A Word of Caution
We Are All obliged to study the Scriptures, whether brother or sister, old or young. Study is not the task of speakers only, or even just brethren, or those who have a ‘bent’ for study. Bible study is the means whereby we assimilate the Divine mind. Secular use of the word ‘study’ does not reflect the Biblical concept with which we are concerned. The Biblical concept is conveyed, for example, in the Old Testament by the word “meditate”, which occurs regularly in the context of reflection on the words of God (e.g. Ps. 1:2). In this process, ‘study aids’ are subordinate to the Scriptures themselves. At best, they can be a help. At worst, they can pollute and contaminate our appreciation of the Word of God.
The Bible presents us with God’s faultless reasoning, and we should be concerned to pattern our thinking on the Divine model laid out in Scripture. In the Bible we can see the Divine thought processes. In the works of men we see human thought processes which reflect the Divine only insofar as the author has a perception of the Divine mind. The ever-present danger with study aids is that we may absorb godless reasoning along with data about the Scriptures. We may learn facts about the Bible which, whilst valid in themselves, may have been misinterpreted due to perverted reasoning or a distorted framework of reference used by the author of the aid. Even worse, we may be given ‘facts’ which are, quite simply, false.
For all these reasons a different value needs to be attached to the various types of aids to Bible study. What appears to provide us with the most information about the Bible does not necessarily lead us to a position of greatest wisdom, as Biblically defined. Information in itself is not the most valuable commodity in Bible study: it is merely a means to an end (Prov. 1:2-5). The aid which enables us to present the most ready-made exposition with the least effort is not necessarily the most useful. In the long term it will probably prove the most useless. The most important aids will be those which promote a personal appreciation of the Scriptures and a familiarity with the Divine mind.
What follows therefore is a review, by no means exhaustive, of some of the aids which brethren and sisters use in their own Bible study, with a discussion of their merits and demerits as appropriate. Behind all our use of such aids, however, must lie the desire to know more of God, and to ask questions constantly about His revelation to us. Without questions we shall never find answers; and unless we admit and formulate our ignorance we will not realise our need for Bible study. For this reason we should all bring to God’s Word the most basic and the most readily-available study aid of all: a prayerfully enquiring mind.
Dictionaries and encyclopedias
The word ‘soul’ is defined in The Concise Oxford Dictionary as the immaterial part of man, as in ‘immortality of the soul’. This definition is coloured by an unscriptural understanding of a Biblical word. Whilst it is obvious that no Christadelphian would be misled by the above definition, it usefully illustrates an important point: that secular usage does not necessarily mirror the way words are used in Scripture. For this reason, general dictionaries and encyclopedias are virtually useless as reliable aids to Bible study. Whilst this may appear to be a gross oversimplification, a little thought will show it not to be. Dictionary definitions may be accurate from a secular point of view; but since society today is pagan and astray from Scripture the accurate secular meaning will very often contradict Bible teaching. If we do not know the meaning of a word and we go to the dictionary to find it we have no direct method of assessing the validity of any definition given. If we can check the accuracy of the information elsewhere then we should use that more reliable aid.
These points are valid also when considering Bible dictionaries, in that they will naturally reflect the doctrinal bias of their compilers. For example, the word ‘hell’ is defined by Collins’s Gem Dictionary of the Bible as “the lowest of three shelves of the cosmos. . . under the earth that was flat. . . (The dead) were shades living in a shadow . . . it was just possible to get back to earth from it”. Or again, Collins’s Bible Encyclopaedia and Concordance says that the word ‘hell’ translates the word sheol, “which comes from an Assyrian root meaning ‘chamber’ . . . The notion of torment is certainly seen elsewhere”. In both these definitions there is doctrinal error, whilst in the second example the secular origin of the word sheol is assumed to determine the Biblical usage of the term. Instead, however, the question should be asked as to whether we are dealing with a Hebrew word which God chose to use for His own purposes, or whether, as the encyclopedia implies, we are dealing with an Assyrian word which God chose to use because the Assyrian concept matched that which He intended to convey. This is an important and frequently recurring issue, which seriously reduces the value of many such works.
Commentaries
There is as yet no complete Bible commentary produced by a Christadelphian, though there are many expositions of individual Bible books by brethren (see below: section on Articles and books). In considering complete systematic commentaries, therefore, we are dealing with material written by non-Christadelphians. For this reason care must be exercised in their use. This is not to assume that Christadelphians are the only source of reliable knowledge about the Bible. Far from it: much valuable information can be gained from commentaries. The point is that many commentators are ready sources for doctrinally biased information. Nor are we always dealing with clearly stated views which directly contradict our own Bible-based beliefs. Instead we often find that the writer’s whole approach to Scripture is unsound, affecting his judgements in many areas.
In The New Bible Commentary Revised (Intervarsity Press, 1970) the general comments made about the inspiration of the Scriptures seem quite encouraging, and we might be forgiven for thinking that this is a work which approaches Scripture from the same viewpoint as ourselves, namely, that it is actually the verbally-inspired Word of God. But such hopes are soon removed when we look at the way the commentary deals with the Gospels. The traditional Higher-Critical approach is taken, which assumes both the existence of the alleged ‘Q’ manuscript and the need for the writers to copy from each other. Such an approach to Scripture renders suspect all the commentary’s other statements about the Word, since the writer’s view of inspiration is not ours. Once verbal inspiration has been abandoned in this way then the details and fine points of the text become of mere academic interest to the commentator, since they do not represent the very words of God. As a consequence the value of such a commentary is greatly reduced for our purposes.
It would be wrong, however, to leave the impression that all commentaries are bad. That is not the case. If a commentary’s approach to Scripture reflects a consistent acceptance of verbal inspiration it may contain much of value. But still we must be on our guard for any doctrinal errors. And if there are none it is worth checking the commentator’s attitude to the origin of Biblical concepts, for this can be a source of much misleading information. If such concepts are ascribed to borrowing from the nations around Israel ( as in the example of sheol discussed above) then the work is suspect. In addition it is fair to say as a general guide that commentaries written in the 19th century before the rise of Higher Criticism are more reliable than those written at a later date. This is due almost entirely to the more reverent attitude to the Word of God which was generally found amongst Bible scholars then.
But in all this we must realise that all we gain from the Bible commentary is information. It is for us to translate that information into material which helps us to understand the Scriptures more fully, for the purpose of creating in us that mind which is pleasing to the Father. That last part of the process often ignored by those who use commentaries is by far the most difficult task.
Bible versions (and paraphrases)
The purpose of a translation of the Bible into English, or any other language, is to convey in that language the meaning of the text of the Hebrew Old and Greek New Testaments. That is the only reason for having a translation at all. The translation allows us to understand in our own tongue what the original texts actually said. There is no perfect translation available to us, since the translation of the Scriptures is in the hands of fallible men. Paraphrases can be dismissed as valueless in true Bible study, since they do not convert the meaning of the original text into another language with precisely that same meaning. A paraphrase takes the general message from the original ( often in translation), and converts that into modern language, often with the addition of the paraphrases own opinions.
It has been cogently argued that the Authorised Version is the most useful translation for preaching purposes.’ However, we do not need to rely on one writer’s opinion. We should, and can, establish for ourselves what is a good translation. First, the translation must accurately convey the meaning of the original text. Second, the translation should, as far as possible, be consistent in its rendering of the same Hebrew and Greek words. (This is essential if one is to conduct serious study requiring careful consideration of the usage of the same original word.) Third, it is of great value, unless one has a phenomenal memory, to be able to use a concordance as an aid to study. A consequence of this is that the translation used should have a good concordance available for it. Of course, the existence of a concordance is not itself an indicator of a good translation; but it may be a determining factor when considering two translations which appear equally good.
All translations are marred to some extent by doctrinal bias and inconsistencies. We must take care that we do not mix our own preference with unfair presentation of such flaws as the sole criteria for deciding on the translation that we use, appealing to the most appropriate for our purposes as we work on Scripture. It is all too easy to choose a rendering which suits our personal taste or preconception, and so miss the actual point of the text of Scripture.
Concordances
The Bible reader who is genuinely intent on developing a clearer appreciation of the Divine mind will use a concordance at some time or other. Whenever we cannot find a passage of Scripture we rack our minds for its exact wording, decide which word is likely to be the easiest to find in the concordance, and then begin our search. More often than not we find the passage that we are looking for because the concordance is so exhaustive. As an aid to finding passages the concordance is the most satisfactory aid to the ailing memory. However, it would be wrong to see this as the only, or even the main, use of the concordance.
It is important to remember that the meaning of Bible words is determined by the way they are used in Scripture. We traditionally use this rule, for example, to establish the meaning of nephesh (the Hebrew word translated “soul” so frequently in the Old Testament). We should also use the same approach in our own personal study of the Word. For example, Psalm 2:6 says: “Yet have I set My king upon My holy hill of Zion”. How do we understand the word “set” here? Is God merely telling us that He has ‘placed’ His king on the holy hill of Zion? Is He telling us that in some way His king has been ‘fixed’ immovably there? The precise meaning of the Hebrew is, in fact, not immediately apparent from most of the English translations. Young’s Analytical Concordance tells us that the word translated “set” is the Hebrew nasak. Young also tells us that the word means ‘to pour out, anoint’. But we should not immediately assume that this brief definition given in the body of the concordance is either accurate or comprehensive—we need to check it for ourselves in the light of the Biblical usage of the word.
So we look to the Index-Lexicon at the back of the concordance—the section that deals with the Old Testament. Using that section like a dictionary, we look for the word nasak. On finding it we discover that it is translated in a number of different ways in the AV Old Testament. It is translated “set” only once (in Psalm 2) and “pour out” ten times. A consideration of these ten examples would show that they all relate in their context to the pouring out of drink offerings. Somehow, then, the notion of drink offering must also be part of the meaning of the word in Psalm 2:6. A little further reflection will cause us to realise that in the anointing of a king oil is poured out over his head, as in the consecration of the high priest ( see Ps. 133:2). Psalm 2 is thus speaking to us of the fact that Jesus is to be anointed Messiah on Zion, in the face of the opposition of the kings of the earth (vv. 1-5). This is how God is going to “set” His king on Zion.
This small but important point has been brought out without any need to know Hebrew, or even to have a comprehensive understanding of English. The point has been established by comparing different uses of the same word in Scripture by means of a concordance. Examples could be multiplied showing the value of such an approach. In making this point, too, it should not be thought that the meaning that best suits the student is being selected. Often the English word used in a translation cannot catch all the levels and nuances of meaning contained in the original word. The translators pick off the level and nuance best suited to the context as they see it. It is not possible for them to catch all the levels simultaneously, even if they wanted to. The use of the concordance can help us to overcome this limitation, which is inherent in all translations.
The method can be used most reliably if the frequency and distribution of the different renderings of a particular word are taken carefully into consideration. Ideally it is best not to hang an argument on a single rendering of a word which is far more frequently translated by a word of significantly different sense. For example, the Hebrew word panim is translated “face” 356 times, “presence” 75, and “edge” once. From this evidence it would be wrong not to be cautious of saying that panim means ‘edge’ whenever it is used. It would be far more likely to be correct to say that the word panim relates to the face, or countenance, or presence of an individual. Such a view would be borne out by a consideration in context of the many occurrences of the word in the Bible.
The great value of this whole approach to Scripture is that the concordance really does enable us to compare Scripture with Scripture at the basic level of Hebrew and Greek words—the very building-blocks of Divine communication with men.
Articles and books
Articles and books on Scripture fall into two categories: those written by brethren and those written by aliens. The comments made earlier about non-Christadelphian commentaries apply equally to all books and articles written by the alien. We may gain some valuable information from them, but we must beware of doctrinal bias and lack of reverence for the Word of God. With Christadelphian material generally these points of caution should not need to be considered. But we must be sure just what we expect to get from such material. The works may be detailed expositions either of books of the Bible or of Biblical topics. They may be exhortational or expositional in nature; and they may be designed to stimulate to further study.
This last point ought to be our own aim in reading any article or book, for no work should be regarded as complete in itself. At best it should stimulate us to reflect more on Scripture, which alone is able to make us wise unto salvation. We should never consider any work to be a complete treatment of any Bible subject, no matter who the author may be. The Bible is an inexhaustible treasure chest, and nothing can replace our own prayerful Bible reading if we are to assimilate the Divine mind for ourselves.
In this context, too, it is worth saying just a few words about maps or atlases as aids to Bible study. I feel that we do not give anywhere near as much attention to Bible maps as we should. We read of place names, boundaries, cities of refuge, cities for the priests, and of names giving details of the conquest under Joshua—an almost endless list. But how much notice do we take of all these names? How aware are we of the locations of all these places in their relation to one another? Just to know the names of places where Bible events happened is of little value.
To give them more than mere academic value we need to see them in their geographical relationship to other places, for this will enable us to follow the developing history of Biblical sites as the purpose of God unfolds through Bible times. Such an approach will help us to understand, for example, why Joseph’s brethren went to feed their flocks at Shechem, and what it meant for Jacob to send Joseph to see if all was well with them (Gen. 37). An appropriate use of maps can often help us in this way to see more of what lies behind the text of Scripture.
Marginal references
Though marginal references are spoken of more fully elsewhere in this Special Issue, it is important to include them in any review of Bible study aids. They provide us with a convenient and speedy means of comparing similar passages. Sometimes, of course, the connections suggested by the margin are not useful or valid at all. But often they are very useful indeed. As an aid to study they are well worth checking out when following the text of Scripture. For example, the margin will usually identify quotations from other parts of the Bible and other occurrences of the same original word. And since the Bible is a closed system of truth which can only be understood by constant reference to, and comparison of, its various parts, marginal references can provide the quickest and easiest means of comparing Scripture with Scripture.
The Bible is its own reference book, and much of what we want to know may be located by the simple means of the margin. Of course, such references are very limited in their scope, not least because they take up so little space. But their value in helping us to develop Biblical concepts very quickly is out of all proportion to the space they occupy. Combined with a Biblically-informed memory, the margin can lead to much fruitful study of the Word of God.
Conversations with like-minded believers
Proverbs 27:17 speaks of the value of the personal interaction between brethren and sisters: “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend”. Whereas a book or an article will present the ideas of an author in a single constant stream, personal discussion is interactive. One person presents a view, the other may develop the point, or question all or part of it. The first will then respond further, and so the discussion will continue, possibly halting for weeks at a time in order that views might be refined in the light of comments received. Thus a clearer understanding of the Word of God can be achieved, and fellowship in the Word can develop between those of like precious faith.
Of such events Malachi writes:
“Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before Him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon His name” (Mal. 3:16).
The passage demonstrates, through inspiration, the attitude of the Father to those who engage in such activities. Discussion can be one of the most profitable aids to Bible study: it informs and stimulates the mind, and will often help to demolish our pet theories before they become obsessions.
Conclusion
To sum up all that we have said. The aids that will be most useful in helping us to gain an understanding of the Word of God will be those which make us give close attention to the text of Scripture itself. Such aids will not superimpose human ideas onto the issue in question. The best aids should give rise to our own meditation on the Word of God; they will not merely be a means of acquiring knowledge for its own sake. The writer would place the aids discussed in the following order of priority: marginal references, the concordance, and discussions with those who fear the Lord and speak often one to another.
These aids, coupled with the enquiring, questioning mind, would top his list. Dictionaries and encyclopedias would be at the bottom of the list, whilst selected commentaries and other writings would fall somewhere in the middle. Care needs to be exercised with every study aid, of course; but the Bible reader who prefers the aids lower down the list must beware especially lest the mind be polluted by the “traditions of men”. And above all, as Paul exhorted Timothy, we should all “give attendance to reading” (1 Tim. 4:13) —by which Paul clearly meant the reading of the Word itself.
Reference
1. Arthur Gibson, “Which translation?”, The Christadelphian, 1976, p. 404. In private conversation Brother Gibson has also made a strong case for expanding the scope of the AV’s usefulness to cover personal study.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One