I don’t use study Bibles.
No, smart-aleck whippersnappers! I didn’t say that I don’t study the Bible. I said I don’t use a study Bible. I have a couple of them. One of my first Bibles was the original, inspired, Scofield Reference Bible. I’ve had a Thompson Chain. The ESV Study Bible is on my phone and tablets. I just don’t use them as my main Bible and I think that in general, it’s kind of a bad idea to do so. Use them as a reference, essentially as a commentary? Great. But I like the idea of my main Bible being a plain text (or bare text) with perhaps a few translation and textual notes and maybe a cross reference here or there. My preference is single column, but that’s even more minor.
I started thinking about this recently because of Marty Duren – I blame most of my problems on him. He posted on Facebook about an African Study Bible. As someone who travels to West Africa a couple of times a year, I found that fascinating. How many of our interpretations and insights in Scripture are conditioned by American culture rather than by accurate hermeneutics? I plan to get a copy of that sometime. But I won’t use it as my main Bible.
I don’t use study Bibles much. I think you might be better off not using one as your main Bible. Let me explain why.
NOTE: Permit me to put this in perspective. I think there is a worthy principle here, but this is one of those personal-preference, follow-your-conscience, agree-to-disagree things. Study Bibles aren’t sin, I just think that Bible students might be better off not using them as their main Bible study tools.
Where It All Started
I have taken a lot of classes in my college and seminary days, but only one would I point to as life-changing, ministry-empowering. It was Dr. Howard Hendricks’ Bible Study Methods course that was required for first-year students at Dallas Seminary. He taught a four-step approach to Bible study – observation, correlation, interpretation, and application. Dr. Barbieri stepped in and taught the hermeneutics section of my class.
Dr. Hendricks laid out one requirement from the very start. We were to bring a bare text, modern language edition of the Bible with paragraph divisions. That was when I laid down my Thompson Chain and got a used copy of a New Testament in newer translation known as the New International Version. There were so many valuable lessons that I learned in that class that made a difference in my Bible Study and my ministry, but there are two that apply to this topic.
1. The Observation Principle
Dr. Hendricks taught us that observing the text was the most important part of Bible study. We often make assumptions about texts and what they mean, so if we are going to understand the meaning of Scripture we need to carefully, comprehensively, objectively, and accurately observe the text. He insisted we do observation of the text on our own without referring to anyone else’s opinions or interpretations. Only after we carefully observed the text could we consult commentaries, other men’s sermons, and such things. His famous quote was, “It’s amazing how much light the Bible sheds on commentaries.”
The single assignment that changed so many young skulls full of biblical mush was the Acts 1:8 lesson. He said, “Make 25 observations about Acts 1:8.” I labored and struggled and worked my way through it until I managed to come up with twenty-five observations. They could not be interpretations or applications. They had to be observations of the text. For instance, there is not a single command in the text – it is a statement of fact. Things like that. I wiped the sweat from my brow and took my assignment to class ready to turn it in only to be met with these words from teh Prof. “Okay, now make 25 more.” The groan was heard throughout downtown Dallas. Somewhere, though, as I struggled through that assignment, the light came on. I turned in a paper with over 80 observations of that text.
We need to do our own homework first – study, translate, graph the sentence structure, check lexicons for word meanings. We need to do observation and correlation (figuring out the structure and flow of the passage – sometimes called “arcing” now, I think) before we do interpretation and application.
2. The Humility Principle
Lest you think we were being taught to ignore the wisdom of others, Dr. Barbieri taught us clear principles of grammatical-historical hermeneutics. He also reminded us of the importance of humility. After I do my independent, personal study, and I go to the commentaries to see the opinions of others, I need to maintain respect for the past. He said, “If you come up with an interpretation of a passage that no scholar in 2000 years of church history has come up with, what is the chance that you are right and everyone else is wrong?” Of course, sometimes someone comes up with a new insight. But it is rare. If in my independent observation I come up with a unique and creative interpretation, I am more likely to be wrong than all the Bible teachers of church history. Humility is a good check.
All of that is prelude. I have several reasons that I don’t use a study bible. Here they are.
Dangers of Using Study Bibles
1. The danger of imbuing human teachings with an unwarranted divine authority.
Have you ever argued with someone who thought one of Scofield’s notes was an unassailable and inerrant interpretation? I know that most of us know the difference, but when you put your personal notes alongside the biblical text, it gives them an air of authority, a weight that they do not deserve. There was a time when the idea of putting interpretational notes alongside the Bible text was unheard of and generally condemned. Scofield’s notes breached that dam. But I am not sure it is a good and helpful innovation. If the sacred text is sacred, ought it not to stand alone?
Imagine that I was the best there was, a non-pareil Bible teacher. People drooled to hear my insights into the text. Are my teachings worthy to sit side by side on the page with the biblical text? I know that people can answer that two ways, but I find it troubling at the least. For me, I would say no. Human opinions shouldn’t share the page with the inspired text.
Of course, most people can understand the difference between the authority of the text of Scripture and authority of the study Bible’s notes. But have you never encountered someone who did not make that distinction? I have. Whether it be Scofield, or Ryrie, or the Reformed viewpoint – notes sometimes take on an enhanced authority.
Obviously, most of the Christian world doesn’t agree with me on this. A quick check of CBD shows at least 18 different people with their own personal study Bible available. My guess is 18 is only a fraction of the total number available.
2. The danger of replacing the Spirit’s illumination with man’s opinions.
Why is observation of the text so crucial? We believe that the Bible is a supernatural book and when a Spirit-indwelled believer observes a Spirit-inspired book a Spirit-empowered enlightenment takes place. The Spirit works powerfully in the human heart as the word of God is read and studied. The danger is that when we start with a study Bible, we let John MacArthur’s views, or Charles Ryrie’s or Joyce Meyer’s (God forbid) or someone else’s ideas guide us.
If you have a plain text, you are along with God’s word and the Spirit. Grapple with it. Work through it. Seek to understand it. Then, when you think you understand it or at least understand what you don’t understand and know what the questions are that need to be answered, go to the commentaries. Dig out your study Bible. But only after you have done the hard work of Bible observation for yourself.
3. The danger of hobby horses replacing the full counsel of God.
The Bible contains the full counsel of God for all of humanity. But the Bible shelf at your local LifeWay store has a plethora (yes, I know what a plethora is, amigos) of specialized study Bible. Women’s study Bibles (and men’s, and youth, and children). On my perusal of CBD, in addition to the 18 personal study Bibles, I found Bibles for Catholics, for Charismatics, for Apologetics buffs, for those with an interest in Archaeology and Bible Backgrounds, for “Everyday Life” (others aren’t?) – a scriptural smorgasbord
The danger here is that we read the Bible for what we want. The Dispensationalist gets a Dispensationalist Study Bible and gleans all the Dispensationalist truth that the Dispensationalist authors of the study notes can find. Calvinists get Reformed Study Bibles and glean all the Reformed truth that the Reformed authors of the study notes can find. Arminians and other non-Calvinists read their study Bibles to confirm their views. The Charismatic gets a Full Gospel study Bible and gleans all the Spirit-filled truth from Pentecostal authors to confirm his views. We don’t really study the Bible, we confirm our dearly-held views using study Bibles to help guide us. Bible study becomes less a process of conforming our minds to the counsel of God than an exercise in confirmation bias.
If you think this doesn’t happen, you need to get out more!
Jim Pemberton, one of our SBC Voices regulars, added this comment. I thought it made the point I was trying to make here better than I did. I include part of his comment here. (Kudos on the “O Brother” reference.)
One thing that bothers me is what you have mentioned, that you can find a study Bible at the local Christian bookstore for every little group out there. It’s basically a publisher feeding the narcissistic impulse of our current generation in order to turn a profit. To quote Ulysses Everett McGill, “I don’t get it, Big Dan.” It basically means that we only want to study the Bible with a filter for our own sensibilities rather than be confronted with the convicting weight of the full meaning of the text.
4. The danger of short-circuiting the exegetical and observational process.
Point 4 is basically an encapsulation of all the points; a summary.
I am Hendricksian in my philosophy of Bible Study. Observe the text. Do correlation (or outlining, or arcing, or whatever you call it) based on textual clues. THEN, consult the authorities to check your work. “Do-it-yourself” comes first. That’s not arrogance, it is a recognition of the illuminatory (is that word?) work of the Holy Spirit within the believer. Again, I am not saying you should never read a commentary or consult a study Bible, just don’t do it first. Do your main study from a simple text. Grapple with the text between you, the text, and the illuminating power of God’s Spirit first. Once you are done, get your other books off the shelf (or click the links).
It’s pretty simple. Get a bare text (nothing but the Bible and perhaps a few notes about textual variants and such), and do your own work. First.
If you disagree with me, it’s okay. You have the right to be wro…oh, wait. Never mind. That humility thing.
These thoughts are helpful. I have from time to time been teaching Bible study and pointed out a difficult text and some possible understandings of it only to have someone speak up and give the authoritative understanding directly from their study Bible. They had not thought about the passage for a minute before arriving to class while I had been studying it all day but they were confident their study Bible was right.
Good article and thoughts, Dave.
Like you, my first study bible was a scofeild and I too appreciate Hendricks technique (though I have benefited from his writings rather than in classroom instruction).
About 10 years ago I had an elderly person come up to me with an open Scofield reference Bible – one of the older ones that did not have a line between the text of Scripture and the notes – And this gentleman truly thought that the notes he was reading to me were scripture.
Typically I am very happy when a person comes to speak with me holding an open Bible. But, this conversation broke my heart.
Thanks, Dave. Good presentation of what I have learned over many years, but may not have learned to express well. Our initial encounter when reading the Bible should be with the Bible alone and not include distractions men have added to it (as much as is practical).
Way to go, Dave! Good word!
Amen!!!!
In general, I agree.
Something I would point out is that unless you are reading a good edition of the original languages, then you are reading a sort of first-echelon study Bible anyway. Most of us aren’t able to do that.
One thing that bothers me is what you have mentioned, that you can find a study Bible at the local Christian bookstore for every little group out there. It’s basically a publisher feeding the narcissistic impulse of our current generation in order to turn a profit. To quote Ulysses Everett McGill, “I don’t get it, Big Dan.” It basically means that we only want to study the Bible with a filter for our own sensibilities rather than be confronted with the convicting weight of the full meaning of the text.
Consider this an observation about human nature. I read through my own article this morning, and I found about a half dozen or more glaring typos.
I simply cannot edit my own writings – at least not when I am in the middle of writing them.
If you hand me something, my eye will be drawn almost immediately to a typo, a spelling error, or some other problem. But in my own stuff, I just don’t see it, until later.
That says something about human nature (or mine, perhaps). We are better at finding other’s faults than our own.
Your short comment could be an article all its own, Dave. Proverbs 27:6. All of us need to be willing to be corrected.
Those are all really good points. It is the insidious encroachment of disseminating the Word of God for profit that has created this problem. People who come out with a study bible are doing like you said, putting their words alongside scripture. I’m sure in many cases it’s the publisher inviting the contributor, and in other cases it’s the individual or soteriological / theological / denominational group pursuing it. It’s not enough to simply publish a commentary, but if you can convince someone to purchase another Bible–which they already love–you can amplify your platform.
I have often found most of the notes on a text to be fairly innocuous. I haven’t looked at a lot of study bibles, though. I have an NIV study bible where the editor says stuff about a passage and I’m like, “duh, I just read that.” It may give more detail about the time period or word usage or explain the cultural metaphor, that kind of thing. It often does not suggest an interpretation or application. My favorite to read right now is a one-year NIV that doesn’t have any of the notes. But I don’t do in-depth study with that. When I do, I typically follow the Alistair Begg method and try to initially glean as much as I can just from the text and whatever comes to mind first, before addressing any kind of commentary.
My favorite Bible to study with is a KJV Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible published by AMG. Not that the KJV in particular is important to me at this point (It used to be, in my impetuous youth, when I got on a KJV-only kick, but God has since rescued me from bondage. 😀 ).
The editor was Spiros Zodhiates, and the whole point of the Bible is simply to provide information on the original languages of the text. It contains references to Strong’s definitions, but in a great many cases it refers to a lexicon which contains expounded discussion on its grammatical structure, etymology, different uses and different contextual meanings. Where there are multiple interpretations of a passage, it often provides a fair estimation of all views. The notes on Hebrews 6 and some rapture texts are quite extensive. 😀
Here’s another gripe about Study Bibles. Often I find that there are extensive notes about very clear passages that everyone understands and very few if any notes about the more difficult passages.
Yep. That’s what I find as well.
I think there’s a lot to commend Dave’s recommendations here. I prefer a text-only Bible as my main Bible and recommend to church members that they keep a study Bible at home for reference but carry their text-only Bibles around with them.
I would like to note – on the other hand – the exceptional quality of some recent study Bibles as reference tools. The NIV Study Bible was for many years a very good tool. The ESV Study Bible seemed to take that up a notch. I don’t have a copy of the HCSB study Bible, but have heard its on that kind of level as an excellent resource. The Zondervan NIV Study Bible is my new favorite (not just the NIV Study Bible published by Zondervan, but there’s actually one edited by D. A. Carson that has “Zondervan” in its title). A family from our church got me a copy as a gift a year or two ago and it is phenomenal. As long as you keep in mind the best use, a la Dave’s suggestion here, they can be really valuable tools for people who don’t need a full commentary library like most of our church members.
I found I cannot preach from a Study Bible….too many rabbits to chase.
I’ve got several Study Bibles, and they’re good as far they good–I definitely like the ones oriented toward background/exegetical information better than the application-oriented Bibles.
I’ve got the ESV Study Bible and the New Zondervan one, I like the new Zondervan better. Just wish it was with a better translation.
That, to me, is perhaps the biggest pitfall of a Study Bible: if it’s not in your preferred (or a ‘good’) translation, do you punt the translation issues for the study notes? I love Logos for this: I’ve got the ESV study Bible notes paired with NASB and another batch paired with my CSB.
I’ve always heard eyewitnesses don’t need written help.
This is a really good article. I have to admit that I wished we had more articles on bible study, pastoring, and preaching.
Waiting for you to submit one, brother. 😉
I have long thought it would be interesting to read the bible without chapter and verse designations. I wonder if it would change how we see the text. Do such bibles exist?
One of the frustrating things about leading a bible study discussion is when you ask for someone’s thoughts on a particular text, they read you their footnotes.
Regarding the plethora of study bibles out there, I find Christian bookstores to be some of the most depressing places I’ve been in. To see the crass commercialism of everything Christian related and the exponential growth of Jesus-junk is heartbreaking. Prayer of Jabez anyone?
I know that both the NIV and the ESV have been printed minus chapter and verse separators, although there are generally references on the pages. There are probably more versions that have this. It’s nice to read it like that.
Bill Mac,
Check out the ESV Reader’s Bible from Crossway.
I’ll second Trent. I’ve got that, it’s nice. Not as nice as the Bibliotheca project from Kickstarter, but it’s a recognized translation and a bit more affordable.
Trent, I like that.
That is perhaps the ULTIMATE in what I’m talking about.
I can believe *you* drool on your insights.
Nerd. I should have left this in spam.
If we go with plain text bibles, the question then becomes red letters or not?
No red letters.
1. False dichotomy between “The Word of God” and the “Words of Jesus,” resulting in us neglecting portions of what God has said because it’s not specifically what Jesus said.
2. There are legitimate debates about some areas in the Gospels, whether they are direct discourse or summation by the author or commentary by the author. Modern views would expect everything given as a quote to be only the exact words, while 1st-century folks didn’t always write that way. Therefore–is it a quote or not? And we’d be better off referring to point 1: it’s all the Word of God.
” False dichotomy between “The Word of God” and the “Words of Jesus,” resulting in us neglecting portions of what God has said because it’s not specifically what Jesus said.”
Agreed.
Given this mindset is so prevelant…maybe publishing and using bibles that are all red letter from Genesis to Revelation is the way to go. 🙂
Have both. Only matters if someone advocates that red letters are more inspired.
Of course, for those of us using electronic Bibles, whether or not Jesus’ words are colored may be an option (at least in Olive Tree’s software). Note annotations can also be turned on and off. Unfortunately, I note that Olive Tree doesn’t have an option to turn off verse numbering.
Thanks for this, Dave. The “Study” Bible trend has been a pet peeve. Is “Study” Bible not an oxymoron? I have tried to encourage our saints to get a wide-margin Bible in your favorite translation, preferably leaning to the literal side and with some cross references, and make your own “Study” Bible. Personally I use an ESV, verse-by-verse with cross references and a wide margin.
The only issue I have with this line of reasoning–that one should begin with observation of the text only, without study notes or commentary–is the danger of reading our own situation and bias into the text. I was taught that very early in the process, one should study what the text was originally thought to mean, and what issue or problem the original author was addressing. Without that, a reader can go off in all sorts of directions. The example I am about to give is controversial, so please bear with me. Many conservative evangelicals read the creation account in Genesis and take it to be a rebuttal of evolutionary theory. For sake of argument, let me concede you can get to that point; but that was not (or does not seem to) have been the original purpose. Rather, the purpose was to refute the common, ancient Middle Eastern understanding that the world was in danger of falling back into the death and chaos of creation every winter unless people engaged in certain ceremonies aimed to appease the “gods,” ceremonies which usually involved fertility rites and wanton sexual activity (i.e., temple prostitutes). Who today would pick up on that without an understanding of the world in which Genesis was first told? (I have to go now, sorry for the brevity of this.)
That is why you BEGIN with reading the text yourself then consult the commentaries and such.
But we believe in the Holy Spirit’s work in each believer. None of us is perfect, but we can read the Bible without official oversight.
If you simply read the Genesis account, it seems to teach a 7 day creation. So I think it is likely you who are not coming at it from the perspective of simple reading.
But that is an interpretational issue, not observational.
When I have Creation questions, I go to the eyewitnesses.
Dave, how long did it take?
My point is not whether or not one can reach such a conclusion from the creation accounts, but rather if the original intent was that, or something else. Since evolution became an issue after 1859 or so, and Genesis predates that by a couple of thousand years (more or less), one who was ignorant of the religions of the ancient Middle East to which Genesis spoke is left to conclude either (1) that God put it in the Bible with no real application for millennium, until the post-Darwin generations came along or (2) God was addressing a now unknown theological issue. Robert Grant wrote about this in several books, including The Interpretation of the Bible and A Historical Introduction to the New Testament. He argues that one cannot adequately understand what the text is saying to us today without an appreciation of what the original audience understood it to mean. Granted, this is interpretation rather than “simple observation,” but to paraphrase Mark Twain here, “What’s so simple about simple observation?” (He said “What’s so common about common sense?”) I have heard too many preachers proclaim something that is the “plain truth” of some Scripture based on what he claims is “a straightforward reading” of the text. Perhaps unintentionally, such preachers are reading the text (usually in English, and in their “favorite” version/translation of the Bible) and applying their own presuppositions to the text rather than the “simple observation” you suggest. If an expositor/student can read and observe without succumbing to the temptation to draw conclusions that early, I’m all for it. But it seems to me to be much more difficult in life than in theory.
John, I assure you that your take on Genesis 1 is not what the Scofield Study Bible teaches. Do you have a study Bible that we should obtain that gives us this understanding?
Some of that is in the Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible from Zondervan–not a bad batch of notes but definitely not the first Study Bible one might want. Very specialized.
I have one, and I like it for seeing some of those connections, but it’s not a general purpose like the CSB Study Bible or even Scofield.
Jim,
Again: my point is not whether or not one can conclude a literal 7 day creation, or argue against evolution based on the creation accounts in Genesis and elsewhere, but that neither was what the account was arguing against at the time. People in the ancient Middle East (and elsewhere) thought that every winter, the earth died, and creation was in danger of falling back into primordial chaos, unless human beings did some things to appease the gods and return life to the earth (i.e., fertility rites, sacrifice–human and animal, and such). Genesis argues that God brought lasting order once and only once, that the order includes the changing of seasons, and that human beings neither need to do anything about it nor are able to do anything about it. My concern is that to many of us call something “simple observation” when that observation slides straight into interpretation based on our own presuppositions, often unrecognized presuppositions. And no I do not know of a study Bible that goes into this. It is based on a 3 years of seminary for my M.Div. and 5 or so working on a D.Min., and courses of study which insisted on readings outside our own SBC family.
Doug, I am not familiar with the Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, but it sounds pretty good.
I agree completely that we tend to bring our own presuppositions into it. On the other hand, we often find study Bibles that support our presuppositions instead of reading broadly and discerningly. I think that’s also a problem.
I’m not a fan of Scofield, BTW. It’s just that you used the example of Genesis 1 and gave your own take on it that we should be able to get from study Bibles instead of relying on our own presuppositions. It was a merely a handy counterexample.
@ John Fariss
I’m curious as to what in the Genesis text suggests something about an account being argued against at the time? Why would a reader need to presuppose that it’s arguing against something in order to read it as the author intended?
My answer Pastor Moose, is that to read Genesis (or any other passage or text “as the author intended” requires us to know and understand the “sitz im lebem” (situation in life) that was being addressed by that author. God did not inspire the Bible in a vacuum, He inspired it because there was some untruth or issue–a practical, behavioral, and theological issue–that His people were facing, so there was a need to understand the truth. God gave the 10 Commandments so His people, in that early day, would know what the limits were. Paul wrote most of his epistles to answer questions and solve issues posed to him by the churches. He wrote Romans because he wanted to have them as a base for missions farther to the west and they had to understand each other theologically. He wrote Philemon because of the personal dilemma of the escaped slave Onesimus, now a Christian. I suggest there is a reason for every book of the Bible and every passage in it, and we are the richer for understanding each of those reasons.