The Bible Does NOT Interpret the Bible

The word "interpret" is a dirty word to some Christian fundamentalists, believing that the Bible should never be "interpreted." Instead, they say "the Bible interprets the Bible."

I say that's silly. We have to interpret the Bible in order to understand it. If this sacred text is the object of interpretation, it cannot be the interpretor.

I believe certain Christians prefer to avoid speaking of "interpreting the Bible" because, ironically, they misinterpret 2 Peter 1:20,21:

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (NIV).

(Note: When isolated from its context, this is admittedly more confusing in the King James Version, which reads: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.")

Peter is not saying, as some understand it, that the prophets in Scripture must not be interpreted; he's saying that the prophets didn't invent their own prophecies. They didn't write them based on how they interpreted events and situations of their time -- their prophecies were inspired directly by God.

But we still have to read and understand them -- that's what it means to "interpret"!

I Googled the phrase "bible interprets the bible," and, after skipping over the results from my former church tradition, I came across this dandy paragraph:

The text of Scripture must be interpreted by historical exegesis, taking an account of its literary forms and devices, letting Scripture interpret Scripture and not relying on the knowledge of man. The reason we should let the Scripture interpret itself is because the bible always tells the truth concerning everything it talks about, but man continually makes errors. If man interprets the bible then the interpretation is open to error, but if the bible interprets the bible, it will always be completely true. This is why the exegesis of passages is important, so that we know what the scripture is actually saying, contrary to what we think it is saying.

I appreciate what the writer intends to say; he just isn't saying it correctly. His first sentence contradicts itself. Read it again and try to make sense of it. How can a person insist on "not relying on the knowledge of man," and then proceed to use "historical exegesis," taking into account "literary forms and devices"?

The definition of exegesis is "critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, esp. of the Bible." You can't escape "interpretation" by hiding behind the word "exegesis."

I am sure the writer -- and all those who claim not to "interpret" Scripture -- really means that we should not interpolate our own ideas into the Bible. In other words, we should read Scripture carefully, trying to avoid reading things into it that were not intended by the original author. That would be sloppy interpretation.

Our goal is correct interpretation. What we think Scripture is saying ought to match what it is actually saying.