Open Blogging
It’s all yours today…
- Next story The Weekend Word
- Previous story Jean’s Gospel: The Passion According To St. Matthew
Donate
Recent Comments
- Tony R (The Bondsmith) on The Commons: 09/12/2026
- Michael on The Commons: 09/12/2026
- Tony R (The Bondsmith) on The Commons: 09/12/2026
- Tony R (The Bondsmith) on The Commons: 09/12/2026
- Michael on The Commons: 09/12/2026
More
Search the PhxP
As an Amazon associate I earn commision on products sold
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
Beautiful Easter message from our President, Donald Trump.
https://youtu.be/hvcVIKPweVI
How important is it for the average believer (or every believer) to have a way to study the Bible?
I am of the persuasion that thinks that every single Christian should be equipped with a way to study the Bible and encouraged to study it with some level of consistency and regularity. A crude way to put it would be that studying the Bible is every Christian’s “hobby” in addition to all of their other hobbies.
I’m curious about other perspectives on this, arguments yea or nay. I think that the better you know the Bible the more equipped you are to live it out and the more prepared you are to share it with others. I don’t think anyone would argue with those ideas. But as far as I’m able to find, the majority of churches do not provide any kind of regular training in how to study the Bible.
Corby,
You would have to define what you mean by “study the Bible”…
In broad terms, the ability to take a passage or a book of the Bible, get at least a basic understanding of the historical and cultural context of what was written, who was writing, who was reading, and how it connects to the rest of scripture. And then, how/where it applies to life.
Corby,
I think every tradition is going to differ on how they approach bible study for the laity.
I think it takes a fair amount of training to do it well and that training should probably be part of catechetical classes…
In all honesty, the term “study” the Bible is too aloof and abstract for me. And I know of no proven correspondence between studying the Bible and loving God and neighbor.
The important thing, the really only important thing, is that a believer believe the Gospel and what that entails. And of course, Psalm 1 states that blessed is the man whose delight is in the Torah, etc.
“Faith comes from hearing…”. The Holy Spirit is received by “hearing with faith.”
Could an argument be made that volunteering at a soup kitchen would be a more effective exercise of faith working through love than studying the Bible? The urge is certainly within us to want to climb a latter to God, but I think we should be cognizant of our sinful desires.
As one who enjoys Bible study, I must constantly tell myself that (1) that is not a sign of my holiness, (2) God does not love me anymore for doing that, and (3) that it doesn’t amount to diddly if I don’t grow in faith, hope and love (for God and my neighbor). It may even be a snare…
This is making me think…and my initial thoughts are that “bible study” outside the context of the church, history, and tradition, creates more issues than it solves…
“This is making me think…” – sorry 😉
Can you clarify what you mean by “outside the context of the church, history, and tradition” and by “creates more issues than it solves”
Corby,
As an Anglican I read the Bible through a very different lens than you do. Jean the Lutheran reads it differently than both of us.
We come from very different traditions.
Historically, the early church had multiple ways to exegete a text.
Many of the folks I know who are big on individual bible study outside any of those mediating disciplines are as biblically ignorant as they can possibly be…but very sure they are holy scholars…
Thought some more…I don’t think you can properly teach folks how to study the Bible outside of a catechetical framework.
I could be wrong…but that’s what I think at the moment…
Reading Jean’s comment 6 and thinking random thots again…
Soup kitchen work is good, but i remember our Lord’s words to Martha (i dont think our Lord referred to his earthly presence solely, when he said Mary had chosen better )
Study of the Bible? I’m inclined to question how real your redemption is IF you have no appetite to feed on God’s book…. It is that, even if man has done the compilation…
“Feed My sheep” ? What else would a teacher feed God’s sheep?
That said, perhaps the key question to ask oneself is, am i coming as a learner or do i have an agenda?
Is it a sign of your holiness? Well it kinda sorta is a sign of your desire to grow in that regard….
Does God love you more for studying His word? Dunno, but i have not one doubt that doing so pleases Him – teacher or student/sheep
If you don’t grow in the things cited? Amen to that
IMV, one must prepare to study God’s word with a little introspection, confession and reverence… make room (clean house, maybe!) for the Holy Spirit to work in you a proper attitude and understanding
Perhaps some churches are afraid to feed the sheep? dunno
#10 Michael
You are not wrong…
Duane,
Thanks…it just seems to me that the bigger need is for catechesis to provide a foundation.
My guess is that not all will agree… 🙂
#13 – well … I agee… ?
All study beyond that should also follow an in depth organized approach comparing Scripture with Scripture… There may be and probably is a place for meditation on a verse or passage, but it must not contradict the rest of the Book when all is said and done….
So questions to ponder…
Why would God give His Message in a way that only scholars can truly understand?
Why did God give His message in such a way that really smart dudes disagree on interpretation?
Why is something as important as Gods Word so damn confusing?
Bonus question… does anyone else feel pressure to be extra thankful and excited this weekend and when you don’t feel that way do you feel down? It actually gets me depressed because I realize how spiritually lacking I am this time of year.
I don’t need answers. I’m just venting….
They key to me engaging the Bible was three basic questions:
What does it say?
What does it mean?
What am I supposed to do?
Every passage I studied I placed those three questions on top of what I was reading.
And yes, working through the Bible forced me to have to figure out (or be taught) matters of history, context, etc.
The scripture that changed by approach to Bible engagement (study sounds a bit stuffy) was James 1:22-25. Don’t just read and forget, rather read and do.
There is much being said about “studying the Bible”. How about simply “reading the Bible”? While the Bible is certainly more than literature, it is not less than literature. When I was struggling with NT Greek, my professor suggested I read the Gospel of John in Greek as simply “a book in another language”. It allowed me to stop studying and to simply read… to find the story, the wisdom, the poetry. Like Tyndale, I would like it read by all, from the ploughman to the professor. Let the “study” come later. First fall in love with the story, the narrative, of God’s love for His creation…
When I check the Beatitudes, I can’t find the one about personal Bible study. I’m not knocking Bible personal Bible study, but IMV the Beatitudes are a comprehensive statement of the blessings of living in the kingdom of God.
The fact that so many expressions of Christianity don’t know what to do with the Sermon on the Mount is evidence that Bible study is not in itself beneficial.
I imagine that there are fine Bible scholars who are agnostic, atheist, or non-orthodox in one or more doctrines.
“They key to me engaging the Bible was three basic questions:
What does it say?
What does it mean?
What am I supposed to do?”
Question: Can a text mean something different from what it says?
I think telling people to be a Christian one must have a desire to study the bible just lays guilt, turns bible study into a law command and rips away all gospel promise.
JoelG,
I like your questions…and I know a lot of folks share them.
It seems to me that the Bible is a wonderful book of discoveries.. Yes, God’s first message to man is most likely the redemption story… The core of the gospel is also the heartbeat of the book.
I wonder, just what is a fine Bible scholar? What a miserable endeavor Bible studies must be when all one is doing is learning the material without the capacity to really understand … Do you go off to Turkey, to the mountains to look for a barge embedded in a mountain? Find it and then say, “why, yes indeed, it is a book kf histiory.” Or di you smile with great self righteous condescension and declare, ” I have chosen to hold up Jesus as the example of the best a man can be, even if he was naively stubborn dying to prove his point. ” …?…
Tonight i’m singing as i wash the dishes.. “This is my Father’s world. The battle is not done. Jesus who died shall be satisfied and earth and heaven be one…” ” death could not hold it’s prey. He tore the bars away. Jesus my Lord. ” … Enjoy Resurrection Sunday. Enjoy it!
And bite the ears off a chocolate rabbit, if you feel like it .. It is also April fool’s day – just don’t confuse that rabbit with the Lamb, eh? ?
Or so it seems to me….. dunno, tho, do i?
@15
Interesting questions, all of which I have asked myself. Since you’re just venting, I won’t address them. 😉
With the emphasis on Bible study, why is it that we as a church often falls short of living out the whole counsel of God? I think we all pick and choose the portion of the Bible that we decide to live out. If that is true, what does that say about our discipleship? It doesn’t appear that Bible study alone brings people to a place where they are fully formed spiritually.
Jesus told the Pharisees, ‘…you err, not knowing the scriptures”. However we approach the scriptures, whether reading, studying them, or meditating on them, it should lead to us to knowing them.
The question of how a believer should study his Bible strikes of some form of Christian individualism.
I recommend all go to their church and study the Bible with your pastor who is trained to help you study and with other church members who help keep the study on target.
Just ridiculous. Now we have to go through some sort of Anglican or Lutheran catechism in order to study and really understand the bible?
Scooter,
The Reformed catechisms are good too…
Orthodoxy in doctrine requires that the historical witness of the whole church for all time be brought to bear on the text…
Before there was a canon of Scripture, God placed teachers in the Body of Christ.
Historically, children were catechized in their faith traditions to a degree that by the time they were 12 years old they had more knowledge of Scripture and orthodoxy than many pastors today.
It would have been scandalous to not be catechized…
I think there may be a bit of confusion over the term “Bible study”. The early Christians, most of whom were illiterate, heard the Gospels or the letters as they were read to them and the homily helped to provide application. It was very much a “devotional” approach, much like simply reading the Bible on one’s own today. If, on the other hand, we are talking about studying the Bible – comparing Scripture with Scripture, considering the context, the form of what we are reading (Gospel, letter, psalm, etc.) – then other tools are helpful. Those tools can be provided by teachers, Church history, linguistics, etc.
The bottom line is that the Bible belongs to all of us and speaks to each of us in different ways. That’s devotional. When, however, we say that our interpretation is either the only one, or one that everyone should accept, that is doctrine and, as such, needs to be measured against the whole witness of the Church.
Scoots – it is probably better than sitting in some weekly men’s group study where each person says “well this is what this scripture means to me.” 🙂
What Duane said… 🙂
Duane
I love your comment.
That is what I have come to and practice now. I haven’t been blessed with the time or linguistic ability to study the biblical languages. I simply read the story(ies) accepting them as fact, and praise God for his goodness and mercy in that time and in this. It truly is a blessing just to know him at that level. It also provides a bridge to knowing and loving believers in other sects of Christendom.
MLD @ 30… I agree.
There are 3 hermeneutic perspectives by which a text may be interpreted:
1) Behind the text (e.g., historical criticism). This is the most hazardous perspective, and has to a large extent been refuted as unreliable.
2) In the text (e.g., literary criticism and intratextual criticism).
3) In front of the text (e.g., reception history, intertextual criticism and Biblical theology).
Personally, I would weight them 3, 2, 1.
And allegorical.
Big hugs for my PP family
#34
There are actually more perspectives… and I would humbly take issue with the statement, “This is the most hazardous perspective, and has to a large extent been refuted as unreliable.” It is, in fact, a widely accepted academic tool and discipline…
#32 Jerod
Yes. When I was younger, I did my daily reading out of a Greek NT. Some years ago, I switched to English versions in paragraph (rather than verse) format. It allowed me to simply read and consider the narrative instead of having my brain tell me, “Stop, this is John 1:14”. Instead, the verse (an artificial division) disappeared and the words themselves could be seen in the context of a single written piece. I found it a much fulfilling devotional practice…
A meditation for today – Holy Saturday
(5 min video)
Xenia,
I don’t know exactly what you were responding to with “And” in your #35, but in perspectives 2 and 3 of my #34, there are basically two readings: The literal sense of the words and/or the theological/spiritual sense (which includes allegorical).
Duane,
the “behind the text” or “what did the author ‘really’ mean” tools of historical criticism, which gave us such things as the New Perspective on Paul and the Quest for the historical Jesus, have done a lot of harm to the faith.
But, aside on some semantic value in studies of grammar and languages, I haven’t seen much, if any, fruit from historical criticism for exegesis, and post modern literary critics have convincingly shown that we cannot objectively apply historical evidence to a text in an objective manner to excavate a neutral historical understanding of the mind of the historical author of Scripture
Therefore, I think the safest way to read a text is to take the words of the text as the meaning, so that instead of a 3 tier exegesis – text, meaning and application, we use a 2 tier exegesis – text and application. I would argue that we are dealing with inspired texts in which God has given us the meaning of His Word within the canon.
Jean
Would you say that your approach to meaning, then, is straightforward rather than literal?
Poetry is straightforwardly going to have hypo- and hyperbole. The feeding of the five thousand is straightforwardly about Jesus multiplying both the physical and the spiritual endeavors. Genesis Creation is straightforwardly… up for debate?
Jean,
I think the NPP has been valuable though I don’t agree with all its points…and it’s not a monolithic teaching, there are many variations on it.
Michael,
The fact the NPP is not a monolithic teaching demonstrates to some degree that what the historian brings to the “doing of historical criticism” shapes the history. That’s the problem with it: each historians presuppositions, education, life experiences and faith formation. How can Wright and Sanders and Dunn look at the same historical evidence and come out with different “new perspectives”? Which one should we choose, or do we make up our own? Dicey.
Jean,
It’s not an issue for me.
I appreciate the insights each bring to the table and have no need for absolute certainty on perepherals.
Hi Jerod,
Genre analysis falls within “in the text” or a literary hermaneutic. Genre analysis is very good and helpful.
Regarding “literal” vs. “straightforward,” I think “straightforward” and “surface level” are good terms, maybe better than “literal.”
What is important to note is that Christian readers are not after the intent of the human author, but after the authorial intent of the human/Divine author, and there could be more than one meaning to a text.
Jean,
I simply don’t agree with your perspective and, like Michael, I appreciate the perspectives that are brought to the table.
By the way, I taught on the same faculty with James Dunn and have known him since the early 80s. He employs aspects of the historical/critical method and I don’t believe it has harmed my faith or, more importantly, his…
@29
Good points.
There is a big difference in reading the Bible and being influenced only by our own personal experience, and actually studying under the authority of the Rule of Faith for the construction of doctrine. I know of too many people who never read anything but the Bible, lie on their bed at night and construct aberrant doctrines that they then use to govern the rest of their hermeneutic. Extreme individualism has ruined the church in 20-21st centuries. Extreme collectivism has also had it turn in detracting from the faith. We rarely get it right.
Well said, pstrmike.
#45 Jean
“What is important to note is that Christian readers are not after the intent of the human author…”
Well, I must not be a Christian reader… I’m very interested in the intent, personalities, literary style and intent of the various Biblical authors. I’m interested in how Luke differs from Mark; why Paul uses certain phrases; why an author expands an incident that another writer only mentions… Yes, I’m very much after the intent of the human author.
Without the intent explicitly stated, how are you going to recognize it when you see it? If the intent is stated, then there is nothing to be ‘after’ – you just take the plain explanation of intent at face value.
@44
Exactly. In the end, we are the final word in the formation of our own doctrine, even if all a person does is sit faithfully in the seat every Sunday and believe every word their pastor says.
A person who moved to our community recently is having trouble with my teaching because I am not in step with his former pastor. When I went to his house once, I noticed there weren’t any commentaries on his bookcase. That told me something. His former pastor would periodically describe other doctrinal views and then quickly assign them to the category of heresy. He sat in his former church and believed every word, and he is still in shock to understand that there is a big ecclesial world out there and that differences are not in and of themselves, the markers of heresy.
I wonder if Corby ran for the hills? 🙂
“He sat in his former church and believed every word, and he is still in shock to understand that there is a big ecclesial world out there and that differences are not in and of themselves, the markers of heresy.”
Amen and amen…
#51 pstrmike
Yes…
I also really like Duane’s perspective.
MLD, I have never attended a men’s “bible study” where someone said, “this is what it means to me”, as much as this how the Lord spoke to me through his word in this way or another.
I have however, been exposed to countless hours listening to boring instructors & pastors going on and on, chasing one rabbit trail after another, about things that had no real meaning or impact upon me. 😉
I appreciate you guys who want to have it textually, systematically and historically “right.”
For me, the simplicity of the gospel message surrounding the supremacy of Jesus Christ and my secured salvation in him and him alone, has been an anchor to me these many years.
I have no interest or time to learn Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic and all manners of systematic theology.
At one time in my life I thought I did. However, I discovered it wasn’t very useful when it came to feeding and caring for my family 😉
However, for those of you who do, more power to you.
Hugs right back Dusty.
Dan from Georgia… if you’re still out there somewhere miss your comments brother.
Here is a pre-modern hermeneutical principle that has stood the test of time:
“Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such a interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbor, does not yet understand them as he ought.” Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book 1, Chapter 36.
But I do acknowledge that with a cursory review of the Christian publishing industry, that there’s a lot of money to be made and spent on Bible studies, applications, disciplines, curricula, etc.
#57 Jean
Augustine’s hermeneutic of love. I can agree on that!
Of course, I posted an article here promoting that hermeneutic and got blasted 🙂
#58,
That’s why I included “pre-modern” in my introduction.
#44
I wonder if one of the advantages of a denomination/confessional stance is that
it’s a lot easier to look at the ”big picture” with regard to doctrine — what’s important
and what isn’t. It gives you a grid, background and nuance. Rabbit trails are harder
to form because you have to consider what’s went before you — much more than
your own personal experience.
Meant #47
bob1, I suppose those denominational/confessional borders do provide some means of keeping the Pastor focused.
Back in the day at particular church we were attending, there was a guest speaker who would come to preach from time to time.
His style was to speak no more than 20 minutes. For some reason, I was always extremely edified when he came through 😉
The instruction….study to show thyself approved…comes to mind.
Many moons ago I was in a small group in search of the next group study. I piped up and and expressed fatigue with yet another dumbed down, fill in the blank book. I vividly remember frightened looks. But, we don’t have a study guide was one objection.