Just What the Bible Says

More than a year ago I wrote a post titled Just Your Interpretation. In it I challenge the idea that just any interpretation will do, and suggested that there are right and wrong interpretations, and we should aim for right interpretations. I know this goes contrary to the post-modern trend.

But I also mentioned another side to the issue. There are those who regularly claim that they are not presenting an interpretation, but rather are presenting “just what the Bible says.” They despise and reject any appeal to resources other than the scriptures, and urge all correspondents to support everything with specific texts.

Now I am sympathetic with the call to support our doctrinal positions with scripture, because I believe that the Bible is the foundation. And yet there are a number of problems with the claim that one is simply repeating what the Bible says. Every interpretation of scripture, no matter how close it comes to the actual wording of the text, involves a number of things that we believe about the text. At a minimum, we are using our own judgment in applying that particular text to this particular circumstance.

There are at least three elements to this:

1. In determining the meaning of the text, we need to understand its situation and background. In order to do so, non-scriptural sources are vital. These can include other historical sources, related literature, and linguistic information. Unless someone actually lived in the culture of the source text, he or she cannot be relying solely on the scriptures. Each of us is actually dependent on quite a number of people in determining the meaning of a passage of scripture.
2. One’s interpretational theory makes a substantial difference. For example, I believe that the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7) is applicable to the modern church, and might even be regarded as a charter for church living. Some dispensationalists hold it as advice for Jews of Jesus’s time, which can be helpful to us today, but is not directly applicable. Some who would claim to teach “just what the Bible says” would say that this is unbiblical, but the dispensationalists who say it also believe that their approach to the Bible is strictly Biblical, and that this dispensational system is derived from the Bible.
3. An individual can easily miss elements of interpretation. As one continues to study and to force one’s own ideas on a text, one can get further and further from the meaning without any checks. Commentaries written by skilled writers as well as sharing with others who can question one’s work help correct for these kinds of errors.

All of these elements involve things other than just the Biblical text–historical and linguistic sources, our best judgment, and the opinions of other students. I would hope, of course, that the work of the Holy Spirit would be involved in all these elements.

I would suggest that instead of claiming to teach “just what the Bible says,” that we each take responsibility for our interpretations and invite others to correct for our human failings. The message that God has for us in scripture is true, but we are fallible.