THE STUDY OF THE BIBLE
2 Timothy 1:3-5; 2 Tim. 2:15; 2 Tim. 3:14-17
Having considered the Romance of the Bible, and seen the false and true methods of approach, we now come to the subject of the Study of the Bible. In spite of all the widespread interest in the Bible which is being evidenced today both negative and positive, the vast rank and file of the members of the churches are not studying the Bible.
Observe carefully that our article subject is the study of the Bible. There are a great many methods of dealing with the Bible, some very pernicious, some very helpful, which yet fall short of study. Some people juggle with the Bible. Having a Bible, and holding that it has mystic qualities, they, when they are in difficulty, open it, and put their finger down, saying, "What does it say to me?" That is juggling with the Bible. I tried it once. In some hour of difficulty I opened it, and I found I had my finger on the story of Balaam and his ass! It may have been appropriate, but it cured me; at any rate, that is not Bible-study.
Then there is the excellent method of taking daily devotional readings, portions chosen by a committee, or that one chooses for oneself, and reading every morning early. Excellent and valuable, but that is not studying the Bible.
There are people who mark their Bibles as they listen to the preaching and teaching on Sunday morning and take notes over a vast period of time. That is not Bible-study.
There are people who study their Bible from a reference Bible. They trace references, and they go to two passages, and from those two they go to four more, and think they are studying. There is no reference Bible published that is worth any extra cost. They have their place, but that is not Bible-study. And there are the Thompson, Ryrie, Scofield and other study Bibles but that is not Bible study.
Again, there are people who come to the Bible having made their mind up as to their theology, and they go through the Bible looking for proof texts to square with their own theology. That is not Bible-study. I will undertake to prove anything from the Bible, choosing my texts I can prove by taking isolated texts that my audience has no business to be sitting here, but should go out and hang themselves. "Judas went and hanged himself." "Go thou and do likewise." "What thou doest, do quickly!"
There is another method for which I have great respect, which is not Bible-study. It is the method of higher criticism. Higher criticism is not an evil thing in itself. It is the discussion of dates and authorship. Of course, when the method adopted is that of rationalism and naturalism, it becomes destructive and pernicious. When Jesus attributed the 110th Psalm to David, He was involved in the realm of higher criticism. It is perfectly proper to discuss dates and authors, but one may spend one's whole life trying to find out how many men wrote Isaiah, who was the author of the Pentateuch, or who wrote the letter to the Hebrews, without ever really studying the Bible.
What is study? The application of the mind to any subject, for acquiring knowledge of that subject. Or to put the same thing in another way, study is the act or process of acquiring knowledge of a particular subject by one's own effort. Not the notes of Scofield, Ryrie, or Thompson. No one can study by proxy, either medicine or music, or any other subject. It must be personal work, and it is this personal, first-hand work with which I am dealing. Teachers and text-books are valuable, but quite secondary. The real work of a teacher in any subject is that of imparting information, so as to enable students to obtain the information for themselves. That is equally true of the Bible. No teacher ought to count himself a success unless he is able to do that, with those who are following him as their teacher. It needs to be a personal conversation with the Holy Spirit and Christ.
This article then deals with preliminary matters as to the student, as to the subject, and as to the work of study itself.
If we are going to be students of Scripture, I repeat now the statement with which I closed the previous article concerning true approach. The two things which are necessary are, first, an open mind, and, secondly, a devoted will. I may be running counter to some people. They sometimes tell young people that they cannot study the Bible unless they accept it as the Word of God. That is a mistaken idea, and it is a wrong method. Many young people cannot honestly say that. All I ask is that they should come to it with an open mind. It is said that our Lord, after His resurrection, with His disciples round Him, "opened their mind, that they might understand the Scriptures." (Luke 24:45) The word "opened" is a very striking and arresting word. He disentangled their mind, so that it was thoroughly and completely open. In other words, the open mind is one free from prejudice, pride, and from the mastery of tradition; it is receptive. And after 12 years in the public school system this takes participation from the Holy Spirit that the mind can be opened after being closed by what has passed their ears.
Here I should like to give a brief page out of my own experience. I was brought up in a home that can only be described as Presbyterian. What Paul wrote to Timothy could have been written to me that "from a babe" I knew the Holy Writings, and until I was full sixteen years of age I myself did not think the Bible was the Word of God.
As I went into the public school system, and found myself plunged into an intellectual world of which I had no knowledge, up to that time. People say that today is a time of intellectual difficulty. But it is no more difficult than it was then, fifty years ago and more. The whole intellectual world was under the mastery of the physical scientists, and of a materialistic and rationalistic philosophy and still resides there more so today. To name names is enough here—Darwin, Huxley, Tyndall, Spencer, Bain, and the rest. I was as honest then as I am now, and gradually faith, while not undermined, was eclipsed. When the sun is eclipsed the light is not killed, it is hidden. There came a moment when I was sure of nothing. After a period of thirty years of reckless behavior based on no leadership from God or His words I was led to a man who read from God’s book passages that brought life and meaning.
That was about forty years ago. I started studying, and have been doing it ever since. Any assurance I have is the result of coming to it with an open mind. I came asking. What is this Book about? What does it really say? Concerning those words within brought life to a soul in deep need.
I soon entered intensive study from men with doctorates that had studied God’s word in a manner I had never been privileged. They placed tools before me to use to “search the scriptures” for myself.
When that boy or girl of yours comes home from school or college and says to you, "We do not know, we are not sure"; don't you dare tell them they are going to be damned. Say rather, "All right, but what do you know about the Bible?" These teachers who have been teaching you untruth about this Book do not know the Bible. Ask them to study for themselves. After more than half a century's experience I am prepared to abide by the result, if any boy or girl will honestly study the Bible themselves, uninfluenced by the chatter of men around it, or the scribble of pens concerning it. I plead for the open mind. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God. (Rom. 10:17)
Then briefly, the devoted will, and that means there must be determination to work. The Bible should be treated with the same respect as is paid to other branches of learning—art, music, literature. In Acts we are told that the Bereans were nobler than those in Thessalonica, because they searched the Scriptures to see if certain things were so. (Acts 17:11) They were the critics of their day. In Thessalonica they accepted all that was said to them by the apostle. The Bereans challenged him, and searched for themselves. That was work, and there must be work.
Second, with regard to the subject itself. It is important to remember two things. The Bible student must recognize that the Bible is religious literature. In a library we do not go for a scientific book to the section devoted to biography, or for a book on art to the section for scientific works. Coming to the Bible, we must realize that it is religious. The Bible is not a scientific text-book although it has science statements contained within spoken on your level. That does not mean it is unscientific. (See article Koine Greek and the Scientist) There is no discrepancy whatever between the ascertained facts of science and what the Bible teaches. There may be and there is discrepancy between the hypotheses of science and what the Bible teaches; and there may equally be discrepancies between what the Bible teaches, and what many people say the Bible teaches. That is quite another matter. The Bible is not a book of systematized philosophy. It is rooted in philosophy, but it is not a philosophic treatise. It is not a systematized theology. Every systematic theology worthwhile derives its authority from it. It has to do with God and man, and the interrelationships between them.
The Bible is a library, with sixty-six Books, written by between thirty and forty authors, over a period of 1,500 years. It is a compilation of writings over that time. In our study we must remember where the book is placed, and get the setting and background.
We now turn to some very elementary words concerning study itself. I am not referring to the study of the Hebrew Bible, or the Greek New Testament, but to the ordinary English translation. The question first arises. What translation shall we use? We have the King James Version, dating back to 1611. That was not the version chained in the churches 400 years ago. The King James Version was not published until seventy years later. I grant at once that the definition of it with which we are familiar is true, that it is "a well of English undefiled." But the question does arise, Do we know that English? Are we speaking that English now? The English language has undergone various and remarkable changes since the King James translators did their work. To take one instance. We all remember that great collect of the Anglican Church, beginning, "Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings." What does that first word "prevent" mean? It is a Bible word. If I should go down from the pulpit and start down the aisle, and say, "Will someone prevent me?" someone would put out his hand to stop me. The word did not mean that at all in 1600. That is the prostitution of language, of which we are guilty. "Prevent" means "Go before." "Go before us, O Lord." Are we therefore talking that English today? NO, therefore I use the New American Standard version for I am an American that speaks this language, not the English or the supposed New International language.
So, while the Authorized Version is indeed a well of English undefiled, and remains so in many ways, the language has changed. Moreover, since those translators did that work, literally hundreds of manuscripts have been discovered which have been valuable to translators. While we are not in possession of original manuscripts, hundreds of copies of the originals have been brought to light since the work was done in 1611 which have been of enormous value in the difficult and sacred work of translation.
I should raise no objection to the use of the King James Version if, by the side, is kept a good dictionary and a lexicon. For purpose of study, however, the Revised Version as well as the New American Standard is infinitely preferable. I know there are statements that lack the majestic rhythm and movement of that wonderful 1611 translation; but when we get down to study, it is better. And far better than the English Revision is the American, for they went a little further in their translation.
The question is sometimes asked, What about individual translations—Moffatt, and Weymouth, and Young, and others? Buy them all, and keep them by you, and watch them, and do not depend on them. If the work of translation is done by a committee, devout, saintly, and scholarly, they check each other, and the result is more likely to be a correct translation than the Work of any one man, however great, saintly, and scholarly he may be. Illustrations might be given to show how the bias of a translator has affected his work, innocently and honestly, it may be, but quite definitely.
In studying, the first thing to do is to forget chapters. Chapter summary may have its value, but in studying, chapter division must be ignored. Over and over again the chapters, as they are arranged for us, begin at the wrong place. I would remind you that chapter divisions are a comparatively modern innovation. To give two illustrations only. Isaiah 53 does not begin there at the first verse, "Who hath believed our report?" We must go back to the 13th verse of the previous chapter, "Behold, My Servant shall deal wisely." Or take John 14. We have no right to begin, "Let not your heart be troubled." That breaks in on a statement of Jesus, in answer to Peter, when he said, "Lord, whither goest Thou?" We must have chapters and verses for reference, but not for study.
There are two methods of Bible-study, the telescopic and the microscopic. By telescopic I mean that method that takes in whole outlooks at a glance, as we may turn a telescope to the heavens. The microscopic is that of pondering and investigation, line upon line, verse by verse, no, word by word.
We should begin with the telescopic. Take up a book and find out generally what it is about. Read right through, and, if you do not understand, go on, and shortly there will come a glimmering of the general value of the book, so that you can go back to the difficult part, and in all probability understand it. When I turned to the Bible, I continued to read for seven years. I began, I confess, with the New Testament. Then I applied the same principle to the Old. I read a book through. There was a good deal I could not understand, but I determined to get the sweep of it, and see what the writer was doing. That is the first business. Shortly I would see the writer had a purpose, a meaning, a goal.
Someone says, we haven’t the time to do this. I am a little tired of hearing that. There is time for so many things, and not time for this Book! The Bible can be read through at the ordinary pulpit rate in sixty hours! Do you doubt it? Try it and find out. During that seven years I went through every book, and, on an average—sometimes more, sometimes less—I read each book through fifty times before I took the pencil in hand, to try and put down its general movement. That is the first method of Bible-study, and I have personally never got much beyond that myself. It is such a wonderful Book. But when that has been done, and one is a preacher, the appalling mistake will never be made of treating any text in independence of its context.
The second method of study, the microscopic, means that attention has to be given to grammar, and to the philological aspects, while time is taken to ponder and think of the real meaning of each statement.
Someone may say, that is rather discouraging; we shall never finish. You will not. The trouble is, some of you have never begun! It is now forty years and more since I really began to study the Bible. There is much I want to do, but shall never have time to do, for I shall be gone before I can accomplish it. There it is, a well of truth unlimited, but capable of being plumbed by human effort. It is worth studying. And if, as the result of our article, I can start some on the business, taking the Bible free from all pride, prejudice, and foregone conclusion, giving themselves to it, really to study it, I shall thank God for the opportunity He has thus given me.
No comments:
Post a Comment