Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
"
Orlando Fedeli
1) Introduction
Each religion is known by its most characteristic ritual. Thus, the Mass is for the Catholicism the essential act
of cult to God. Spiritists have as their typical action the invocation of spirits, in order to learn something from
beyond (i.e. necromancy), and protestants of all sorts are known by their insistence in the Bible, which they
read and insistently recommend to others, as if by reading It one would find salvation.
The assumption of those protestants – nowadays, to hide the divisions inside Protestantism, they omit initially
the name of their sect, calling themselves generically and vaguely as “evangelic” – is that everyone, no
matter how ignorant, can fruitfully read the Scriptures because the Holy Spirit Himself would inspire people to
grasp the right sense of what is written. By this reasoning, the Bible would be easier understood than a
mediocre newsstand novel or a comics. Moreover, anyone could give any interpretation one wished or judged
to have understood from the sacred text. The Holy Scripture would not have an objectively correct meaning.
All the interpretations would be right, even if they were contradictory to one another. This is what is called
“free interpretation of the Bible”, principle proclaimed by Luther to destroy the Pope’s power.
The result of this free interpretation of the Holy Scriptures was an almost endless(infinite) multiplication of
sects. Such a system built in a great (true) biblical Babel. Nowadays, there are millions of “evangelic” sects,
every one of them offering a different interpretation of the sacred text, and all of them proclaiming themselves
to be right.
At heart, every protestant is a “church”, so there cannot be a church of Christ. Protestantism rises against the
Pope’s infallible power, and to fight it, proclaims every “believer’s” infallibility.
Every single person should read the Bible, and each one should have a different understanding of the Holy
Scriptures, denying, by doing so, the existence of one objective true meaning meant by God in those words.
Thereby, it is denied that there is “only one faith”. God would have created the Bible as an “Open Book”: it
would have millions of possible senses, all of them likely to be true, but none of them exclusively true and
unique.
Hence the protestant slogan: “Read the Bible”.
Now, it is curious that in the Bible itself there is no text which says: “Read the Bible”. It is very quite obvious,
for no one can bear witness of oneself (?) (Jo V, 31). Neither in the Ten Commandments, given by God to
Moses, nor in the words of Christ the advice that Christians should read the Bible is to be found.
How come does this omission happen? Where do, therefore, protestants of all sorts take this law or advice
from, that everyone should read the Holy Scriptures?
If reading the Bible was mandatory to our salvation, Our Lord Jesus Christ would certainly have told the
apostles to read, and would have ordered everybody to read it. Christ would also have ordered people to
distribute Bibles to everyone. That being so, the order would have been: ’Go and print out’, instead of saying
“go and preach to all people” (Mt. XXVIII, 19). He did not say: “Read the Bible”, neither “Distribute Bibles to all
people”. Nor did he assert: “Advice everyone to read the Bible”.
Why has he not ever said that? Obviously, books – even the holy ones – are meant to be read. Thus, God
made the Holy Scriptures to be read. But read by whom? Everyone?
Of course not. If not everyone is competent enough to read common books, much less are able to read
specialized and scientific books, and even less can understand the books of the Holy Scriptures, that are
much deeper. An unprepared reader, or someone with no convenient knowledge, will either not understand
1) The use of the verb to hear instead of the verb to read, which would be the preferred choice for
Protestants;
2) Only hearing is not enough. One has to observe the words of God. It is also necessary to do according to
the words of God. Thus, Faith is not enough, there ought to have works, through which one practices the
words of God.
3) Those who hear and observe the words of Christ, cleverly build their house “upon the rock”, that is to say,
upon Peter.
Christ did not compel the Apostles: “Go, print out Bibles and distribute them”, neither said he: “He that
readeth you readeth me”, but “He that heareth you heareth me” (Lc. X, 16).
You shall not think that the Old Testament was any different, because in the Book of Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)
the following rule can be found: “Qui audit me, non confundetur” (“He that hearkeneth to me, shall not be
confounded”) (Sir. XXIV, 30).
The same book confirms what we have already mentioned: “If thou wilt incline thy ear, thou shalt receive
instruction: and if thou love to hear, thou shalt be wise” (Sir. VI, 34).
One can conclude, therefore, that it is also through the ear – and not through the eyesight or by reading
letters – that wisdom is acquired. Because if Faith comes through the ear, how could Wisdom come through
the eyesight and reading?
And how could it be otherwise, if Our Lord is the same Wisdom made flesh?
Protestants like to refer to the text where Christ talks about “His brothers”, that is, about His relatives, saying:
“My mother and my brethren are they who hear the word of God and do it” (Lk VIII, 21); and they interpret
literally the word “brethren” in this text, asserting that Christ had, thus, brothers in flesh. They should also
take into the same literal interpretation the rest of the phrase, and conclude that they (the Protestants) are not
“brothers” of Jesus, because they do not hear, but read His words.
In another occasion said Our Lord: “Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it.” (Lc.
XI,28).
When saying the parable of the Seeder, Christ solemnly concludes: “And he said: He that hath ears to hear,
let him hear” (Mc. IV, 9).
Besides, in this parable of the Seeder, in the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, Christ uses the verb to
hear five times, and never the verb to read. If He wanted us to do what the Protestant do with the Bible, He
could easily use, at least once, the verb to read. He did not, so that we – exactly – do not fall into the same
error Luther fell, asserting that reading the Bible is mandatory for those who want to be saved. (cfr. Mt. XIII,
18, 19, 20, 22, 23).
Repeatedly, Christ advises the Jews and ourselves, saying: “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.”
(Mk. IV, 23).
Saint Paul also prefers the verb to hear to the verb to read – and could Saint Paul’s preferences be different
from Christ’s? – for he says in the First Epistle to Timothy: “… in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and
them that hear thee” (I Tim. IV, 16).
Now, Saint John tells us: “He that knoweth God heareth us. He that is not of God heareth us not. By this we
know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (I Jo. IV, 6).
It’s clearest indeed. In order to distinguish those who seek the true from those who seek the error, here is the
rule: those who have the spirit of error do not want to hear! But the Protestant just wants to read.
God demanded Jeremias, the Prophet, to claim: “Declare ye this to the house of Jacob, and publish it in
Juda, saying: Hear, O foolish people, and without understanding: who have eyes, and see not: and ears, and
We have seen that the verb read is exceptionally found in the Holly Scripture along with a laudatory
recommendation in the Apocalypse (I, 3). But even there this verb is immediately followed by the verbs listen
and keep.
Moreover, in the other passages the verb read is always followed by some restrictive note.
In a very eye-catching passage in the Acts of the Apostles (VIII, 30 – 31) we have seen that it is not worth to
read, if there is no one to explain the text.
And when the Magi kings went before Herod to ask him where the King of the Jews was born, he inquired the
Chief Priests and the Scribes about the question. They told him that “It was written” (Mt, II, 5) that it would be
in Bethlehem. The Chief priests and the Scribes knew very well what was written: That it was in Bethlehem
that the Messiah would be born. But they did not worry to go there. The wise men, who did not read, went to
worship the Savior in Bethlehem. The scribes did not go there because there is no use in reading without
comprehending.
When Christ-God victoriously rode into Jerusalem, the children have acclaimed Him. It has unpleased the
Pharisees, who ordered Him to shut them up. And reprehending them, Christ then said: “Yea, have you never
read: Out of the mouth of infants and of sucklings thou hast perfected praise?”(Mt. XXI, 16).
With these words Christ has showed them that, although they had read the Sacred Scripture, it had no use
for them, since they did not incline their ear to the Wisdom.
Saint Paul, reprehending the Galatians for embracing the practices of the Jewish law, told them: “Tell me, you
that desire to be under the law, have you not read the law?” (Gal. IV, 21). And next he demonstrates to them
that they have not understood the Scriptures.
The criticism to those who misunderstand the Scripture is repeated several times in the Gospels, always
through using the expression “Have you not read”.
Thus, Saint Matthew tells us that Jesus, answering to the Pharisees, who criticized Jesus’ disciples for having
plucked some ears of corn on a Sabbath day – which was forbidden by the letter of the law – said to them: “
Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and they that were with him?” (Mt. XII, 3). “Or have
ye not read in the law, that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are without
blame?” (Mt. XII, 5).
Contradicting the Pharisees’ reading about one’s right to put away one’s wife, Christ told them: “Have ye not
read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female...” (Mt. XIX, 4).
“Jesus saith to them: Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected, the
same is become the head of the corner...” (Mt. XXI, 42).
In all these texts, the verb to read is used against the Pharisees, showing that reading the Bible was not
cause of merit for them, but of increase of their guilt.
Thus, just read the Bible is not enough.
When Christ referred to the prophecy of Daniel that one day the “abomination of desolation” would be
“standing in the holy place”, He have prevented: “he that readeth let him understand” (Mt. XXIV, 15). Using “
understand” immediately after the verb to read shows that it is useless to read without understanding. How
many people, today, who do not understand even a simple newspaper article, intend to understand the Holy
Scripture! If they read badly, they understand even worse! In another occasion, when a Doctor of the Law
came to see Jesus about what he should do to possess eternal life, Christ asked him: “What is written in the
The protestants also err when they suppose they can, by themselves, to comprehend the many meanings of
the Holy Scripture. Before any analysis of these meanings, however, it would be necessary to point a
preliminary problem: which books belong to the Bible? The Jews had many other religious books that, after
all, where not considered inspired by God and, for that, never belonged to the list of the books of the Holy
Scripture. They were called apocryphal books. Also, after the resurrection of Christ and His Ascension to
Heaven, many apocryphal books appeared that were not considered inspired nor included in the list of books
of the New Testament.
Who has judged which books belonged to the part of texts inspired by God? This is a fundamental question.
Faith depends on its solution. Among the ancient Jews, it was the tradition which established the criteria of
inspiration. In the New Testament, the Tradition and the Church were those that determined which books
were inspired by God and that should belong to the canon of the Holy Scripture.
Having the knowledge of which books belong to the Bible, there is still the need to deal with other problems of
interpretation.
Types of words
We do not intend to do, in this simple article, an exhaustive exposition of exegesis. We aim only to point
certain problems that exist in the reading of the Bible. Because of this, we will stick only to allude some of the
more important points of biblical exegesis.
The human words are of three different types.
Some words have only one meaning: they are univocal words. Example: flour, wheat, farm. A second type of
words are those which have many different meanings, without any relation among them: they are equivocal
words. Example: Tie, might refer to some stalemate in a game or to the piece of cloth around our neck. There
is no relation between the “tie” of a game and the “tie” that one wears.
The third type of words are those which have many different meanings with some relation between them.
These are analogous words. For example, the word ring can be used to refer to the metal used on the
fingers or to some kind of arena. The analogy between them is the circular shape they have.
Now, when we speak or write, we use these three types of words, what may cause mistakes and errors of
interpretation of what we wanted to say. With the Holy Scriptures the same thing is observed: God used the
three types of words, what may cause errors of interpretation.
Take for instance the word brother. If the word brother is to be taken as univocal – meaning the children of
the same couple – then, when it reads that the brothers of Jesus went to meet him, it will be concluded that
Our Lady had had many children, and that, therefore, did not remain virgin. And this is the interpretation
followed by the protestant ministers.
Now, these very same ministers, when they talk to their coreligionists, they refer to them as brothers. If they
consider that the word brother is univocal, they will be saying that all those who are listening to them are their
carnal brothers, and they will be asserting that their parents committed an enormous number of adulteries.
The minister would be insulting everyone, calling them sons of adultery. Obviously, this is an absurd.
When the minister calls his coreligionists brothers, he is using the word in the analog sense: he wants to say
that all the coreligionists are brothers in the same belief, in this case, in a heretical belief.
Therefore, the term brother is analogous, not univocal. “Brothers of Jesus”, then, does not mean carnal
brothers. In biblical language, brother simply means relative. That is why, Abram called Lot his brother (Gn.
XIII, 8) when he was, actually, his nephew (Gn. XII, 5). The fact of having univocal, analogous and equivocal
terms in the Holy Scriptures might cause false interpretations that may lead even to heresies.
What helps us having the Bible if, not having the means to distinguish the meanings of the words – that vary
according to its type – we would not interpret them in conformity to the meaning God wanted to use?
5) Conclusion
In conclusion, when we take it all into account, it gets crystal clear how difficult it is to interpret the Bible
correctly, and that the free-exam of the Holy Scriptures produces a big chaos.
That is why Saint Peter prevents in his second Epistle “that no prophecy of scripture is made by private
interpretation” (II Pe. I, 20)
Hence, it becomes clear why it is necessary to men that God give someone the “keys” to interpret the Bible.
It was Peter who received these keys when Christ himself told him: “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona:
because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That
thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I
will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be
bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Mt. XVI,
17-19)
Therefore, only the Pope can give the most correct and unquestionable interpretation of the Holy Scriptures,
making the believers obliged to hear it and observe it kindly.
It is now clearly understandable what the Proverbs said:
“As if a thorn should grow in the hand of a drunkard: so is a parable in the mouth of fools.” (Prov. XXVI, 9).