On reading Scriptural passages repeatedly

I have come across this advice several times, and while it may be of some use to some people, I would like to register my dissension.

I believe I first came across this concept from John MacArthur, though cannot remember the context. But he either recommended it or stated that he himself did this; or, quite possibly, both did and recommended reading thru a passage of Scripture multiple times. The rationale of such an exercise was perhaps to commit it to memory, or to better understand the passage in question.

I have since come upon this recommendation several times. Jamsco suggested it, Justin Taylor and Joe Carter referenced it. These go back to a suggestion by James Gray in his 1904 book, How to master the English Bible.

Variants on number of times thru a book are 30 times, 20 times, as many times as needed to master the book.

So I have given this a go. When I first came across the idea I tried James, though not certain if I managed to get thru the full 30 readings. I have also tried it with Jude, Ephesians, and the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7; getting thru each book or passage at least 20 times.

My conclusion, this method is overrated. It may work for some people. If it does, continue. And reading thru more than once has some benefits, not the least being an overview of the book which is sometimes less appreciated when we focus on smaller passages of Scripture. Focused exegesis mindful of a larger context is very useful. But I have not found the reading of a passage multiple times to add significant insight in the 18th or 19th reading. Frankly, 5 times is probably plenty. I think it would be more useful to read the book a few times then come back at a later stage when you have delved into several other books.

I am not saying this is a bad practice, or that it won't work for you. Rather this is to temper others' enthusiasm that you will obtain awesome insights on the 20th reading that you missed on the previous 19.

Seeing our own limitations

Previously I have written that I do not think that we can have a too high a view of Scripture. Emulating Jesus' view of Scripture should be our goal. This does not mean that we worship the Bible—we worship God; yet we should consider that what the Bible says is what God says. For those who do hold the Bible in high regard, the temptation to inappropriate veneration of the Bible is probably not the greatest concern, and it may not even be that common. What is more likely to trouble scriptural infallibilists and inerrantists is their lack of clarity on their own limitations. Limitations in interpreting what the Bible does actually mean; lack of awareness of their cultural biases; failure to grasp context, especially hidden context; and difficulty in applying Scripture to life circumstances.

Related to this last point, we may not just lack insight into general application, but to the specifics of other people's situations. Dale Ralph Davis makes an astute observation,

Those who hold a high view of the Bible's authority sometimes hold a high view of their own ability to assess people's circumstances and to prescribe solutions. (The Word Became Fresh: How to Preach from Old Testament Narrative Texts, p. 108)

We can have a high view of Scripture without having a high view of our ability to interpret it, or our ability to find correct application of Scripture. Further, we may not know enough about the situations of others to assess rightly. Davis makes his comments in the context of Elisha not having prophetic knowledge of the Shunummite woman's situation (2 Kings 4). Likewise, Davis suggests, we must be aware of our own limitations,

Like Elisha, where is the shame in admitting the Lord has not given us light on a matter and that we are reduced to begging him in prayer?

This is not to say that everyone can claim to have extenuating circumstances which rendors them immune to scriptural admonition; rather this is addressed to those who would give advice—that they may choose humility.