How Cross-References May Cause You to Flap Your Wings Without Achieving Liftoff in Your Bible Study

My ministry’s Board of Directors recently met with a consultant, who, among other things, warned us to watch out for “wing-flapping reports” from the Chief Executive. Such reports deftly avoid reporting on tangible progress toward required objectives, and they do so by describing the flurry of activities undertaken by the organization during the reporting period. “We did this event…and this conference…and began this program…and updated these employee benefits…and connected with all these people…and we just did a great job, didn’t we?” Such wing-flapping isn’t usually sinister; it merely flows from a lack of clarity regarding results and production. When we’re unsure what we ought to produce, we seek assurance instead from how busy we were.

Of course, this concept taught me an invaluable lesson about leadership and accountability, but, surprisingly, it also taught me about Bible study. I’ve attended countless Bible studies that were busy, active, and engaging—but that also left me feeling like we didn’t get anywhere. We can spend lots of time in Scripture and make use of many resources, but do we know God through Jesus Christ any more deeply than when we began? We flap our wings and feel great about it. But there’s something more to be done.

And while I could nominate many potential culprits in the “wing-flapping Bible study” cartel (search engines, commentaries, and word studies come quickly to mind), there is one chief culprit I see more than any other: cross-references.

How Cross-References Get Us to Flap Our Wings Without Achieving Liftoff

Sinclair Ferguson wrote an excellent commentary on the book of Daniel. In fact, it’s the only Daniel commentary I’ve read that I’m happy to recommend as promoting OIA Bible study. I love this commentary, and you should check it out if you study Daniel.

But notice how the good Dr. Ferguson flaps his wings a bit, filling the page with cross-references without moving his argument forward. On Daniel 5, he writes:

From all we know of Belshazzar, he had fallen into the sin of Rehoboam. He once sought the advice of his elder statesmen and was counseled: “If you will be a servant to these people today, and serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be your servants forever.” Rehoboam rejected this counsel, however, and consulted those who had grown up with him (1 Kings 12:7-8); the result was the division of the tribes into two camps, Israel to the north and Judah to the south. Similarly, Daniel’s counsel appears to have gone unheeded and eventually unsought. Finally, however, he was brought into Belshazzar’s presence. (pp.117-118)

A lengthy catalog of Daniel’s credentials is provided by the queen…. He had “light and understanding and wisdom” and “an excellent spirit, knowledge, understanding, [and abilities to interpret] dreams, solv[e] riddles, and explain enigmas” (vv.11, 12). This description is reminiscent of the prophetic description Isaiah gave of the Messiah [quotes Isaiah 11:2-3].

Daniel had a share in the Spirit of the Messiah just as surely as what Christians now experience is a share in the Spirit of the Messiah and a taste of the powers of the age to come (cf. Heb. 6:5). No wonder there were so many ways that Daniel resembled Christ. This was what the queen tried to express. Daniel was in fellowship with another world; he knew God. (pp.119-120)

Why did Daniel refuse the king’s offer? Probably there were two reasons for his refusal. (1) It was important for him to make plain that spiritual gifts cannot be bought. Instinctively we are reminded of Simon Magus [quotes Acts 8:18-20]…. (2) It was important for him to make plain that God’s servants cannot be bought [quotes 1 Thess. 2:4-5]. (pp.120-121)

Alan Vernon (2010), Creative Commons

“Similarly…This description is reminiscent of…Instinctively we are reminded of…” Such is the language of wing-flapping cross-references. Unfortunately, after romping our way through 1 Kings, Isaiah, Hebrews, Acts, and 1 Thessalonians, we don’t know the text of Daniel any better. But we certainly feel like we’ve accomplished something. Ferguson is much more helpful when he sticks to the text at hand, applying his marvelous insights to analyze, explain, and apply it for us.

What This Looks Like in Practice

I once led a Bible study attended by a sweet, godly older woman. She had been walking with Christ for decades, and she was very familiar with God’s word. Week after week, however, she left me wondering whether she wanted to study the Bible with us.

We might be studying Matthew, and she’d want to jump to Romans. Or we’d study a Psalm, and she’d try to take us to 1 Peter. Much of our discussion was a tug-of-war between her, wanting us to turn to different passages, and me, asking whether the cross-reference would help us with the passage at hand.

One week, I experimented by giving her the reins. When she wanted to pull us to a new passage, I went with her. Once we got there, she read it, and I asked her what it meant. For her answer, she said it reminded her of another passage. So we went there. After reading it, she took us to yet another passage. This went on until we read a passage that reminded her of the original one, and we ended up back where we had begun.

With each jump, we read the text and treated its message as self-evident. When it made us think of something else, we were off. After an hour of such discussion, one thing was clear: We had not understood the message of any of these passages. But because we flipped so many pages and moved so quickly, some people felt we had accomplished something spectacular.

Now I don’t think cross-references are inherently unhelpful. There are times when they are good and necessary in Bible study. More on this next week.

But I do get nervous when someone treats “cross-references” as a standard step in Bible study. Or when someone wants to leave the current passage without good reason to do so, or without having first put in the time to get the point. In most cases, the original audience didn’t have access to all the cross-references (or the full canon of Scripture). But they still could understand and apply the text’s main point. So should we.

Disclaimer: The Amazon link above is an affiliate link. If you click it and buy stuff, you’ll support this blog at no extra cost to yourself. You have our thanks.