Truth Magazine

By Chris Reeves

(Note: This article was taken from material in a larger outline entitled “Out With the Old and In With the New: The Cry of the New Hermeneutic” by the same author. This thirty page outline has many useful quotes and references about the New Hermeneutics, a refutation of each of the main points of the New Hermeneutics and a large bibliography. This outline can be ordered from Truth Bookstore.)

Over the past ten to fifteen years we have seen a new theory being promoted among some of our brethren regarding the study and interpretation of the Bible. This theory has been called the “New Hermeneutics” (hereafter, NH). Hermeneutics is a big word but it simply means “interpretation.” Hermeneutics is the process of interpreting the Scriptures. According to the NH, the old way of interpreting God’s word must be abandoned for a new and improved method of Bible interpretation. What is the “old way” or the “old hermeneutic”? For starters, NH advocates say that using commands, examples and necessary inference to establish Bible authority is an old, man-made tradition dating back to the days of Alexander Campbell and this method must go. In addition to this, NH advocates want to abandon any method of Bible interpretation that seeks to find a pattern of truth in a fixed body of first century teach- ing (the New Testament), in order to apply that pattern of truth to the 20th century church. In short, we are told by these NH advocates that we should abandon any rational, “systematized” method of Bible study for an “existential” (emotional) experience with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. A good example of the current and typical NH approach to a study of God’s word is found in an article by John Allen Chalk entitled, “My Life with the Bible: A Meditation on Hermeneutics” (Wineskins, January/February 1994, 20). In this article he writes:

As a child the Bible was a gargantuan intellectual challenge grasped only by the Olympian personalities who came to my little country church and were entertained and hosted by my family. The Bible in those days was a battleground site, a textbook, an anthology of proof texts, understood correctly by a few, misunderstood by most (especially outsiders). The Bible in those days could be contained in a syllogism or a series of syllogisms by which all arguments could be won and all disputes settled quickly and cleanly.

As a young preacher and throughout my full-time ministry years the Bible for me changed slowly through painfully intense study from a sermon text source to a variegated but coherent guide for God-given life shaped by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and actualized in the personal presence of the Holy Spirit. This was a private, intimate, and often troubling journey about which I could say nothing that would belie my confident pulpit pronouncements. In these years I discovered a personal walk with God centered in daily devotional Bible study (as opposed to technical Bible study for sermons and classes which I was compelled to pursue). The controversy in Churches of Christ over the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit erupted in the 1960s just as I emerged from several years of personal search through the Bible for authentic spiritual and moral power. This quest inescapably led me to a new existential decision about Jesus as the living Word of God and a new personal relationship with God’s Holy Spirit.

The Scriptures must be interpreted (Neh.8:8; Luke24:27, 45). The question is, “Which hermeneutic will we use to interpret the Scriptures?” The one set forth by Jesus and the New Testament church, or the NH set forth by some our brethren in recent years? Instead of looking to a NH to interpret God’s word, why not look to the New Testament? What does the New Testament itself say concerning the proper use of Scripture? We should let the New Testament determine how we ought to interpret the Scriptures. There is much to be said against the NH. (See the thirty page outline mentioned above, or the article entitled, “The New Hermeneutic,” Guardian of Truth, October, 6, 1994.) Since this special issue of Truth Magazine is devoted to the topic of how to study the Bible, this article will focus on the New Testament Bible study methods that NH brethren want to abandon. Not only can we learn something about the NH, but we can also learn how to study the Bible along the way by looking at some New Testament examples of Bible study. The best manual on hermeneutics is the New Testament itself.

NH advocates want to abandon the use of the New Testament as a pattern or blueprint. They say that the New Testament was never intended by God to be a “pattern” or “blueprint” that we must follow today. They do not believe the Bible is “propositional revelation” (revelation that sets forth a definite, certain statement of truth that must be understood and obeyed), and they say we should not study the Bible to find truths to obey. They claim that “pattern theology” or “pattern hermeneutics” is an invention of the 19th century church. The New Testament on the other hand teaches us that we must follow it as a pattern. Paul wrote to Timothy and said, “Hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:13). When each New Testament Christian began his new life in Christ, he first obeyed the “form (pattern) of teaching” (Rom. 6:17) found in the gospel, and then he continued on by following the pattern of the apostles’ teaching (Acts 2:42) and the teaching of Christ (2 John 9). A good Bible study method begins with the approach that the New Testament is a pattern for my life and I’m going to search out what that pattern is, follow it and hold it fast.

NH advocates want to abandon the practice of establishing Bible authority by the use of direct statements (or commands), approved examples, or necessary inference. The NH advocates tell us that the “tri-fold hermeneutics” (command, example, inference) is a man-made tradition of the last century and it should be rejected. They claimed that the New Testament does not teach us anything today by apostolic examples or necessary inferences. These examples and inferences are not binding today — explicit statements alone are authoritative. Christ alone is our example. “We are Christo-centric!”, they say. We are told to go to the gospels for our examples, not to Acts or the Epistles. The topic of how to establish Bible authority is covered elsewhere in this issue but a couple of observations are in order here. First, God is the one who has used these three methods throughout time to teach his will. Looking for direct statements, examples, and inferences did not originate in the last century. Long before the 1900s God was using these three methods to teach his will. God teaches by means of these three methods and man learns God’s will by studying what God has said directly, what he has implied (inferences) or by his approved examples.

Second, learning God’s will in this way is not a man- made tradition. We have divine approval from God for this method because this is the very method used by Jesus and the New Testament church. I encourage you to study the following passages and others like them and see how authority for a practice is established by this method: direct statements (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10; 15:1-9; 19:16-23; 22:34-40; 28:18-20; John 12:28; 14:15; 1 Cor. 14:37; 1 Pet. 3:1-2; and 1 John 2:3-5); approved examples (John 13:15; Acts 20:35; 1 Cor. 4:6, 16-17; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:5-7; 2 Thess. 3:7-9; 1 Tim. 1:16; 2 Tim. 3:10,14; Heb. 13:7); and implication/inference (Matt. 12:23-47; 16:5-12; 22:23-33, 41-46; Luke 4:25-30; 1 Cor. 1:13; Heb. 4:6-9; 7:1-17). In one passage alone (Acts 15), we find Christians learning God’s authoritative answer to the question over circumcision by Peter’s implications (vv. 7-11), Paul’s examples (v. 12) and James’ direct statements from the prophets (vv. 13-19). New Testament Christians followed the direct statements, approved examples, and implications given to them by God. We should do the same if we want to truly be New Testament Christians! We should study our Bibles looking for God’s will found in direct statements, indirect statements (implications/inferences), and approved examples.

NH advocates want to abandon making the silence of God prohibitive. The Scriptures teach that if God is silent on a matter, we are not allowed to act in that area; that is, his silence prohibits us from acting. But NH advocates say that when God is silent we have permission to act. They say that God did not intentionally remain silent. God simply didn’t get around to talking about various things in the Bible, therefore, God gives us the freedom to do those things that he did not talk about. However, many times in Scripture we are told that we are to act by the word of God, not by the silence of God. Paul said, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). Think about it. There is no “hearing” in silence; no “word of God” in silence; hence, no “faith” in silence. When men act upon the silence of God, they are not acting by faith! Silence does not express God’s authority or God’s approval. We cannot determine what God wants for us by what God does not say. Study the context of the following passages which teach that God’s people are not to act if God is silent: Exodus 14:13-14; Leviticus 10:1-3; 24:12; Numbers 9:8; 15:34; 20:8,11; 1 Samuel 13:12; 1 Chronicles 13:1-14; 15:13; 2 Chronicles 26:18; Jeremiah 19:5; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Acts 15:24; Galatians 1:6-9; Hebrews 1:5, 13; 7:11-14; 2 John 9-11. When we study God’s word we need to spend our time studying his word, not his silence. We engage in “Bible study,” not “silence study.”

NH advocates want to abandon the use of the New Testament as a book of case law or as a constitution. These advocates believe that the New Testament is not a book of law, but rather a collection of “love letters.” These casual love letters “dashed off by an apostle to a church” were not meant to be used as law for a rigid guideline, but they should be viewed more as good “take-it-or-leave-it” suggestions for modern man. The New Testament does not so teach. It does not claim to be a collection of “love letters.” The New Testament is the “new covenant” law of God (Jer. 31:31-33; Heb. 8:10; 10:16), the “law of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:22; Gal. 6:2) and the “perfect law of liberty” (Jas. 1:25; 2:8, 12). Remember on Pentecost (Acts 2), it was “the law” of Jehovah that went forth from Jerusalem (Isa. 2:1-3). And keep in mind that if there is no “law,” there is no sin (Rom. 4:15; 1 John 3:4). The New Testament is our law book. Just as we would sit down and study various laws to see how we must live in our community (traffic laws, tax laws, zoning laws, etc.), so we must sit down to a study of God’s word looking for the laws by which he governs every aspect of our life (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

NH advocates want to abandon the use of deductive reasoning and logic when trying to learn God’s will. Again, their argument is that our current hermeneutic is a man-made tradition carried over from the “Restoration Movement” of the last century. They say we use deductive reasoning and logic today to study the Bible because Alexander Campbell and others were fond of this method. According to them, anyone today using reason and logic in their study of God’s word is a member of the “Rationalist / Inductive School.” They say that emotion, not reason, is what is important in Bible study. But what does the New Testament say? First, let’s define a few terms (all definitions are taken from the Webster’s New World Dictionary). Don’t be scared by the words being used here. “Reason” simply means “the ability to think, form judgments, draw conclusions, etc.” “Logic” is the use of “correct reasoning.” “Deduction” means “the act or process of deducing; reasoning from a known principle to an unknown, from general to the specific, or from a premise to a logical conclusion.” “Rational” means “of, based on, or derived from reasoning.” “Inductive” means “reasoning from particular facts or individual cases to a general conclusion; the conclusion reached by such reasoning.” We must remember that God has given each of us mental capabilities and he expects us to use them. These varied mental capabilities, in part, are what separate us from the animal kingdom.

When we search the Scriptures we find that God approves of, and demands the use of reasoning in the teaching and learning of his word (Isa. 1:18; 41:21; 1 Cor. 10:15; Rom. 12:1 (KJV); 1 Pet. 3:15). Jesus (Matt. 22:15-46), Philip (Acts 8:35), Paul (Acts 17:2-3, 17; 18:4, 19; 24:25; 26:24-25; Rom. 2:1-3; 1 Cor. 15:12-19), Apollos (Acts 18:28) and the author of Hebrews (3:4; 7:1-17) all used reasoning, logic, rationality, deduction, and induction to teach God’s word. We should use the same mental powers to study it. Take for example the need to become a Christian. The whole question of becoming a Christian involves rationality, reasoning, logic, deduction and induction. No- where in the Bible does my name, “Chris Reeves,” appear. No verse in the whole Bible says something like, “Chris Reeves do this . . .” How then do I know that any part of the New Testament gospel is for me, “Chris Reeves,” if my name is nowhere mentioned? Very simple. I conclude that I too, must become a Christian by reading the facts, principles, cases, and examples found in Scripture. Yes, emotion is important in our Christianity, but so also is a rational sound mind. God expects both (2 Tim. 1:7). A very important study method that must be used each time we sit down to study God’s word is the “inductive method.” First, gather all the Bible information on a topic (observation). Second, learn what that information means (interpretation). Third, draw a conclusion about that information (deduction/induction). Finally, obey what that information teaches (application).

NH advocates want to abandon any claim to know the truth. We cannot know the truth or have the truth, they say. The wholeness of truth lies beyond the grasp of the human mind, and they say that “truth” is not fixed, but ever-changing. They conclude that since we cannot know everything, we cannot know anything for certain. The Bible teaches differently. We can know the truth (Prov. 23:23; 1 Tim. 4:3; 2 Tim. 1:12; Heb. 10:26; 1 John 2:21; 5:18-20; 2 John 1). Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). God’s word is truth (John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13). The truth can be heard (Eph. 1:3), obeyed (1 Pet. 1:22) and followed (2 John 4). The church is the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). We must defend the truth (Jude 3; 1 Pet. 3:15) and speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). If we do not know the truth, we will be punished (2 Thess. 1:8). We do not know all there is to know, but what God has revealed to us is truth, and we can know it and respond to it (Deut. 29:29). While it is true that many do not know the truth in the Bible, it is not because the truth is unattainable. It is because these people do not love the truth (2 Thess. 2:10), nor do they want the truth (2 Tim. 3:1-7). When we study the Bible we should study to find God’s truth, and then apply that truth to our lives to make us better people. Bible study is not to be purely academic. It is supposed to be practical.

NH advocates want to abandon the approach that all Scriptures are equally important. NH advocates criticize us for having a “flat” Bible where all truths are held equally important. NH advocates talk about the “core gospel,” the “fundamentals of the faith” or the “seven essential items of Christian faith” (as per Eph. 4:4-6). Misusing Matthew

23:23, NH advocates say that there are “weightier” matters of the gospel upon which we all must agree (like the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ), and the “less weightier” matters of doctrine are mere opinions upon which we all agree to disagree (like the work, worship, and organization of the local church). This is similar to the “gospel-doctrine distinction” made by some brethren a few years ago. Of course, the NH advocates cannot tell us exactly what the “core gospel” is. They have been adding to it and taking from it for years, and they cannot agree among themselves what it should include. The truth is that all of God’s word is equally important and all of it must be used as a basis of fellowship (2 John 9-11). “All things” that Christ has commanded must be observed (Matt. 28:20; cf. Acts 3:22). “All Scripture” (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and “all wisdom” (Col. 1:28) is necessary to make us complete. When you study your New Testament, don’t study looking for what is and is not essential, picking and choosing what you think is important and is not important.

“Out with the old and in with the new” is the cry of the NH. But for those of us who are interested in pleasing God, let us be content to use the Scriptures in the way that Jesus and the New Testament church used them. We do not need a NH. We need the hermeneutic of Jesus and the New Testament church. Let us not abandon what is clearly established in God’s word. Let us study the Bible to (1) examine the pattern and hold it fast, (2) receive our authority from God’s direct statements, implications and approved examples, (3) hear what God says, not what he does not say, (4) learn the law of Christ and abide by it, (5) draw conclusions about what God wants for our lives today, (6) hear, understand and obey God’s truth, and (7) find and obey all things that God requires for our lives as Christians. I appeal to all brethren to follow the example of Jesus and the New Testament church, as they seek to study the Bible and handle accurately the word of truth today.

By 

Mike Webb

There is no more important question to ask when studying the Bible than “how do we establish Bible authority?” It is a question about which there is much disagreement in the modern religious world including the Church of Christ. In this article we simply want to look at the Bible to seek the answer to this most important question.

The Need for Bible Authority

1. We are commanded to do everything in the name of Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul wrote in Colossians 3:17, “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.” To do everything in the name of Christ means to do everything by his authority. In a similar passage the apostle Paul told the Corinthians to be careful “not to think beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). Both of these passages suggest the great importance of having Bible authority for what we practice in religion.

2. Examples that suggest the importance of having authority for what we do. There are many examples of men in the Bible who acted without having authority from God and they paid the price for their disobedience. One such example is Cain. Cain and his brother Abel both offered sacrifices to God (Gen. 4:3-4). God accepted Abel’s sacrifice, but he rejected Cain’s sacrifice (Gen. 4:4b-5). The reason God accepted Abel’s sacrifice was that it was offered by faith (Heb. 11:4). This means that Abel obeyed God’s instructions for offering the sacrifice. Cain did not follow God’s instruction and his sacrifice was rejected. Nadab and Abihu also acted without God’s authority and were destroyed. The text says that they offered “profane fire which the Lord had not commanded” (Lev. 10:1). These are just a couple of the examples that suggest the importance of having authority for what we do.

Ways We Don’t Establish Bible Authority

1. We don’t establish authority by the silence of the Scriptures. Some believe that one way to establish authority is by the silence of the Scriptures. Some have said that where the Scriptures are silent that we are free to act. Some have written tracts and delivered sermons on what to do when there is no pattern. We must understand, however, that the silence of the Scriptures is not a means by which we establish authority. The silence of the Scriptures is not permissive. The Hebrew writer argued that Jesus could not serve as a priest under the law of Moses, not because the Scriptures said that he couldn’t, but because it never authorized it. Listen to the words of the Hebrew writer, “For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning the priesthood” (Heb. 7:14). Some of our brethren today still act like the silence of Scripture is permissive. I hear brethren asking questions like “where does the Scripture say that we can’t do this or that?” When we ask questions like this we are asking the wrong question. We need to be asking “Where does the Scripture authorize it?”

 

2. We do not establish authority by expediency. Some of our institutional brethren want to list expediency as a means for establishing authority. An expedient is simply a means or method that one may use to accomplish a goal. We must recognize that for a thing to be an expediency it must first be lawful or authorized. Paul made this point in 1 Corinthians 6:12 when he said, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” We cannot claim an addition to God’s word or a substitution for God’s way as an expedient and think that it is then authorized.

3. We do not establish authority in a way different from first century Christians. Many of our liberal brethren are now calling for a new hermeneutics. We are told that the old hermeneutics is outdated and we need one for the twentieth century. We must recognize that Jesus and God have not changed (Heb. 13:8). We must establish authority today in the same way that the first century Christians did.

Three Ways to Establish Bible Authority

1. Direct Command. The first way that we can establish Bible authority is by direct command. This is when the Bible directly makes a statement or a positive command. One example of a direct command would be the apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost. Peter directly told the people to “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). All three ways to establish authority can be illustrated by the Lord’s supper. The observance of the Lord’s supper is authorized by direct command or precept. Jesus directly commanded the observance of the Lord’s supper in Matthew 26 when he said, “take eat; this is My body” and “drink from it, all of you.” Paul also directly commanded the observance of the Lord’s supper in 1 Corinthians 11:25. We can also find all three ways of establishing authority illustrated in the controversy of Acts 15 over circumcision. James in discussing the subject of circumcision of Gentiles appealed to a direct statement of Scriptures. He quoted from Amos 9:11-12 (Acts 15:16-17). After appealing to direct statement James had established that “we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God” (Acts 15:19).

2. Approved Example. The second way we want to look at to establish authority is by an approved example. We are not talking about establishing authority by an example but by an approved example. By approved example we mean an example where the people were acceptable unto God.

Approved example can also be illustrated by the Lord’s supper. We know the time of its observance because we have an example of early Christians observing the Lord’s supper. In Acts 20:7 Luke records, “and upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread” (Acts 20:7). We do not have a direct command telling us to take the Lord’s supper on the first day of the week, but we find this example of early Christians com- ing together on Sunday for that purpose. We also find an approved example appealed to in Acts 15 to help solve the circumcision problem. Peter and Barnabas “declared how many miracles and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles” (v.12). This is a case of establishing authority by an approved example. God had approved the work of Paul and Barnabas in converting Gentiles by the miracles and wonders he performed through them. These examples proved that God approved the salvation of the Gentiles and that circumcision should not be bound on them.

3. Necessary Inference. The third and final way of establishing authority we want to discuss is necessary inference. This is not the establishing of authority by an inference but by necessary inference. By necessary we mean that no other conclusion can be drawn from the text. The frequency of the observance of the Lord’s supper is established by necessary inference. We read in Acts 20:7 where the disciples partook of the Lord’s supper on the first day of the week. By necessary inference we infer that since every week has a first day that they partook every single week.

Necessary inference is also found in Acts 15. Peter related to the brethren at Jerusalem how God had acknowledged the Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit (v. 8). Peter then concluded or inferred that God “made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith” (v.

9). These are the only three ways that we can find in the Scriptures for establishing Bible authority.

Two Kinds Of Authority — Specific And Generic

1. Specific Authority. Specific authority is when God has specified what he wants us to do, or the method we are to use in obeying him. Specific statements exclude everything outside of that which is specified. The silence of God prohibits the use of anything other than that specified. The silence of God does not permit. The type of wood that Noah was to use in building the ark is an example of specific authority. God specified gopher wood and that excluded the use of any other kind of wood (Gen. 6:14). The elements of the Lord’s supper is another example of specific authority. God has specified the elements of the Lord’s supper are to be unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. This excludes the use of any other elements on the Lord’s table. The New Testament specifies that we are to sing in worship to God (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Since God specified singing this excludes any other kind of music like instrumental music or humming.

2. Generic Authority. Generic authority is when God has not specified the action or method by which we are to obey a command. In the case of generic authority we may use any action or method that comes within the realm of the general command. The most common example of generic authority is the command to go teach the world (Mark 16:16; Matt. 28:19-20). In the great commission God commanded us to go and teach the world, but he did not specify the method we are to use when we go. Therefore, we are free to use any method that falls within the general command to go. We may go by car, airplane, bus, or we may walk. All of these are authorized because they are all means of going. God commanded us to sing in worship (Eph. 5:19). God did not specify what part we are to sing or whether we are to sing by book or from memory. We are, therefore, free to choose what part we are going to sing and whether or not we are going to use a book, or what book we are going to use. When we make these decisions, we are still obeying the command to sing. This is not parallel to instrumental music. God specified singing, and instrumental music is another kind of music.

Conclusion

There is no more important question than “how do we establish Bible authority?” We need to be sure that we are teaching the younger generations these basic principles. I believe that most of the doctrinal problems in the Lord’s church could be solved if we simply learned how to establish Bible authority and then learned to respect what God authorized. 

By Steve Curtis

The purpose of this article is to examine a few methods of Bible study. One may not consciously recognize different methods of study, but may have used different methods in his own personal study or in preparation for and participation in Bible classes. In discussing these methods, our focus will be on three things: (1) techniques of different study methods; (2) advantages and disadvantages of each study method; and (3) study methods in relationship to personal study and Bible classes.

I would like to thank brother Donnie Rader for asking me to contribute to this special issue. In no way do I claim to be an authority on methods of Bible study. Everyone does not use the same methods and techniques. However, this article contains personal observations and is written in hopes that some might benefit.

Survey Study

The purpose of this method is to get an overall view of a subject. This may mean getting a broad view of the Bible as a whole, a broad view of a particular book of the Bible such as Genesis or Acts, or a broad view of a particular period of the Bible such as surveying the prophets, the kings, the life of Christ, or the epistles of Paul. It is easy to find good outlines in each of these areas that will help an individual.

Can you imagine working a thousand piece puzzle without knowing what the finished product looks like? Just taking one piece, it would be difficult to get a general idea of where it fits into the picture. Does it go in the top or bottom, left or right? Without any idea of the finished product, would you pick up a piece and examine it for every detail to place it where it belonged exactly? Or, would it be easier to put all the pieces with a flat edge together, all the blue pieces together, etc.? By getting a general idea of each piece, eventually one could put all the flat pieces together to form the border, all the blue pieces together to form the sky, and so on. Eventually, by taking a general observation of each piece, one could have an overview of the whole picture. Now, imagine the difficulty someone with no overview or broad picture of the Bible would have trying to take one piece and understand the whole.

The advantage of surveying a subject would be getting a broader picture. To get a broader view of the Bible, reading is essential. Read to get a general idea as opposed to under- standing every detail and remembering every fact. In Acts 7, we find one of the longest recorded sermons. Stephen preached this sermon to the Jews. His main point, found in verse 51, is “You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.” How does he develop this point? Starting back in verse 2, Stephen uses an overview of the history of the Jews to show their fathers had rejected deliverers such as Joseph and Moses just as they had rejected Christ, the Son of God. Without his audience having an overall view of their history, Stephen could not have made his point as forcibly as he did. Think about how difficult it would be to understand the book of Hebrews without any idea of the tabernacle, the sacrifices, and the function of the priests under the law of Moses. Having an overview of the entire Bible will assist one in understanding biblical principles and contexts of Scripture.

No one method discussed in this article can stand on its own. The disadvantage to this method, if taken alone, would be a lack of knowledge concerning terms and principles contained within the context of Scripture. With just an overview of the Bible, one might believe the Ten Commandments are applicable today. One might believe instrumental music is acceptable in worship because king David used it. Terms, verses, contexts of Scripture, and Biblical principles can be greatly abused when one is satisfied with just a general picture of the Bible.

Individually, each person will have to determine how in-depth his survey will be. One might consider his knowledge of the overall Bible and the amount of time to invest in the survey to determine how in-depth the survey would be. This method of study will be a good means by which to build and fortify one’s foundation of faith. In a Bible class environment, the class needs to understand the purpose of the survey and the amount of time to complete it. A disciplined teacher will keep the class on track and focused on the broad picture and overall view. Examining every detail may cause the class to miss the forest for the trees.

Detailed Study

The purpose of this method is to examine each detail to have a fuller understanding of all that God has to say. Using this method, one may consider several factors. If one were going to do a detailed study of the book of James or the book of Joshua, factors such as authorship, date of writing, reason for being written, who is being addressed, and their home life should be considered. Also, one should include consideration of political, social, economic, and geographical settings. If one were to do a detailed study on marriage, it would be important to consider all of God’s word on that subject. Factors such as how the term is used in the Old Testament and New Testament would be important. Defining the term as it is used in its different forms and in its original use would be important to a full understanding.

The advantage of using a detailed study is being able to achieve a good understanding concerning all God has to say on a particular subject or in a particular context of Scripture. For example, a detailed study avoids taking a subject like the Ten Commandments or instrumental music out of context. The disadvantages of this method would be the self- discipline involved in such a committed effort, the time required, and the necessity of having a good library with at least a Bible dictionary, commentaries, concor- dance, and some type of Bible encyclopedia. Some may find it is hard to make time for such a study and may not have access to good library materials.

For the individual who would use this method, time allowing for thorough investigation of those factors mentioned above is important. With the proper attitude, this method will help to build upon the foundation of our faith. In a Bible class environment, students must be willing to invest the amount of time and effort at home to participate and fully benefit from such a Bible class study. Only well prepared teachers can bring each detail to light.

Verse By Verse

The purpose of this method is to examine the whole context of a particular book of the Bible. This provides a wonderful opportunity to consider every aspect of God’s word. Certainly detail is an important aspect of this method. One may consider comparing several translations of the text, defining important words and key passages within the text and examining what commentators have written. After such, it is important to organize information and thoughts into an outline so that each verse, each sentence, each paragraph and chapter are understood in relationship to the whole book.

The advantage of such a study is that it equips the individual not only with a thorough understanding of God’s word, but also assists one in understanding words and verses within the context of their use. Most of us have probably experienced studying with someone who jumps around the Scriptures, taking words and passages out of their context to support some false idea. Some denominationalist may read Acts 16:15, which tells us that Lydia and her household were baptized, as proof for infant baptism. Some of our liberal brethren may take passages like Galatians 6:10, “do good unto all men,” and James 1:27, “pure and undefiled religion . . . is to visit the orphans and widows,” out of context for authority for the church to show benevolence to non-saints or for working through human institutions. Some brethren might read Acts 11:20 concerning the Christians “preaching the Lord Jesus” as proof that they did not preach the church, but the Lord. A good verse by verse study of these passages in their context would help avoid some misunderstandings. One disadvantage a person might consider when using this method is that information from the study might not be profitable without understanding it in relationship with the broader overview of the Bible. Therefore, some may not find such a study interesting.

Individually, one can select a particular context that he does not fully understand or has not studied in detail. Taking good notes as the study progresses, one could eventually have his own personal commentary. Consideration for the age and maturity of students should be considered in a Bible class environment. Again each student must put forth effort at home to benefit from such a study. The teacher should not allow the study to become so detailed that the class loses interest.

Topical Study

The purpose of this method is to examine a word or subject comprehensively. This method of study might begin by using a concordance to locate as many passages as possible that refer to the subject of interest. Study each passage within its context to determine which passages contribute insight into understanding the subject or topic. The goal would be to learn everything possible God has said on a particular subject.

The advantage of a topical study is that it enables one to examine and understand all that God has said on a particular subject. This is an asset in personal work, teaching Bible classes, delivering sermons, extending invitations, etc. For example, take the topic of baptism. Using a topical study, we find that the Bible teaches that baptism is essential unto salvation (Mark 16:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). Baptism is for the remission of sins and follows repentance (Acts 2:38). The action of baptism for the remission of sins involves a burial (Rom. 6:4). What type or kind of burial is baptism? It is a burial in water (Acts 8:38). If all one knew about baptism was from Mark 16:16, how would he be able to know that baptism for the remission of sins is immersion in water? How would one be able to teach others all that God has said on the subject?

Any one of these methods by itself is not sufficient. This method becomes a disadvantage if there is no understanding of how the topic fits into the broader scope of the Bible. If one only has a topical knowledge of the Bible, he does not have a full understanding of God’s word. Many are probably familiar with the story of the six blind men who were asked to identify an elephant. Each man was given a different part. If each man’s idea of an elephant was only as extensive as the part he held, we know he would not fully understand what an elephant is. 

Individually, anyone interested in teaching must have some topical knowledge of basic Bible subjects. Since everyone is to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason of the hope that is in you,” it will do us well to equip ourselves with such knowledge. One might start with a subject he lacks knowledge of or he may choose some subject that will assist him in studying with a particular individual. Unfortunately, some never consider all the Bible has to say on a particular topic. Therefore, it is an effective means of teaching in a Bible class. It would be wise for the teacher to have studied the topic comprehensively to avoid seeming contradictions and taking passages out of context.

Conclusion

As mentioned before, I do not claim to be an authority in this area and now you know I have not lied. Hopefully, these observations will make us more consciously aware of different methods of study, see the importance of each, and the necessity of not being satisfied with just one approach in Bible study.

By Rick Duggin 

After a frustrating and unprofitable study with Watch- tower representatives, a young Christian mourned that if only she had known the Greek, she could have refuted their assertions, and possibly could have converted them. Since she did not know Greek and did not have time to learn it, she did the next best thing — she called in a “hired gun” to lead the next discussion. The ability to read Greek, in her opinion, was a intimidating weapon with which she could silence every objection of her opponents.

There are several misconceptions in this thinking. (1) It implies that if we do not know Greek and Hebrew, we cannot know the Bible as we should. (2) It tends to exalt the person who is acquainted with biblical languages, and to discredit all who lack this knowledge. (3) It gives a wrong message to those whom we are trying to teach. Our next door neighbor may already believe that the Bible is hard to understand. If we strengthen this impression by implying that he must learn the original languages to understand God’s truth, we may discourage him from further study.

Some Dangers To Avoid

1. The average person who knows nothing of the original languages can understand the Bible. Roman Catholics wrongly claim that the “Church” is the official interpreter of Scripture. We must not turn language scholars into our official interpreters. Most Christians do not know Greek or Hebrew, but their study of the English translations can equip them to know God’s will (Eph. 3:3, 4; 5:17). The most celebrated Greek and Hebrew scholars of our day do not understand God’s plan of salvation, the work of the church, or how to worship him in spirit and in truth. 

2. Christians who have no knowledge of Greek or He- brew can teach Bible classes effectively. Denominations often require their preachers to spend a few years studying the original languages in seminaries, but this knowledge does not necessarily improve their ability to teach, and it certainly does not enable them to teach the truth. Some of the best Bible teachers that I have ever heard knew little or nothing about Greek and Hebrew. 

3. Though he does not know the original languages, the studious child of God can refute false doctrines. Curtis Porter knew only enough about the Greek alphabet to use a lexicon, but I know of no one who had more skill in refuting unscriptural arguments than he had. C.R. Nichol, on the other hand, was a good student of Greek, and he had many debates, but he did not parade this knowledge to impress his listeners. In one debate he allowed an opponent to draw him off into a discussion of Greek in every speech except the first and last ones, and he was disappointed with every speech except these two. Since his audience had not studied Greek, they could not know whether brother Nichol or his opponent was right. Whenever we base an argument solely on the original languages, most people in the audience must take our word for it. 

4. There is no substitute for studying the context of a passage. It is not wrong to quote Greek and Hebrew words while teaching a Bible class — the biblical writ- ers themselves quoted foreign languages (see Mark 5:41;

15:34, and many others). The issue is how valuable this information will be to you or to your class. Suppose you are studying to teach a class on 1 Kings 12, and you want to know more about the “young men” who gave advice to Rehoboam. When you locate this word in a lexicon, you may be frustrated to learn that the word yeled means “child, young man, son, boy, fruit.” You have merely exchanged an English word for a Hebrew word that means the same thing. In this instance, a study of the context would have proved more profitable to you and the class than the ability to recall the Hebrew word.

 5. The study of biblical languages must not become an end in itself. An old Scottish proverb says, “Greek, Hebrew, and Latin all have their proper place. But it is not at the head of the cross, where Pilate put them, but at the foot of the cross, in humble service to Christ.” We must guard against any attempt to display our knowledge. Preaching and teaching must not become an ego-trip that focuses attention on the speaker. Whether the language is Greek, Hebrew, Latin, or English, before we pronounce an impressive array of words, we should first decide whether our purpose is to please God or to impress men. 

6. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The average man can learn how to perform an appendectomy in about ten minutes. If something goes wrong, however, he will need at least four more years of complex study to handle the emergency. Most people would not allow even the most talented medical student to operate on them. A little knowledge is too risky. 

In a few moments, the average man can learn the Greek and Hebrew alphabets, and this knowledge gives him access to lexicons. This can be dangerous. We have often heard someone quote Thayer to prove a point, only to find that he was quoting Thayer’s comments instead of his definitions. When a lexicographer assigns a particular definition to a word, that is one thing; when he says that it means a certain thing in a particular passage, be careful. At this point he has stopped giving definitions and has started making comments.

The 1952-1974 editions of the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich lexicon include this definition of psallo — “. . . our lit., in accordance w. O.T. usage, sing (to the accompaniment of a harp). . .” (899). This is commentary, pure and simple. Bauer’s original German edition translated psallo as sing. Arndt and Gingrich added the phrase, “to the accompaniment of a harp.” This biased addition caused such a protest that Danker, to his credit, omitted the phrase in the 1979 edition of Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker.

Though students of Classical Greek highly value the lexicon by Liddell-Scott-Jones-McKenzie-Barber, they nevertheless view it as a form of commentary. Why? Be- cause the meaning of a word depends on its context, and the only way for classical students to be sure of its definitions is to spend years reading the original texts of Plato, Aristotle, Thycydides, and many others. Few students have the time and determination to reach this level of scholarship, but the fact that they put so much effort into reading multitudes of original texts, and not in merely quoting from lexicons, should tell us something. In one way, the good Bible student has an advantage over classical scholars. We have a relatively small amount of material to understand — the Old and New Testaments — and we can read the material again and again in reliable translations, thus seeing for ourselves how God uses words in their context. This does not imply that lexicons are generally unreliable, but it does admonish us to exercise great care when using them.

Is There No Value In Looking Up Hebrew and Greek Words?

If our preceding remarks have persuaded you that word studies and lexicons can be dangerous, you may be planning to include your word study books in your next yard sale. Before you do, let’s consider the other side of the issue. My purpose in the first part of this article is not to discourage the use of lexicons altogether, but rather to warn against some common abuses of them. While we would not allow a medical student to operate on us, our society does encourage average, non-medical people to learn first-aid. Why do we do this? Because it is better to know a little than to know nothing at all. The same principle is true of lexicons. There are times when the use of biblical lexicons can be very rewarding.

1. A word study can help to explain a passage to a Bible class. When Daniel explained the handwriting on the wall (Dan. 5) to King Belshazzar, why did he use upharsin in verse 25 and peres in verse 28? The “u-” of the first word means “and.” The “-p” becomes “-ph” when following the conjunction “and.” The “-in” is simply the plural form of the word. Thus the consonants are the same in both words — prs. While this is not absolutely essential to understanding the narrative, it may answer a few questions.

2. There are times when lexicons can help to refute false doctrines. Visitors from the Watchtower Society often portray themselves as skilled students of biblical languages, and they often seek refuge from difficult questions by mis- representing both the definitions and the grammatical rules of Greek and Hebrew works. This refuge often backfires. For example, they teach that death is annihilation, and often base their position on the word apollumi, which is translated “destroy” in such passages as Matthew10:28. They claim that apollumi teaches annihilation. They also teach that the earth will endure forever. But in Hebrews 1:11 the word apollumi refers to the heavens and earth. It requires a great deal of talent to stretch the definition of a word so far that it can include something that is annihilated in one verse and something that endures forever in another verse.

3. It can shed light on passages. When I first learned that the “simplicity” that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) does not refer to the fact that the gospel is written in simple language, but to that which is single or sincere, in contrast to duplicity, I was forced to rethink an expression that I had heard and used for several years. (The gospel is written in simple language, but this is not the word or the place to prove it.)

It is enlightening to study the King James Version’s “Easter” in Acts 12:4. The word pascha occurs about thirty times in the New Testament, and in every case it is translated “passover,” except in Acts 12:4. All other versions that I have checked, including the New King James, consistently translate it “passover” in every passage.

Once I sat in a Bible class once where some were wondering if the “governor” of the feast (John 2:8, 9) was different than the “ruler” of the feast (John.2:9, KJV). A good concordance shows that the original uses the same word each time. The New King James Version uniformly translates it “master” of the feast.

Another passage that may seem confusing is Galatians

1. Paul refers to “another” gospel (v. 6) which is “not an- other” (v. 7). The original uses two different words. Heteros of verse 6 refers to a gospel of a different kind than Paul preached, while allos of verse 7 refers to a gospel of the same kind. False teachers wanted to substitute another (different) gospel for the one that Paul preached.

How Do I Find Words In A Lexicon?

There are several ways to look up words in lexicons, but we will limit our discussion to the two easiest.

1. Use Strong’s Concordance. First, find the word that you want to research. Second, locate the number that Strong’s assigns the word. If the number is in italics, the word will be found in the Greek dictionary in the back of Strong’s; otherwise it is Hebrew and will be found in the Hebrew dictionary. Third, find Strong’s number in one of the lexicons that is keyed to this concordance. For example, the word love in 1 Corinthians 16:22 is numbered 5368. Thayer’s lexicon is now coded to Strong’s numbering system, enabling someone who possesses no knowledge of Greek to find words just by matching the numbers in the two volumes.

This procedure is especially helpful in the study of He- brew words. The word love in Psalm 119:97 in Strong’s Concordance is number 157. Using this number, we can turn to the Index of the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, or to The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, both of which are keyed to Strong’s, and easily obtain definitions that were once restricted almost entirely to those who knew Hebrew.

The King James Version of Deuteronomy 22:19 uses the obscure word “amerce.” While you could check the New King James Version to learn that it translates this word by “fine,” as in a financial punishment, this would not tell you if the Hebrew word behind the translation occurs only here, or if it can be found in other passages as well. Noting that Strong’s assigns number 6064 to this word, you turn to Brown-Driver-Briggs, see that it discusses the Hebrew word anash on pages 778-779, and learn that it occurs in about seven other places in the Old Testament, though it is not translated by the word “amerce.” In this way, the lexicon serves as an abridged concordance.

2. Use Young’s Concordance. Many people find that Young’s Concordance is easier to use than Strong’s. This book classifies the biblical words of the King James Version in groups, each of which is based on the original Hebrew and Greek words. For example, the word “love” in John 21:15-17 can be found under two entries in Young’s — Number 5 which gives the references for the verb agapao, and Number 7 which gives those for the verb phileo.

After looking up “amerce” in Young’s, and seeing that it comes from the Hebrew word anash, you may turn to the index-lexicon to the Old Testament in the back of the book, find ANASH (in upper-case English letters), and learn that the second form of the word is translated in the King James Version in the following ways — amerce, 1; condemn, 2; punish, 1; be punished, 1, etc. This is a very helpful tool that will pay rich dividends to the serious student of God’s holy Word.