All theology is a human interpretation

Opening

“The Bible says” can be a phrase of reverence or a way to end a conversation before it begins. Often, what it really means is, “my tradition read it this way, organized these verses this way, and came to this conclusion.”

The problem is not in interpreting. No one reads without interpreting. Choosing a translation, relating two passages, defining the meaning of a word or deciding which texts illuminate others are interpretive acts.

However, an essential distinction must be made. The apostolic testimony about Jesus Christ is not one theological hypothesis among others: it confesses the incarnated, crucified, and truly resurrected Son of God (John 1:1,14; 1 Corinthians 15:3–8). But the systems built to organize this testimony—and to answer the many questions it raises—are human formulations. They can serve the church; They cannot take the place of Christ.

Calvinism, Arminianism, Catholicism, dispensationalism, Pentecostalism, and orthodox traditions are human efforts to organize Scriptures, experiences, and received inheritances. Some preserve precious biblical insights; everyone carries limits. The error begins when a system stops presenting itself as reading and starts demanding obedience as if it were the infallible voice of God itself.

Christ is the way, the truth, and the life—not a theological school, a denomination, or a set of formulas (John 14:6). All theology must remain on its knees before him.

What the biblical text says

Scripture does not celebrate an individualistic, improvised or disconnected reading from the community. In Nehemiah 8:8, the Levites read “clearly from the Book, the Law of God”, explain the meaning and help the people to understand. The text assumes that reading requires explanation. The Word is divine; our understanding of it is still human, situated and in need of correction.

The New Testament also recognizes that texts can be difficult and misused. Peter asserts that there are “things in Paul’s letters that are difficult to understand” that “ignorant and unstable” people distort to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15–16). This does not diminish the authority of Scripture. It makes the responsibility of those who handle them more serious.

The warning of 2 Peter 1:20–21 is often invoked against any interpretation: “no prophecy of Scripture comes from private elucidation.” But the context deals with the origin of the prophecy, not the prohibition against interpreting it. Prophecy did not arise from human will; men spoke from God moved by the Holy Spirit. The text defends the divine source of revelation, not the infallibility of each reader, pastor, council or subsequent system.

Acts 15 offers a more honest model. Faced with the controversy over Gentile circumcision, the church does not resort to a simplifying slogan. There is debate, testimonies about God's action among the Gentiles, appeal to the Scriptures, and community discernment (Acts 15:5–21). The decision is presented solemnly — “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28) — but the report reveals a process of interpretation, not a ready-made formula that does not require examination.

Paul recognizes our present limitation: “now we see as in a mirror, darkly” and “now I know in part” (1 Corinthians 13:12). Christian conviction does not require feigning omniscience. It demands fidelity to what God has revealed and humility in the face of what we still partially see.

Historical and theological context

The great Christian traditions did not appear in a vacuum. They answered real questions: How do we reconcile God's sovereignty with human responsibility? What is the relationship between church, sacraments and salvation? How to read the promises made to Israel? What place do spiritual gifts have in the life of the community?

Calvinism developed a robust reading of God's sovereign initiative in salvation, drawing frequently on Romans 9 and Ephesians 1. Arminianism emphasized human responsibility and the universality of divine calling, highlighting passages such as 1 Timothy 2:3–4 and 2 Peter 3:9. Neither of these readings should pretend that the texts used by the other simply do not exist.

Dispensationalism proposes specific distinctions between Israel and the church and organizes biblical history into periods or administrations. Pentecostalism highlights the relevance of the gifts of the Spirit, drawing on Acts 2:16–18 and 1 Corinthians 12–14. Other traditions understand that certain gifts had a singular apostolic function. There are real disagreements, and caricatures don't resolve them.

The problem arises when a theological grid becomes an absolute filter. Then, uncomfortable texts are silenced, the coherence of the system is worth more than the character of Christ, and honest disagreement is treated as rebellion against God.

Analysis from Jesus

Jesus did not reject the Scriptures of Israel. He stated that they testify about Him (John 5:39). But he confronted leaders who examined the texts and yet refused to come to him for life (John 5:40). It is possible to dominate references, defend correct doctrines on many points and miss the center to which all Scripture points.

His harshest criticism was not directed at people who asked difficult questions, but at religious authorities who elevated human traditions to the level of divine commandment. In Mark 7:8–13, Jesus denounces leaders who abandon God's commandment to preserve their tradition, going so far as to “make the word of God invalid” through it.

On the road to Emmaus, Jesus interprets “in all the Scriptures what pertained to him” (Luke 24:27). This is the decisive order for Christian reading: Jesus must not be interpreted based on a theology; all theology must be judged from Jesus.

When a reading of the Old Testament appears to authorize that which contradicts the teaching, actions, and character of Christ, the disciple should not use the text to correct Jesus. You must reread the text from there. The Crucified and Resurrected is the key to Christian Scripture.

This does not authorize a sentimental image of Jesus against the Bible. Christ himself quotes, interprets and fulfills the Scriptures. But it prevents isolated texts from being used to justify religious domination, Christian nationalism, enrichment of leaders or contempt for the vulnerable. The Jesus who washes the disciples' feet (John 13:1–17), welcomes the little ones (Mark 10:13–16) and denounces religious exploitation (Mark 12:38–40) cannot be reduced to a tool of institutional power.

Conclusion

God speaks in the Scriptures. Human beings can understand, distort and manipulate this testimony. And Jesus Christ is the one to whom the Scriptures point and through whom his disciples are to read them (John 5:39–40; Luke 24:27).

Theological systems can serve: they organize questions, preserve insights, and make disagreements visible. But they are human tools, fallible and reviewable. The gospel is not Calvinist, Arminian, dispensational or Pentecostal. The gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ.

There are legitimate debates among faithful Christians. But who judges our syntheses remains open. Christ is the way, the truth and the life. Not religion.