The spiritual reading of the Bible and the established readings of Scripture. On the special nature of spiritual hermeneutics.

The question is often asked whether a spiritual reading of the Bible is really different from our established reading of Scripture. And especially theologians and pastors who are trained to read the Bible responsibly, want to know why their theological training is being reconsidered in Biblical Spirituality and Spiritual Hermeneutics. What is the diference, if there is one at all, between their theologically informed and exegetically refined reading of the Bible and a spiritual reading?

There are more than one way to explain the difference(s). But a key difference will be pointed out by reflecting in some depth on what our traditional readings of the Bible really are. In modern preaching, teaching and in theological and Biblical training, it is underlined that one should “understand” the text. The “contents” and “meaning” are paramount objectives of reading the Bible. And time and again there is a reference to the famous expression of Philip to the Ethiopian: “Do you understand what you are reading?” (Ac. 8:30). So “understanding” and “comprehension” of Bibilcal contents becomes first prize.

It will make much sense to investigate the fascinating story of the encounter between Philip (the relatively unknown apostle who plays such a decisive role in Acts 8) and the Ethiopian. It will help us to understand the special nature of a spiritual reading – or spiritual hemeneutics. It is even more illuminating when one compares this narrative with the Emmaus story in Luke 24 (cf some previous blogs). Both provide special insight in spiritual hermeneutics, but they also share some salient features.

According to Luke 24:27 Jesus explained Scripture and its relationship with Jesus in detail to the two disciples from Emmaus. The same focus on Scripture appears in Acts. The important man, the Ethiopian, sits on his chariot and reads aloud (Ac.8:30) from the prophet Isaiah. This then, is “lectio,” the first step in spiritual hermeneutics. It refers to an involved reading of the text. By reading the text in this way, it resonates with the reader – something that is, for example, prominent in Benedictine spirituality. Here, however, Luke 24:27 underlines also what the Ethiopian is reading.Luke explicitly quotes the passage from Isaiah (verses 32-33). The readers of Luke’s book become co-readers. They, like the Ethiopian, are also “reading” the text. Luke makes sure that they remain involved. Lectio appears in the text, but the text also promotes lectio. Lectio repeated!

But reading is not enough. Philip knows this. This is why he asks: Do you understand what you are reading? (verse 30 – though the Greek does not really use the word “understand”). And the Ehtiopian also knows this is important. He responds: “How can I unless someone ‘explains’ it to me”? The counterquestion underlines the need for explanation. I am quoting the NIV here. It is interesting that the word “explain” is used in this translation – which shows the pre-understanding of the translators of the book and which reflects the cerebral nature of our Bible reading. The Greek says something quite different, which, as we shall see, is decisive for spiritual hermeneutics. The Ethiopian actually said: “How can I if no one shows me the way?” (Later more on this). The Ethiopian knows lectio is not enough. He is reading and reading on his desert journey, but the way is unclear. And he is quick to begin to share his questions on the passage he is reading: “Is the prophet talking about himself or someone else?” (verse 34).


Lectio is important. This man on his lonely journey is on his way back from Jerusalem where he worshipped (verse 27). This is an important word in Luke and indicates dedication and commitment to faith. He worships, even if he does not understand fully. In this sense he is different than the two Emmaus-disciples, who, though close to Jesus, are somber and without hope. Hy keeps on reading and reading.They gave up Jerusalem - he had been worshipping there. But he also has his critical questions – illustrating that lectio is not enough. He wants to know the way. He reflected on what he read. With this a second dimension of spiritual reading is mooted: In his meditation he asks critical questions. Wat is happening in the text? About what or whom is the author speaking? What is meant? (More about this later).

It seems as if the Bible is read here in the same way as we are doing today when we study it with commentaries and with the help of experts. It is being read carefully and by asking critical questions. And, for sure, in this sense there is an overlap between spiritual hermeneutics and critical scholarship or modern Bible reading.

And yet, there is a difference between a critical reading and a spiritual reading, as we shall see. Here it can be noted very briefly that the difference has to dow ith the role of “understanding.” Understanding is important. But is is one dimension of spiritual hermeneutics. It follows after lectio – and this is already an indication that meditatio follows a first important step: one can worship God and still read the Bible with involvement – even if understanding is not immediately present. Though understanding is a condition – and an important one – it is not a pre-condition. Spiritual hermeneutics accounts for this. But more on this later.

Biblical Studies, the big names allege, focus on interpretation and on understanding. Spiritual hermeneutics will want to say: the focus is on spirituality, on faith experienced. That is rather different.