On Reading the Bible
If the Bible is God’s Word, then why does it come to us as such an (apparently) random collection of diverse literature? In one place we find stories, in another we find legal codes, and in another, epic poems. Here we read correspondence and there we discover verses of song. Some documents contain didactic reasoning, but others give us apocalypses.
Would it not have been better if God had simply sent us an inspired and inerrant systematic theology? Or better still, He might have given us two lists: one of propositions about Himself and the other of commands for us to obey. Would not life and faith be simpler?
Nevertheless, we have been given the Bible. God is the one who gave it. God is the one who inspired it. God is the one who commands its use. Why is the Bible that we have better than a systematic theology (however perfect) or a list of propositions and obligations?
The fundamental reason is that no list of discursive propositions can possibly communicate the multi-faceted nature of God’s glory. God is infinite in His majesty and, consequently, infinitely variegated in His splendor. Part of the purpose of the Bible is to help us glimpse the many dimensions of God’s grandeur.
That would be difficult—perhaps impossible—to do with mere theological propositions. True, God could give us a proposition to the effect that His glory has many dimensions. We could read such a proposition and intellectually affirm it without ever beginning to glimpse the glory itself. God does not simply want us to know and affirm that He is glorious, He wishes us to behold His glory. He wishes to place Himself on display.
More than that, God wants us to know Him. That is not at all the same thing as knowing about Him. We can learn about Him from propositions. We can gather theological data, categorize it, and publish theologies. Nevertheless, however much data we amass, it will do us no good unless we know Him.
An analogy may clarify the difference. Consider a young man who notices a young woman and wants to get to know her. Through various means he secures copies of her medical records, her high school and college transcripts, and her bank statements. He hires a detective to investigate her, find out who her friends are, where she spends her time, and what her preferences are. He immerses himself in the reports and gains significant factual knowledge about her.
When the young woman finds out what he has been doing, she will not feel flattered. She will feel alarmed. She may speak to the police or seek an injunction from a court. Although the young man has mastered a great many facts, he does not know her. He has never developed a relationship with her. In the absence of a trusting relationship, his knowledge about her is an intrusion into her privacy and a violation of her personhood. The sooner his stalking ends, the better.
In our understanding of God, we often behave just like that young man. We treat the Bible the same way that the young man was treating the medical records, transcripts, and bank statements. We seek for factual data about God, but we do it in the absence of a personal, loving, and trusting relationship. We should not be surprised when God resists us and hides His face from us.
This use of the Bible is akin to pornography. It is a kind of voyeuristic leering into the world of the divine. God does reveal Himself, but not in order to satisfy our idle curiosity. When we read the Bible in order to gather mere facts, we shame ourselves and profane holy things.
Reading the Bible ought to be much more like entering into a conversation. What we read should not terminate in our minds, but should pass on into our hearts. In turn, our hearts should respond to God’s self-disclosure, welcoming it, treasuring it, reflecting upon it, and answering it. Our hearts should answer with adoration when God puts Himself on display. They should respond with obedience to His merest wish (let alone His command). They should respond with confession, with submission, with petition. Above all, they should respond with delight and rejoicing to have been invited into the innermost chamber of divine intimacy.
Too often, we draw a distinction between reading the Bible for study and reading the Bible for devotion. We read it for exegetical purposes, then we throw the switch and read it for edification. Another flip of the switch and we are studying for sermon preparation, but then we switch again and find ourselves in meditation mode.
This switching back and forth produces two problems. The first is that we should never read the Bible without reading it devotionally. The toughest exegetical work should nevertheless yield fruit in our walk with God. The second problem is that if we keep flipping that switch, sooner or later it will get stuck, and it usually gets stuck in intellectual mode. When we accustom ourselves to reading the Bible for information only, we soon lose sight of the God whose communion we ought to crave.
The Bible does contain factual information about God, but that information is nearly always couched in the elements of personal encounter. We do not find factual abstractions in the pages of Scripture. Rather, we read stories about how God has worked in the lives of His people. We discover poems that express the innermost movements of spiritual experience. We encounter vivid imagery that sparks our imaginations and draws us into God’s work in the world. Indeed, the Bible taken as a whole is one long story—the story of God. As we read the story and enter into it, we do not simply encounter information. We encounter Him.
God makes Himself present in the pages of Scripture. The Bible is alive with His person and work. In the biblical tapestry of literary genres and authorial styles we find that God displays the manifold nature of His glory. He invites us into its pages in order that we might meet Him, know Him, and love Him. Because God is present in the Bible, it is our chief treasure on earth. If we have a Bible to read and nothing else, we are still inestimably rich. Let us not neglect the wealth that God has showered upon us.
Living Water
Tr. William Cowper (1731-1800)
The fountain in its source,
No drought of summer fears;
The farther it pursues its course,
The nobler it appears.
But shallow cisterns yield
A scanty short suply;
The morning sees them amply filled,
At evening they are dry.
Kevin T. Bauder Bio
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, who serves as Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 2 views
[Kevin B] Too often, we draw a distinction between reading the Bible for study and reading the Bible for devotion. We read it for exegetical purposes, then we throw the switch and read it for edification. Another flip of the switch and we are studying for sermon preparation, but then we switch again and find ourselves in meditation mode.I’m not so sure this is how it really works.
This switching back and forth produces two problems. The first is that we should never read the Bible without reading it devotionally.
If a person is truly reborn/converted, is it even possible to read without reading devotionally? That is, can the word that is alive and active and sharper than any two edged sword fail to do any born again reader “devotional” good, whether or not he’s looking for it and can specify where it happened?
To me, an analogy is eating. You can eat for the purpose of refining your tastes or for the purpose of analyzing a recipe or for the purpose of gaining strength—but if you’re alive and healthy and you’re going to gain strength regardless.
Also, I’m not sure that I believe that the activities of our inner life can be so cleanly divided between intellectual and devotional, mind and heart.
I don’t doubt that cold intellectualism can be a problem. I’m not sure we’ve got a grip on the true nature of the problem here though.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
More than that, God wants us to know Him. That is not at all the same thing as knowing about Him.Some years back, I became convicted on this point when thinking about David. He was “a man after God’s own heart”, not “a man after God’s own head”. And I came to the exact same conclusion, that knowing God is far different from knowing about Him.
Obviously, that is not to say that thinking rightly about God is unimportant. Rather, it is to say that you cannot think rightly about God if you are not pursuing a heart like His as well as knowing His truths.
[Aaron Blumer]… will ignore this one. Pity for them. Very convicting ideas here.Well, I’m not a controversy hound, Aaron, but i wanted to weigh in….[Kevin B] Too often, we draw a distinction between reading the Bible for study and reading the Bible for devotion. We read it for exegetical purposes, then we throw the switch and read it for edification. Another flip of the switch and we are studying for sermon preparation, but then we switch again and find ourselves in meditation mode.I’m not so sure this is how it really works.
This switching back and forth produces two problems. The first is that we should never read the Bible without reading it devotionally.
If a person is truly reborn/converted, is it even possible to read without reading devotionally? That is, can the word that is alive and active and sharper than any two edged sword fail to do any born again reader “devotional” good, whether or not he’s looking for it and can specify where it happened?
To me, an analogy is eating. You can eat for the purpose of refining your tastes or for the purpose of analyzing a recipe or for the purpose of gaining strength—but if you’re alive and healthy and you’re going to gain strength regardless.
Also, I’m not sure that I believe that the activities of our inner life can be so cleanly divided between intellectual and devotional, mind and heart.
I don’t doubt that cold intellectualism can be a problem. I’m not sure we’ve got a grip on the true nature of the problem here though.
What i see in your post is right…there should not be spiritual compartmentalization, but Kevin’s thoughts resonate with me deeply because for whatever reason — worldliness, striving for academic results, nailing down a theology — i have found myself in the loop of “hearing, but not listening,” so to speak. I slip into a context of reading and then adding proof texts to whatever topic of the day is on my mind.
Two tools i have tried to employ to counter this tendency…
1. Asking the Spirit to be involved in my reading, comprehension and meditation. As fundamentalists (or CE like me), we often tend to shy away from the person of the Holy Spirit and how he interacts with us, especially on a personal level when it’s not directly related to preaching, or evangelizing or some other “formal” ministry context. I have to purposefully think on him and how he bears witness with my spirit.
2. Reading with a journal in hand. Then slowly reading passages and writing the things that God specifically teaches me and how it relates to my past, present and future. Not my ministry, or family, or job, etc. But what is God’s Word saying to my own heart and how can it help me fight the sin and entrapments that so easily entangle me? This helps me stop the “this would be great to teach so and so,” mentality.
Anyway, good post, good discussion.
mp
B.I.B.L.E. = Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth
I’m thinking … cute but not!
Not basic
Not an instruction manual
Et Cetera
(1) In Scripture “heart” and “head” are never contrasted (at odds with one another) and, in the OT especially, the “heart” encompasses the intellect. The truth is that the two are intertwined in the human being. We’re better off solving problems using terms that are consistent with a biblical view of the inner man.
(2) So often, heart vs. head language is used to exalt sentimentalism and subjectivism. For so many, worship, church life and Christian living are all about how they feel. In reality, the glory of God is a huge concept and how I feel about things is such a tiny part of that. It does matter—because our affections are supposed to be brought under the lordship of Christ as well as our thinking. It’s just that we live in an excessively and distortedly touchy-feely society. I think head/heart talk plays into that more often than not.
Here’s a test question to see what you really believe about these things: if you have to be one or the other, is it better to be passionate and wrong or to be “cold” and correct?
(What if Nadab and Abihu passionately and devotedly made “strange fire”? What if, instead, they had dispassionately obeyed?)
(Of course, the real goal is to be passionate and correct!)
Maybe the better way to talk about this problem is to look at it in terms of “thinking vs. desiring.” It lacks the catchy alliteration of “heart vs. head,” but might be less prone to exalt sentimentalism and anti-intellectualism.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] I think the “heart” vs. “head” thing is not really helpful—and not really biblical.Fair point. In my defense, I’ll say that I was using common usage of “heart”. But you are correct that it doesn’t match Biblical terminology.
The point is that knowing God is not simply an intellectual process, and pride of knowledge/intellect has no place. Finding the right words is not always easy when the common usage of a word does not match the Biblical usage. “Desiring” can easily go into sentimentalism as well. And really, “thinking vs. desiring” is a false dichotomy, because we need both.
Here’s a test question to see what you really believe about these things: if you have to be one or the other, is it better to be passionate and wrong or to be “cold” and correct?You mean if Nadab and Abihu had decided to start down the path towards being traditionalist Pharisees? :)
(What if Nadab and Abihu passionately and devotedly made “strange fire”? What if, instead, they had dispassionately obeyed?)
(Of course, the real goal is to be passionate and correct!)
“To obey is better than sacrifice”, better than “passion” (to use your word here), but if we are “cold” we are not obedient. It just means our disobedience isn’t as obvious to those around us as some other kinds of disobedience might be. Colossians 3:12 is a command. So is Philippians 2:5. I don’t see how anyone can be “cold” and obedient to those verses. How can you “coldly” have the mind of Christ? In other words, I believe your test question is a false question, because the second option is inherently self-contradictory.
Without going into all the details in this post, I think we can see how this is a recipe for objectifying the text and intellectualist study.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
I guess it’s possible. We’re all capable of distraction. In my experience, though, the word has a way of breaking through whether you want it too or not. But we’re supposed to seek that. It shouldn’t have to “break through” some analytical fog.
Maybe it isn’t so much a problem of “coldness” but of failure to acknowledge the personal implications of what we read. Sometimes, I’ve found that what I’m reading is stirring enough, but as a pastor it can easily be a stirring with reference to other people—the congregation: what a great truth for them.
So maybe its important to understand “devotional” not just in terms of “heart” but of my life as a reader of Scripture.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] what a great truth for them.I think both errors are possible. Believers certainly can drift into an “intellect-only” mindset. You’re correct that the Word tends to break through, but it can certainly happen for a while. At least, that has been my personal experience.
So maybe its important to understand “devotional” not just in terms of “heart” but of my life as a reader of Scripture.
We can also drift into the “for them” mindset, which can be just as damaging. In my prayer just before preaching, I almost always pray that “our hearts will be open, so that each of us may receive the truths of the Word”, or words to that effect. It’s good for me, before preaching, to have that reminder that I’m not just preaching to “them”, but to myself as well, and it’s good for “them” to be reminded that I’m required to submit to it and I also need to learn. We’re in it together.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
–
When I attended Western Conservative Baptist Seminary years ago, my favorite professor was Jim Andrews, who taught hermeneutics. I’ll never forget one statement he made (this isn’t an exact quote, but it isn’t far off):
One of the biggest problems in our churches today is that those who know and love the Word spend all their time circling the bones of the text like vultures. Instead of giving people the meat of the Word, they spend too much time on the technical details. We’ve lost the focus of the most important thing — what is the Monday morning significance to Joe Truckdriver in the pew? How is what we are saying going to help him in his daily walk with the Lord?That’s a great question to ask yourself before going into the pulpit — what is the Monday morning significance to Joe Truckdriver? If you can’t answer that question, you probably aren’t ready to preach, and if you haven’t thought about it, you probably won’t communicate that “Monday morning significance” very well.
Dr. Bauder, here, is saying that we should be asking a similar question: “What is the Monday morning significance for me in what I’m reading?”
We need to be diligent to make sure we’re understanding what God is really saying, but most of all we need to be diligent to receive what He is saying to me.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion