While approaching the Bible reverently, we must constantly distinguish responsible interpretation of Scripture from personal or corporate application. Of course, in hortatory passages the line between the two becomes thin; or, better put, it becomes easier to move from one to the other. But unless we preserve a principled distinction we are likely to succumb to many harmful interpretations.
For instance, we may so quickly pursue “what the Bible means to me,” greatly emphasizing “to me,” that we completely ignore the distance between ourselves and the text, and compromise the Bible’s historical specificity and thus the nature of God’s graciously given verbal revelation. Worse, the morbid person given to endless introspection will glumly focus on all the passages that establish human guilt; the triumphalistic extrovert will fasten on everything that shouts of victory; the self-seeking hedonist will find passages that speak of life and joy. It is far better for all Christians to read every part of the Scripture, think it through on its own terms, discern, so far as possible, its contribution to the whole of the canon, and then ask how such truth applies to themselves, and to the church and the society of which they are a part.
Because the Bible is God’s word, it is vitally important to cultivate humility as we read, to foster a meditative prayerfulness as we reflect and study, to seek the help of the Holy Spirit as we try to understand and obey, to confess sin and pursue purity of heart and motive and relationships as we grow in understanding. Failure in these areas may produce scholars, but not mature Christians.
Above all, we must remember that we will one day give an account to the one who says,
“This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word.” (Isa. 66:2)
- D.A. Carson, Collected Writings on Scripture
There is no doubt about it, God had a different measure of love for one of the twins of than he did for the other. The phrase “Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated” leads us to no other conclusion. But why? What is the basis for this distinction?