And Nothing but the Text

(For our ministry of Mobilizing Biblical Leaders (MoBiL), we utilize eight basic principles for the study of the Scriptures. Although there are numerous ways to package and transmit these concepts, they are principles that are widely understood and accepted among all those who value the Holy Bible as the supreme authority in faith and doctrine. In the next few articles, we will look at some examples of how they can impact our understanding of God’s Word.)

“…And nothing but the text.”

In our society, we ask a pledge of those who would give testimony in a court of law. We know that what they say will sway the justice of the court and likely impact the lives of others. So, we require them to commit, before God and their fellow citizens, to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

God’s people need a similar commitment from those who study and proclaim His Word in our churches. We [1]who give testimony to God’s life-changing Truth must be disciplined and accurate in our understanding of it. We who declare the judgments of the Great Judge of the earth must take care that we represent His Word faithfully.

That is why the first, most fundamental principle of sound, biblical study is to limit ourselves to what the text of the Bible states. We do not want to add to what He has revealed; neither do we want to skip over any part of it. We must continually ask ourselves, “What does the text itself say?” And then we need to challenge ourselves again by asking, “Does the text truly say that?”

Such a commitment to the actual words of Scripture will have a profound impact on our understanding of God’s Word. One simple way we can measure this effect is by examining how we approach a text that has a parallel account in another place in the Bible (such as the “Synoptic” accounts of Christ’s life in Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Our tendency in these passages is to synthesize all available information about a given account, even if it does not appear in the text we are studying. Oftentimes, we do not discipline ourselves to stick with the information and emphasis the author of that particular passage has given us. When we follow these tendencies, we easily (and often unwittingly) introduce topics and concepts that the Spirit did not lead the author to include in the text at hand.

Does the text really say that?

One simple example of this tendency comes from a sermon that one of our pastors-in-training delivered from 2 Samuel 6. While recounting the episode of the transfer of the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem and God’s judgment on Uzzah for touching it, the preacher emphasized the folly of moving the Ark on a cart — as the Philistines had done — rather than having the priests carry it on the poles designed for that purpose. On the one hand, his understanding of the incident was correct, as 1 Chronicles 15:11-15 makes plain. Truly, the judgment of Uzzah could have been averted if they had followed the proper method prescribed in the Law. It was not inappropriate for him to mention this as a sidenote in his sermon. However, by allowing this clarification from another account to weigh heavily on his evaluation of 2 Samuel 6, the understanding of the message of the text was blurred.

Throughout the surrounding context, we see that the story in Samuel focuses on the contrast between Saul and David. This is especially revealed through the dual elements of God’s grace in elevating David and David’s desire to honor the Lord and delight in Him. The writer of the Samuel passage was intentional in not elaborating on the failure to follow God’s prescribed method of transporting the ark. He also chose to include the conversation between Michal and David (2 Sam. 6:20-23), which is absent from the account in 1 Chronicles 15. The words exchanged between the king and the daughter of his predecessor further heighten the contrast between the two kings, revealing David’s sincere delight in the LORD and in the grace extended to him.  So, by including a “lesson” that was not included in the passage, the true focus and meaning of the text was almost reversed! Rather than hearing a sermon focused on David’s joy in the LORD and his passionate desire to have God’s blessing and presence near him, the listeners heard more about the dangers of disobedience and the need to worship God reverently. These were not unbiblical points, for they are certainly true and are encountered in other biblical passages. But they were untextual, since that is not what the Spirit of God emphasized in the text being preached.     

We can probably all think of examples in our own preaching experiences that similarly illustrate the importance of this first, fundamental principle and what happens when we fail to apply it well in our study. And the tendency to import information or a point of emphasis from other texts of Scripture is only one of the influences we must resist. We are just as likely to allow doctrinal “proofs” to distract us from the true message of the author, or to be swayed by certain needs we perceive the congregation to have.[2]  And, while these and other considerations can appropriately bear mentioning in a sermon, we should resist their inclusion in our interpretation of the meaning of a passage. For that, we want to limit ourselves to the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text.

[1] For a brief summary of the principles taught in our MoBiL pastoral training, check out this overview provided by Word Partners: https://wordpartners.org/resources/dig-discover-principles-a-summary-overview/

[2] For more on relying upon God’s Word in our preaching, read the article, “Expository Preaching Regards God's Word as Sufficient” in a previous post.