Can We Really Speak What The Bible Says Without Interpretation?

The question I am considering for this short paper is whether or not we can really

speak about what the Bible says, or only about what we interpret the Bible to say. This is a

complex topic but one I hope to handle with clarity and brevity.

We can begin by answering this question in the affirmative. By that I mean we can

say what the Bible says as it is recorded for us in varying forms (i.e. KJV, NIV, etc.) and

offer an interpretation of that form. In my estimation, there can be a melding of both literary

and historical criticism that can help us to take a positive approach to presenting the

Scriptures. This is what Hagner (2008) is arguing for in his appeal for a synthetic “middle

ground” (p. 15). By engaging both literary and historical critical methods the reader can look

at what is plainly written and also recognize there is a broader picture than what is on the

page. Approaching the Bible in this manner allows the reader to value the varying genres and

literary nuances while not dismissing the historicity of a particular biblical book or section.

Conversely, the historical context, when known and applied, can help to shed light on

the specific use of a particular genre or literary tool. Dismissing the Bible as mere literature

creates a vacuum in which the Bible stands alone, apart from the cultural-historical milieu

that necessitated its creation. But to view the Scriptures as a mere history creates a scenario

wherein the reader fails to see the fully orbed book that was, no doubt, influenced by its

environs. Therefore, as one reads or speaks from the Bible he or she speaks what is on the

page in whatever literary form it was written. However, the same reader through a multitude

of mental, tonal and bodily actions creates a unique interpretation all their own. That is to

say, we “say” what the Bible “says”, as we have it in written form; but we cannot “say”

without adding to it another interpretation of our own - whether consciously or

unconsciously.

I believe my assertion above can be easily illustrated by considering the act of

1
proclamation called preaching. Having been in pulpit ministry for nearly twenty years I know

all to well that a large portion of the message is the medium through which it passes. Through

the years I have attempted to properly exegete the passage(s) I would be presenting. I have

worked through the inductive methods, word studies and more in preparation for Sunday

morning. Having done the work of study I then set myself to memorization of the notes I

have prepared. My goal is to be so familiar with the text and the notes that my presentation

would flow from the heart instead of merely reading notes on a page. McKnight (2008)

speaks of the disciple’s lack of quoting the words of Jesus in their preaching and writing (p.

33). His answer to this lack was simply that these men had so committed the Christ’s words

to their hearts they were able to “renew Jesus’ message in their day in their own ways”

(McKnight, 2008, p. 33). Implicit in this answer is the fact that each biblical writer offered to

particular audiences the words of Christ through an interpretive lens guarded by the Spirit’s

leading.

Can we say what the Bible says without interpretation? No. Can we say what the

Bible says as it presented in written form? Yes. Can the two be separated in such a way as to

never mingle? Absolutely not! And why would we want to give pride of place to one above

the other? Both the literary and historical context of the Bible’s books provides the reader

with a more brilliant image of the situation it addresses and as such a clearer path toward

application.

2
 References

Hagner, D. A. (2008). The state of the Bible in the twenty-first century. Currents in Theology

and Mission, 35(1), 6-18. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

McKnight, S. (2008). The blue parakete: rethinking how you read the bible. Grand Rapids,

MI: Zondervan.