The Danger of a Bible Cross Reference
We cross reference all the time. A cross reference is simply using one text of Scripture to understand another text. But is it always good to cross reference? Consider the following situation.
Let’s say a friend or neighbor comes up to you and says, “The Bible is clear that baptism is necessary for salvation.”
Now, you may be immediately put off by such a suggestion, but what if he goes on to quote Acts 2:38?
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
How would you respond to such a statement?
Perhaps you would respond by saying, “We know that baptism is not necessary for salvation because of Ephesians 2:8-9.” Many will default to answering these issues with a cross reference like this.
Although common, one should recognize the dangers of such a cross reference. On the one hand, it does seem to follow the hermeneutical rule, “Let the Bible interpret the Bible.” Or, put differently, “Let the clear passages interpret the unclear.” However, the potential problem with this application of the cross reference is in deciding which passages are clear and which are not.
Take the above example. Why do we think we are correct in saying Acts 2:38 cannot mean salvation through baptism on the basis of a cross reference in Ephesians 2:8-9? Wouldn’t it be just as plausible that Ephesians 2:8-9 should be read in light of Acts 2:38? Hence, Ephesians 2:8-9 might be teaching us that salvation is not of works (with the exception of baptism). In other words, the cross reference could be read either way (hypothetically).
With our cross reference strategy, we are saying this:
Ephesians 2:8-9 —-(reads over)—-> Acts 2:38
But, admittedly, our friend could argue the reverse:
Acts 2:38 —-(should read over)—->Ephesians 2:8-9
Perhaps there are more passages to cross reference that agree with Ephesians 2:8-9 than with Acts 2:38. However, this is a bad approach to the cross reference strategy. First, there are lots of passages which apparently link baptism and salvation (Acts 2:38; Rom 6:4; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; 1 Pet 3:21). Second, it is not appropriate to determine the meaning of a passage based on whichever view has more passages to support it. Theology is not formed on the basis of counting passages.
This leads to the following observation about using a cross reference. There seems to be a problem with simply saying Scripture must interpret Scripture. This statement must be qualified.
We are often preoccupied in finding a relevant cross reference. But, our goal should be to understand the context of the passage at hand. The biblical author is writing with a specific audience in mind and is relying on a specific background that the readers have. We will miss some of the most important elements of Romans 13:1-7 if we are trying to understand it in light of a cross reference to 1 Peter 2:13-17. Although both passages deal with submission to the government, they are both written for different purposes, and thus provide different nuances to the same subject. They should be compared, but we cannot assume they are saying the same thing in the same context.
I would like to suggest that the proper approach of interpretation is not to read texts over other texts but to read the passage as the author intended us to read it. It is important to cross reference, but the first step is to fit the text in its own context.
I do believe that the Bible will never contradict itself. But the first step is to interpret it in its context. When each passage is interpreted correctly in its context, there will never be a contradiction between any text.
For your information, I do not believe baptism is necessary for salvation. However, what I want to stress is that the proper way of interpreting passages is not to only cross reference (allegedly) clear passages. We believe that all of God’s word is clear (meaning that it was written to be understood). It may require hard work to understand the meaning of a passage, but nobody said it would be easy to understand the Bible. Thus, we must work hard at reading with the author’s intent in mind.
Here are a few questions to keep in mind when reading the Bible passage which will help in interpreting those difficult passages.
1) Who is the author and what is his purpose in this book?
How does this passage fit into this author’s overall purpose?
2) Who is the audience and what issues are they going through?
How does this passage answer any questions the audience has? How does this passage confront, encourage, rebuke, or comfort the audience? A cross reference to other books written to or about this audience can be helpful at this point too.
3) How would a first century Gentile (or, Jew) have understood what the author is saying?
This is where a cross reference can be most helpful. What Old Testament text is the author referring to? Is he quoting something? Alluding to it? If a quotation of Scripture is at hand, a cross reference is ideal to understand the context there. Perhaps he is alluding to a Jewish/Gentile custom here.
4) Are any of my preconceived ideas (cultural, theological, etc.) hindering my understanding of this passage?
Are my ideas of family, work, slavery, lordship standing in the way of the first century meaning? How are my cultural values different than the target audience of this passage?
These questions are not exhaustive, but they target the real issue. There is definitely a place for the cross reference in Bible study. But, the starting place is to understand the text in light of the authorial intent of the human and divine author, not our cultural experience.
This post originally appeared April 16, 2014.
photo credit: notashamed via photopin cc
Cross reference are if no use to me as usually it’s the understand or meaning of passsges that I require a I have study bibles for that purpose.
My immediate thought to the initial comment was that Jesus saved the guy on the cross right next to him with no baptism, which I would think doesnt really need context since its an actual event and not rhetoric or a letter, but Ive been wrong once before.
That’s a good point, Sam! Of course I could put on my cap of devious counter-speak and say that things changed after that point (e.g., the baptism passages). But I don’t think you are wrong in this case, your streak is safe :)
Throw me a couple of counter-speak examples for fun. What passages would you point out?
Although I don’t believe this, someone could argue that things changed at Pentecost (Acts 2) at the birth of the church, so that the means of salvation now is to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38). I could also argue that this is supported by Peter’s statement in 1 Peter 3:21 where he argues that just like the salvation in the Old Testament, baptism *now* saves us.
Of course I would never argue that way because I think you’re right :) Plus, I think the post on Acts 2:38 demonstrates that Acts 2 is not teaching a new way of salvation.
I agree but its quite the intellectual thicket. But I guess there aint no shortcut to any place worth goin.
So true. In fact, I am going to steal that saying and use it :) Thanks in advance!
Amen! I agree 100% I hear a lot of people say, “Scripture interprets Scripture” and in the context of it will not contradict. But by using that language I think people have actually started to follow their own terminology and start to actually use one text to interpret another. Of course, it’s easier to defend my theology and keep my system in place if I can use other texts to interpret the passage. :)
Agreed! I have definitely been guilty of keeping the Bible in line with my theology!