingdom come.  Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.”  By contrast, the ESV, which is typical of more recent translations, following other, more recently available manuscripts, reads simply: “Father, hallowed be your name.  Your kingdom come.”  Which should be preferred?  Some interpreters believe that the reading used most extensively throughout history is to be adopted, others that the reading most widely attested geographically is to be preferred, others that the oldest reading is best, still others that the most difficult reading is to be privileged.  A decision on which theory is best for textual criticism, as it is called, does not lie within the text being interpreted but with the one who is interpreting the text.

   
   

2. How does one determine the meaning of words in a text?  Contemporary linguistics argues that the meaning suggested by a word’s context is determinative. Others, however, take a more traditional approach and think that etymology is key; some sort of original or “basic” meaning should be contained in each usage.  This difference means that language theory is reflected in the most basic interpretations.  We might also note that arguments about meaning of words in a text can be impacted by theology. Thus, the word for brother, ἀδελφός/adelphos, in Mark 6:3 is normally seen as meaning a blood brother, but Roman Catholic interpreters who believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary often contend that “half-brother” is the meaning to be preferred.  In cases such as this, the belief system of the interpreter seems to come strongly into play.

   
   

3. The understanding of actions in a narrative may be in dispute, and that in a complex way. In the initial, introductory section of this paper, we discussed the problem of referent, using the clear example of the question of the Ethiopian eunuch.  Here let us consider the referent of the curtain of the temple torn at Jesus’s death as described in Matthew 27:51, which says: “And behold the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.” And, let us also consider the important question of what that tearing means.

   
   

The Jewish historian Josephus, who lived at the time of our Lord, tells us that the outer curtain of Herod’s temple, which separated the Holy Place from the people in general, had a very special embroidery. In his words:

[The temple] had golden doors 55 cubits in height and 16 in breadth. Before these was an equal-length curtain, a Babylonian veil/tapestry, embroidered out of blue and linen, and both scarlet and purple, worked wondrously and having the blending of materials that was scientifically considered, but, as it were, an image [εἰκόνα/eikona] of “the whole.” For it seemed to present a riddle of fire by scarlet, of the earth by linen, of the air by blue, and of the sea by purple. . . . And the curtain/tapestry was inscribed with all of the heavenly spectacle, except the zodiac.

Given this, we may say that when the temple curtain splits in two on Good Friday—if it is the outer curtain—the heavens themselves are torn asunder, as it were, as the astronomical figures are ripped apart from one another.

Furthermore, and continuing with this line of thought, the meaning of this “heavens-rending” can be inferred from a description of activity in a text in the prophet Isaiah, which people in the first century AD familiar with the OT/Jewish Scriptures would know: Isaiah 64:1 (MT 63:19).  In this text, God is appealed to as one who can split the heavens and come to be with his people. As the ESV renders it: “Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down . . .”  With this parallel description, then, the following interpretation of Matthew 27:51a can be offered: The tearing of the curtain of the temple from top to bottom “tells us/means” that Yahweh, the Lord God of Israel, has come (down) mightily for the salvation of his people at our Lord’s crucifixion. (This is interpreting on Level 2, as we have described it.)

Most interpreters, however, do not embrace such an interpretation.  Either they ignore such an OT connection or they dismiss it as inconsequential—even if they believe that the outer curtain is in focus—with many relating the curtain rending to Jesus’s description in Matthew 24:2 (“Truly I say to you, a stone here shall surely not be left upon a stone that will not be thrown down”) and then “reading” the rending of the curtain as the beginning of this destruction, or as “saying” that judgment on the temple has now begun.   But, especially if they think that the referent of the curtain is the inner curtain separating the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies, not the outer curtain, interpreters believe that the rending means something such as “The way has now been opened for direct access to God,” or “The barrier between Jew and Gentile has been removed through the death of Jesus.  And, please note—there is no overt statement detailing the referent of the temple curtain, and no overt statement connecting the tearing of the temple curtain to either the Isaiah 64 or Matthew 24 passages, or to any other Biblical passage.  Any and all connections are drawn by and in the mind of the interpreter.

This brief analysis illuminates several things. First, it reveals why an individual’s view/understanding of a text changes over time. The text does not change; the reader/interpreter changes. For example, in the tearing of the temple curtain, an interpreter may not be aware of the range of interpretations possible. When Isaiah 64 is embraced as relevant for understanding the tearing, the interpretation of Matthew 27:51 may be changed. Second, this analysis explains why there are different interpretations of the same text among interpreters, including interpreters of good will or interpreters of the same church affiliation, denomination, or tradition. What we just said three sentences above is relevant here. Some interpreters may well not be aware of the possible parallel to Israel 64:1 when seeking to understand the meaning of the tearing of the temple curtain. In addition, other interpreters may know the parallel and reject it, and so on.

Now, given what we have argued in this section, the following questions arise:

• Is there any control over such an interactive procedure of textual interpretation?

• Indeed, can an interpreter simply make the text say what he wants it to say?

• Is the text something as flexible as a waxen nose, to be bent this way and that by the interpreter?

Several things argue against such relativistic understandings. First, when we interpret any text—including a text of Scripture—we assume that an author stands behind that text, an author who wishes to communicate to a reader/hearer.  Otherwise expressed, a given text is not a series of ink drippings scattered upon a page. The marks on the page convey coherent thoughts, or, we may say, when the marks on a page are read for meaning, coherent thoughts arise, and, indeed, often thoughts that are not the reader’s own.  And because this is so, the meaning of a text is not simply “manufactured” or “invented” from things that are not there.  For this reason, the first/target text retains its own integrity and is not simply overpowered by the second/personal text of the interpreter.

Second, when we assume a sensible and coherent author, we assume that the author wants his communication to “get through” to the recipient of his work, the reader or the hearer. And if we do make this assumption, then we also assume that an author writes with a reader in mind, that an author is conscious of an audience or recipients. If this is correct—and we know that it is, not as interpreters of texts, but as producers of texts ourselves—then it means that to read a document or text profitably, an interpreter must seek to adopt the role of the reader/hearer anticipated by the author of the text. This role encompasses competencies, understandings, beliefs, and attitudes. An effective interpreter of a text, then, is the one who reads or hears that text as the author wishes it to be read/heard, who reads/hears according to the author’s expectations.^DD1 This is true of any author and any text—including the authors of the Biblical texts.  As far as the Biblical readers/hearers are concerned, then, they include competencies in the area of languages,^DD2 understandings of the biblical background and of the historical context of its writings, beliefs concerning the action of God in our world, especially with regard to Jesus and his ministry and mission, and attitudes, with regard to the value of biblical texts. Thus, readers of the Scriptures are expected to have these abilities and orientations, and to the extent that they do, they are (more or less) competent readers of biblical texts.

Note what this analysis means. It means that there is no objective interpretation of any text.  (We are not saying that there are no objective features and no objective content to texts.)  On the one hand, objective interpretation is not possible, because of the very nature of the process of reading and interpreting texts, as we have presented it. On the other hand, and relatedly, objective interpretation of texts is not desirable, as something for which one should strive. Again, given the way texts are formulated by authors, and given that an author writes with expectations of readers/hearers, there is no way one should attempt to rid oneself of all understandings, beliefs, and attitudes (also competencies) before reading a text. On the contrary, one should and must adopt the right understandings, beliefs, and attitudes (also competencies), ones that align with authorial expectations, and this adoption allows the details and features of the text, including its meaning and its content, to emerge for the interpreter. The earliest Christians (first and second centuries, AD) operated with exactly this understanding, and so should we.  Which brings us now to the second major section of this paper, concerning specifically Christian viewpoints and concerns in textual interpretation.

3. Textual Interpretation within a Specifically Biblical/Christian Context

As we considered the process of interpretation in prior section, we described a dynamic interaction between interpreter and text, between what an interpreter understands and the beliefs one operates with, on the one hand, and the features of that text, on the other. So, just what did the earliest Christians think that an interpreter of the sacred Scriptures specifically had to adopt in terms of right understandings, beliefs, and so on, to be the “implied reader” of those sacred texts?

In the view of the Early Church, the proper interpreter of Scripture—the one who interprets in line with the expectations of the biblical authors—is the person who embraces the Faith taught by the apostles.  But just what is that Faith? It is a complex question, but the basic answer found in the earliest Church Fathers is this: the proper interpreter of Scripture is the one who operates according to the very basics of the Christian faith handed down by the apostles as expressed in the so-called Rule of Faith (regula fidei) that was present everywhere throughout Christendom in closely similar forms that were congruent with one another. These Rules of Faith were precursors to the basic baptismal creeds, such as the Apostles Creed. The following is a Rule of Faith given by Irenaeus:

For the Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples, this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of heaven, and the earth, and the seas and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from the virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from the heavens in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise up all flesh of all humanity, to gather all things in one, and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment toward all.

A Rule of Faith such as this was seen as completely congruent with the Scriptures. This is so, because both the Rule of Faith and the Scriptures were understood to be fully apostolic—so much so that Irenaeus said that if the apostles had not handed down to us any writings we would have been able to follow “the rule of faith which they delivered to the leaders of the Church.” We may say, then, that interpreters who have the understandings, beliefs, and attitudes congruent with the basic truths taught by the apostles and proclaimed everywhere by the early church in its earliest confessional statements—its Rule of Faith—are the interpreters who have the right orientation toward interpreting the books of Scripture. This is so, because both the Rule of Faith and Scripture are, as it were, cut from the same apostolic cloth.

Interpreting the Scriptures within the framework of the basic teachings of the Rule of Faith does not solve all interpretive issues (for instance, they do not discuss how the Office of the Ministry relates to the priesthood of all believers), but the Rule of Faith does give an important and fundamental orientation to the major truths to be found in Scripture (for example, that our Lord was born of a virgin, that he actually rose from the dead, that he ascended bodily into heaven, that he will be judge of all, and so on). What we are saying here is different from the Roman Catholic understanding of and teaching about its Tradition.

But isn’t there more to all of this in the interpretation of the sacred Scriptures specifically? What about personal faith, and what about the Holy Spirit in the process? Isn’t faith, and isn’t the Holy Spirit, critical to the interpretation of the sacred Scriptures as God’s Word? Doesn’t one have to believe—not only operate with an intellectual set of beliefs—to interpret the Scriptures properly?

Earlier, we focused upon “beliefs” plural, that is, doctrinal understandings. In this section, we will focus upon subjective belief, that is, believing—actually having faith and personally embracing what is said/taught in the Scriptures and in Jesus Christ. What role does such faith—such believing—play in the interpretation of the Scriptures? And what role does the Holy Spirit, who works such faith, play in this interpretation?

First, it is clear from the writings of St. Paul that he as the author “anticipates” that the readers of his letters are not unbelievers. In Romans 1:7, Paul characterizes his addressees as “called saints.” A few words later, he addresses his readers using the phrase “from God our Father and [our] Lord, Jesus Christ.” In Romans 8:15b–16 he asserts: “but you have received the Spirit of sonship, in which we cry, ‘Abba, Father.’ The same Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.” In all of these cases, believers are implied, which means that the readers “anticipated” by a biblical author such as St. Paul will personally embrace the faith. And this means that such persons—Christians—are truly able to allow the details and features of the text, including its meaning and its content, to emerge.

But what part does faith, as well as the Holy Spirit who works such faith, actively play in the actual interpretation of the Scriptures? Here we must be somewhat careful. The following understanding is suggested:

1. The Holy Spirit inspired the sacred authors, who speak his words to God’s people. See 1 Corinthians 2:12–13: “And we did not get the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, in order that we might know the things that have been granted to us by God. Which things also we speak publicly (λαλοῦμεν/laloumen), not by means of words taught by human wisdom, but by [words] taught by the Spirit.

   
   

2. That message is received/understood/believed, but not by an interpreter receiving leaps of competencies and understandings as a result of his Spirit-wrought faith or a special presence of the Spirit. In other words, the Spirit and/or the faith he works does not give the believing Christian knowledge of the biblical languages, knowledge of the Ancient Near East or Greco-Roman worlds, knowledge of the entire content of the Scriptures, and so on.

   
   

3. Rather, such faith gives utter openness to and ready acceptance of what is encountered in the features of the biblical text, including both its language and its content.

   
   

4. Therefore, such faith helps to enable the interpreter to adopt fully the role of the reader “anticipated by the author,” which means that only a Christian can fully allow the details and meaning of a biblical text (including its language and content) to emerge—only a Christian can read the Scriptures “for all they’re worth.”^DD3

   
   

5. But a believing Christian as such is not fully and automatically the reader “anticipated by the author,” since faith and the Holy Spirit do not make up for lack of knowledge, competencies, and so on. Believing does not give one full and complete insights into the meaning of texts, otherwise all good Christians would be excellent interpreters of Scripture.

A diagram is useful here. It depicts the degree of insight into the meaning of a biblical text that is possible for believers and unbelievers, as they conform more or less to the reader anticipated by the sacred author.

As far as believers are concerned, they can never have virtually no conformity to the reader anticipated by the author of a scriptural text (hence the upper line does not extend all the way to the left). As believers, they know Christ and will, therefore, have made some portion of the Scriptures and of the Christian faith their own. Those believers who are without knowledge of relevant languages, history, and the whole of Scripture, as well as of the various details (doctrines) of the Christian faith, however, will find their ability to interpret scriptural texts to be impaired, and they will fall in the center or (even) somewhat to the left on the upper line above. By contrast, those believers with such knowledge, in addition to their faith in the words and work of our Lord will fall far to the right on the upper line above; indeed, the best of such interpreters may approach full conformity to the reader anticipated by the scriptural author.

As far as unbelievers are concerned, some might have no knowledge of the Scriptures and no faith in Christ at all, so their position on the diagram is as far as possible to the left—virtually no conformity. However, those unbelievers with linguistic, historical, and literary competence and abilities relative to the books of Scripture will be able to interpret the biblical texts to a significant degree, because they have real—though never full—conformity to many of the features of the readers anticipated by the authors of those texts. They may even fall all the way to the right on the lower line of the diagram above, but they will never be able to occupy a position of virtually full conformity, because they do not have personal faith. For this reason, their (lower) line stops before the right-hand limit.

Therefore, strong believers may not be excellent interpreters of difficult biblical texts, while unbelievers with strong competencies and understandings relative to the OT and NT texts and their contexts may offer insightful interpretations of such passages. Only a believer, one with personal faith in our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, can interpret a biblical text “for all it is worth,” because only such a person can approach full conformity to the reader anticipated by the author of that text.

CONCLUSION

In this essay, we have moved from an introduction to the very basic elements of a text, items that are the foundation for textual interpretation, to the dynamic process that comprises the reading/interpreting experience, including the “two-text” nature of the process, to a discussion of the problem of relativism in textual meaning and the very real necessity of the concept of authorial intent.  This first main section, which focused on the interpretation of any written documents, concluded with a discussion of objectivity, including its impossibility and its undesirability, and a consideration of what understanding of texts and interpretation should take its place.

In the second major section, we discussed what all of this might mean for specifically Christian interpretation of the sacred Scriptures.  Here we reviewed the Early Church’s view of the necessity of the regula fidei/Rule of Faith for adequate Scriptural interpretation, and we explored the role of personal faith and the work of the Holy Spirit in the interpretive enterprise.

As the hearer should have been able to conclude, in line with the announced title of this presentation, textual interpretation is, indeed, a “rather complicated process.”

---

Deeper Dives

DD1: This diagram is often used in discussions of the relationships between writer and reader.

Here, the thin, inner line represents a physical text, pages and the marks upon them. The actual, historical author is #1, and the actual readers are #5. Both are in the real, historical world outside the text (the thick, outer line). The action that the readers perceive when reading the physical text is represented by the “cloud” that is #3. (The cloud is not part of the physical text as such, and has an amorphous shape because, with every reading, the story changes a little [or a lot]). Number 4 is the so-called implied reader of the text, the reader that the author has in mind as the text is written. The contours of this reader in terms of competencies, understandings, beliefs, and attitudes are implied by—can be deduced from—what a real reader (#5) encounters in the text. For example, if the text is written in Greek, the implied reader can be understood to know the Greek language, and when Paul writes in Ephesians 1:3 of “our Lord Jesus Christ,” it can be inferred that the implied readers are believers. And this idea of the person “implied” also pertains to number 2 on the diagram, the “implied author.” Again, the contours of this author are “implied,” because his competencies, understandings, beliefs, and attitudes can be deduced from what a real reader (#5) encounters in the text. Thus, to continue the example of the implied reader, above, the implied author can be assumed to be a Christian, be facile with the Greek language, be conversant with the OT, and so on.

This diagram illustrates that a text is a document composed by an author for the purpose of communication with readers who are assumed to be in a position to receive that communication. 

DD2: Many have asked what the value is of reading an ancient text like the Bible in the original languages. Reading the text of the NT in Greek (or the OT in Hebrew) as opposed to reading it in a translation is like the difference between watching an NFL game on a 12-inch black and white TV and being at the game. It’s not a completely different game in the two cases. If the Packers beat the Bears when you are at the game, they also win if you are watching on TV. So, what is the difference? When you are in the stadium, you get to see the game in greater breadth and depth and get to appreciate the nuances, including all that goes into a successful play. At the game, you may see the wide receivers blocking downfield to allow the running back to get all the way to the end zone, or you may notice how deep the safeties are positioned before the start of a play, which reveals why the quarterback didn’t throw the ball long.

This football analogy helps us to avoid two extremes with regard to language and textual interpretation: either saying that knowing the original language of a text (as opposed to reading in translation) actually makes no difference or asserting that unless you know the original language(s) you really cannot understand an ancient text such as the books of Scripture at all.

DD3: Can an unbeliever interpret our Lord’s words “This is my body” in Matthew 26: 26, said during the institution of the Last Supper, as asserting Jesus’s real presence in the Sacrament of the Altar in the classic Lutheran sense, that those who eat the bread at the Lord’s Supper receive the true body of Christ in their mouths? In our view, the answer is, “No.” The verb “is” does, in certain contexts, convey the meaning “represents”; see Luke 8:11, in which our Lord says in his explanation of the parable of the sower: “The seed is [ἐστίν /estin] the Word of God.” Therefore, the unbeliever will naturally gravitate toward such a representational understanding and employ a passage such as Luke 8:11 as the touchstone for understanding “is” in Matthew 26:26.

---

ENDNOTES

1. Much of what follows is a reworking and augmenting of material in James W. Voelz, Principles of Biblical Interpretation for Everyone, St. Louis, MO: Concordia Seminary Press, 2023, especially chapters 8 and 9.

2. There are exceptions, such as hieroglyphics.

3. For example, Job 9:8 describes Yahweh, the Lord God of Israel, as the one “who alone stretched out the heavens and trampled the waves of the sea (ESV).  Jesus’s walking on the water has a genuine parallel to this action, which suggests the interpretation that our Lord is, himself, Yahweh, who can, and does do, such powerful things.

4. See James W. Voelz, Mark 1:1–8:26, St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 2013, 382.

5. See the footnote to Mk 6:3 in the Roman Catholic New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition (New York: Catholic Book Publishing, 1970, 1986, 1991).

6. A cubit is about 18 inches therefore the doors were some 82 feet high and 24 feet wide.

7. The Greek word is καταπέτασμα, which is the word used in the Greek of Mt 27:51.

8. By speaking of riddle, Josephus apparently seeks to convey that the meaning of the tapestry is not obvious but studied and deliberate, hence, “scientifically considered.”

9. Adela Yarbrough Collins has detected more than thirty different interpretations of the rending of the curtain of the temple (Mark, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007, 759-64, including notes).

10. Similar is the matter of seeing connections between stars to form constellations in the night sky. For example, it is only the viewer who “sees” the twin Roman gods Castor and Pollux in the stars of the zodiac constellation Gemini.

11. The text could change if new manuscript evidence happened to be discovered, but this is extremely rare. Note, though, that the discovery of the OT Hebrew manuscripts at Qumran did have such an impact.

12. This is not the view of radical Postmodernism, which will be discussed in my second conference presentation.

13. Again, to use the example of stars and constellations, when we see constellations in the night sky, we do not say that we are creating both the patterns and the stars themselves. We perceive lights that are outside ourselves in the heavens, and then we draw connections between/among them, to produce patterns that we call constellations.

14. For example, an interpreter who comes to the Gospel according to Mark with the understanding/belief that Jesus was a fraud and con man will have that understanding severely challenged by the understanding of Jesus presented by Mark. And this challenge may well cause the understanding of the interpreter (the personal/second text) to be modified, as interpretation proceeds.

15. Note the plural “beliefs.” With the plural noun we focus upon what is believed in the sense of doctrines, not upon subjective, indeed, saving faith.

16. As we shall see in the next section, for the earliest Christians, issues of belief and doctrine, i.e., what one believes, were of primary importance, when it comes to a proper reading of scriptural texts.

17. This is the so-called fides quae—the faith that is believed.

18. See J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 2nd ed., (London: Longmans, 1960), 2. At times these were called the “Rules of Faith” (plural).

19. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.10.1. See Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, vol. 1, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 330. For two other examples of Rules of Faith from Tertullian in the early third century AD, see Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 86.

20. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 29.

21. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.4.1. See J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 2.

22. Irenaeus (ca. AD 180) said that heretics “override the order and structure of the Scriptures” and in this way are similar to someone dismantling a mosaic of an emperor and making from the pieces a picture of a dog or of a fox (Against Heresies, 1.1.15).

23. Roman Catholicism teaches the idea of developing tradition, including the notion that this developing tradition is necessary for the interpretation of Scripture. The elements of Roman Catholic tradition are not at all the same as the earliest apostolic tradition enshrined in the early Rule of Faith. Instead, they move decisively beyond them. Such developing elements are based upon a particular and special interpretation of John 16:13, in which Jesus tells his disciples that the Holy Spirit will lead them into all truth. This passage is made to justify “progress” in revelation from God to the church through the Holy Spirit. This is the basis of, for example, the “new” teaching of papal infallibility, formalized in 1870.

24. This is the so-called fides qua—the faith by which one believes—to use the terms of doctrinal theology.

25. The Greek is κλητοῖς ἁγίοις.

26. The Greek is [ἀπὸ] θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

27. The Greek is πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας.

28. The Greek is τέκνα θεοῦ.

29. See also 2 Peter 1:20 for the Holy Spirit inspiring the prophets of the OT.

30. The Greek is οὐκ ἐν διδακτοῖς ἀνθρωπίνης σοφίας λόγοις ἀλλ’ ἐν διδακτοῖς πνεύματος.

31. Generally speaking, no one who is not the author himself will ever be able to achieve absolutely full conformity to the reader anticipated by the author. In literary terms, the one who is able to achieve full conformity is often called the “ideal reader.”

32. In each case where a reader is mentioned in this paragraph, a hearer should also be included.