The other day in Bible class I read aloud from Joshua 1:8:

This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous and have good success.

Joshua 1:8, ESV

A young lady in the class spoke up, “My Bible doesn’t say be careful. It says observe.” She then read the same verse from the New King James Version.

This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.

Joshua 1:8, NKJV

Whenever we compare multiple translations, we will notice little differences like this all over the place. Translation isn’t an precise science. One group of translators think the Hebrew word is most similar to the English word “observe”, while other translators feel that “be careful” a better representation. This is a very small difference, but it is helpful to notice. It suggest that neither “observe” nor “be careful” are perfect representation of the original Hebrew word. Most likely the Hebrew word shares meaning with both English words, as in “careful observation.”

This is just one small example of how comparing multiple translations can give us a better feel for the original text. Sometimes the differences between translations are small, such as in Joshua 1:8. Other times the differences are more significant. Notice how the ESV and the NKJV translate Romans 8:1.

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Romans 8:1, ESV

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

Romans 8:1, NKJV

That’s a big difference! The NKJV is twice as long, and seems to suggest that the reason there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus is because they are not walking according to the Spirit the way they should. Why does the ESV leave this part of the verse out? (Or could it be that the NKJV added this part of the verse for some reason?) We need to do a little bit of digging to find out.

If you had only read Romans 8:1 in one translation, you might not even notice the need for extra research here. But since you compared translations, now you know. That’s why it is important to compare different translations.

Several of these Bible study tips have focused on the need for clear thinking and good logic when it comes to our Bible study. This is critically important, and unfortunately, it is often overlooked.

If we are in a regular routine of studying our Bible, we will occasionally make some interesting observations that maybe we haven’t noticed before. But before drawing a conclusion from our observations, we need to make sure we’re not using poor logic to overstate the evidence.

Here’s some examples:

• In the Old Testament, God’s people used instrumental music in his worship to God, therefore God is pleased when Christians use instruments in their worship.
• Phillip had four daughters who prophesied, therefore the Bible endorses women teaching men in a the public assembly.
• Jesus praised a centurion for his faith, therefore Christians can join the military and kill their enemies during time of war.

Each of these statements begin with an accurate biblical observation, and then suggest a conclusion that extends beyond what the text actually states. Yes, we see numerous examples of God’s people worshiping with instrumental music in the Old Testament, but we also have to remember that they didn’t choose to worship with instruments out of personal preference. Instrumental music was specifically prescribed by God (for example, 2 Chron. 29:25). They were concerned with worshipping God according to how they had been commanded to worship him, and we should worship with that same concern. The question is, how are God’s people under the new covenant expected to worship?

Yes, Philip had four daughters who prophesied. But the text never specified how they went about doing this, or in what setting they shared their prophesies. Simply observing that women prophesied doesn’t automatically lead to the conclusion that there are no guidelines to the roles filled by men and women in worship (see 1 Tim. 2:12). If we are going to draw that conclusion, we must develop a much stronger argument than simply pointing to Phillips daughters.

Yes, Jesus praised a centurion for his faith without adding one word of disapproval about his role in the military. But he also didn’t voice any words of approval of the wicked and idolatrous actions that a Roman military leader would be expected to fill. Jesus frequently interacted with sinners without commending on whether or not he approved of their sin. In John 4:16-18 Jesus spoke with a Samaritan woman who had been divorced five times and was living with a man she wasn’t married to. Jesus never rebuked her or told her to leave the man she was living with. Does this mean that Jesus approved of her marriages, divorces, and remarriages? Certainly not!

I’m not suggesting that there aren’t good questions that can be raised about these issues and others. I’m suggesting that when studying various issues, we need to be careful not to make a quick observation from the text, and then draw conclusions that overstate the evidence. When we study scripture, we will see things in the text. Every conclusion we draw should have a direct line back to the text. If it doesn’t, there is a very real possibility that our thinking could extend beyond the text.

Have you ever had difficulty expressing what you mean with clarity? Try writing. Bible study tip #19 was to always study with a pen in hand. Try grabbing that pen and putting your conclusions into words. The process of choosing the right words forces you think.

For example, in Matthew 5:31-32, Jesus says,

It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

With your pen you could write that you believe that a man should not divorce his wife except on the ground of sexual immorality. But what exactly does that mean?

Do you mean to say that you believe that there are no other times when divorce is permitted? Or do you mean that there are no other times when remarriage is permitted? If divorce could be permitted on other grounds, how could it be justified in light of Jesus’s words? If divorce could not be permitted on other grounds, what should a Christian do in situations that involve abuse or other extreme situations? What exactly do you think Jesus means by sexual immorality? Is he only referring to sexual intercourse? Or, based on what he says in the previous verses, can it also include lust? Maybe Jesus isn’t trying to lay down a hard and fast rule, but just teaching a general principle, or perhaps an ideal we should strive for? What if a person is previously divorced and remarried before they become a Christian? Is the new “spouse” even a spouse at all? If so, in what sense could remarriage be adultery? If not, is a Christian required to divorce their new “spouse” in order to be faithful to Jesus’s teaching? Is that how Jesus would have intended for his teaching to be applied, or was he making another point entirely? How certain are you about your conclusions? What if another Christians draws slightly different conclusions? Is that permissible? Why or why not?

Write out your questions. Write out your answers. Write out what you are certain about. Write out what you are uncertain about. Write out what you believe the text teaches. Write out what you do not believe the text teaches. Practice nuancing your beliefs appropriately. Try writing. It sharpens your thinking.

The New Testament quotes or alludes to the Old Testament hundreds of times. If we pay attention to how New Testament authors used the Old Testament we can learn quite a bit. There’s a lot we can learn from the historical books beyond simply doing character studies. There’s a lot we can learn from the book of Psalms beyond simply using them for devotional material. There’s a lot we can learn from the prophets beyond simply mining the books for random prophetic statements about Christ.

Here’s three examples of how the New Testament can teach us about how to read the Old Testament. For one, notice what Jesus does with the Old Testament laws during the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5). Not only does he uphold the laws, but he fulfills them (Mt. 5:17). He does this by pointing his disciples to follow the true principles underlying each of the laws.

Another example is how Matthew uses Hosea 11:1. Matthew saw Jesus’s emergency trip to Egypt as the fulfillment of the words “Out of Egypt I called my son” (see Mt. 2:15). The thing is, Hosea 11:1 isn’t even a prophesy of a future event. It looks backwards into Israel’s history to how God called Israel (his Son) out of Egypt. Matthew wasn’t mistaken about the context Hosea 11:1. He was intentionally making an analogy between Israel and Israel’s representative Messiah, Jesus. This analogy is an abstract one, but it’s a powerful theological observation drawn by Matthew.

Finally, notice how the New Testament authors frequently quote Old Testament verses about God, and yet they apply them to Jesus. For example, when Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4), he alludes to Jeremiah 17:13, where God is identified as the source of living water. Yet Jesus does so to identify himself as the source of living water!

When New Testament writers use the Old Testament, they make important theological points. Pay attention, and you will become a better reader of the Old Testament.

Sometimes the Bible says hard things that can make us uncomfortable. For example, many modern Bible readers find it troubling when they read that God would command Joshua to completely annihilate entire populations in Canaanite cites (Josh. 6:15-21). There is often a tendency among Bible students to look for interpretations that make what the Bible says more acceptable and more reasonable in our minds.

One one hand, it is true that sometimes we really do misunderstand the intent of certain passages. For example, if I wasn’t aware that God shown the Canaanites patience for over 400 years (Gen 15.16), that passage in Joshua would probably trouble me more more than it does. And if I read the annihilation command in Joshua 6, without considering the context where God had just spared a Canaanite family for their faith (Josh. 2), the annihilation command would probably sound more like genocide than an act of judgment on wicked people who refused to repent.

When we encounter difficult passages, it’s one thing to closely examine those passages to make sure we are correctly understanding the true intent of the author. But it’s another thing entirely to try to reinterpret a passage to say something it doesn’t intend to say. That’s dishonest.

When we read that God created the earth in six days (Gen 1), we might find that hard to believe. But we need to wrestle with it. We need to ask if that’s actually what the author was trying to say. And if it is, that’s what we need to believe.

When we read about a world wide flood that covered the whole earth (Gen 6-8), we shouldn’t be embarrassed by a story that many would find unbelievable. We need to try to understand the true intent of the author.

When we read about giants in the Old Testament (Num. 13:32-33; Deut. 2-3), we need to avoid the temptation to try to explain it away. If we believe that the Bible contains God-breathed scriptures, that means that God produced scripture how he wanted it, not how we wish it was. That means God really did intend for there to be giants described in the Old Testament. We need to wrestle with that.

When Jesus says “Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Mt. 5:39), we shouldn’t try to water down his command so that we can respond to evil in a way that seems better to us. Rather, we need to be asking “Did Jesus actually mean what it looks like he meant?” And if that’s actually what Jesus meant, we need to follow it, even if it seems foolish or nonsensical to us.

There are few teachings in scripture as challenging as Jesus’s teachings about marriage, divorce, and remarriage. It’s one thing to read “Whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marriages a divorced woman commits adultery” (Mt. 5.32), and to ask “Am I understanding Jesus correctly here? Did he really intend for us to apply this scripture in the way I think it needs to be applied?” But it’s another thing entirely to simply ignore or disagree with this scripture simply because we don’t like what it says.

There are few verses in the Bible that shock modern values like 1 Timothy 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quite.” Sure, we need to closely examine the context. Sure, we need to make sure we are reading the scripture in a way that harmonizes with the rest of the New Testament. But what if Paul actually meant what he said?

When the content of the Bible seems embarrassing, troublesome, or offensive, we need to ask why. It might be that we are misunderstanding the true intent of the text. But it might be that the Bible troubles us is because we are the ones who have the incorrect worldview. After all, every culture has it’s own unique values, including our own. If the Creator has the authority to critique all cultures, including our own, we shouldn’t be surprised to find that the Bible shocks us every now and then. Sometimes the Bible means exactly what it says. Sometimes the Bible shocks us because that’s what it is designed to do.

For better Bible study, let the Bible be what it is. Don’t try to change or ignore it. Rather, try to understand it on it’s own terms.

It’s not uncommon to hear people say “The Bible clearly teaches…”, followed by a particular point of doctrine. Although we should always try to follow the “clear” teaching of the Bible, we have to be careful. Sometimes the clear meaning of Scripture isn’t as clear as we might initially think.

Consider the phrase “It’s raining cats and dogs.” What is the “clear” meaning of that phrase? Unless you are from a completely foreign corner of the globe, you know that the phrase “clearly” means that it’s raining really hard. It is a phrase that is well known in our culture. But imagine how ridiculous such a phrase might sound to someone who isn’t familiar with our culture. If a foreigner insisted that the phrase must mean that cats and dogs are literally falling from the sky, they would be wrong. By insisting on what initially pops into their head, in their cultural context, they would completely miss the “clear” meaning of the phrase in our culture.

Hopefully I’ve made my point “clear.” Since the Bible was written in a foreign cultural context, the “clear” meaning of scripture depends on what the original author of scripture was intending to communicate in their cultural context, not ours. When we insist that the Bible must mean what initially pops into our heads in our culture, we might be completely missing the “clear” meaning of Scripture.

For example, consider what we find in Galatians 4:22-31. Here Paul cites the story of Hagar, Sarai, and their children in order to explain why Christians are not defined by the law that was given to Moses and Israel on Mount Sinai. In verses 25-26, Paul writes:

Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

For most of us, when we read the story of Hagar and Sarai, it isn’t immediately “clear” that the text is communicating anything about the relationship between Gentiles and the Sinai covenant. But Paul, having a better understanding of how Genesis would have been read in it’s own cultural context, understood that he text contained a lesson that “clearly” applied to the Jew/Gentile relations in the churches of Galatia. How can we insist on the “clear” meaning of the book of Genesis, when the apostle Paul himself insists on a meaning that might not initially seem “clear” to us?

What we should be doing is seeking to understand what the original authors and the original readers were thinking and communicating, not what we’re thinking. The “clear” meaning of scripture to us might not have been “clear” to them.

Have you ever noticed how frequently the Bible repeats itself?

One of the most obvious examples of repetition are the two separate stories of God parting the waters. The first is the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus 14. Then nearly the exact same miracle occurs in Joshua 3, when God divided the waters of the Jordan River. The repetition is obvious. Most of us were pretty young the first time we noticed the similarity between these stories.

After we notice this one example of repetition, we will begin to notice the theme of “God saving people through water” showing up all over the place. During the flood, God saved Noah through water. Naaman was healed through water. Jonah was saved through water. Christian baptism is salvation through water. Isn’t it interesting how often this theme repeats itself?

Another example of repetition is how God can use really bad situations for good. One of the most obvious examples of this theme is the story of Joseph, who was sold into slavery, wrongfully accused, and left in prison. At the end of Joseph’s story, after he saves his family by providing them grain during a famine, Joseph proclaimed, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50.20). This idea prepares us for the story of the Exodus, where God turned Pharaoh’s evil oppression into an occasion to deliver Israel. Later on, David was delivered after running for his life. The nation of Israel was purified through exile. And of course, in the most obvious example of God using evil for good, Jesus brought salvation through the cross. Over and over the message is clear: God is able to save his people through suffering.

With a little bit of reflection, you may begin to realize that these two themes are actually closely connected to each other. For example, Jesus referred to his suffering as a “baptism” (Mk. 10:38-39). Jesus look at Jonah’s deliverance through water as a sign of his own burial and resurrection (Mt. 12:38-42). It is in our own baptism when we are united with Jesus’s suffering, death, and resurrection (Rom. 6:1-4). Salvation through water is connected with salvation through death. Salvation through death is connected to baptism. Baptism is connected to our willingness to suffer and die with Christ.

All of these interesting connections flow from simply paying attention to repetition. There’s plenty of other repeated themes in scripture. The Spirit creates life. Man is created to reflect God’s image. Sin brings death. God providentially provides for his people. Atonement requires sacrifice. God raises up deliverers for his people. God is holy, and provides a way for his people to be holy. The kingdom of Babylon opposes the kingdom of God. God judges the kingdom of Babylon, no matter what form Babylon may take. The list could go on and on.

When the Bible seems to repeat itself, pay attention. Your ability to notice the theological message of these stories will improve.

Yes preachers, this one is intended for you. One of the most popular ways to organize a sermon is to divide it into into three main points. Some preachers have a special talent of being able to craft sermons where every point begins with the same letter. Although I’ve never been very good at alliteration, I have found that there’s something about crafting “three main points” that makes sermon preparation easier.

But the thing is, most texts don’t have three main points. There is a difference between talking about the text and teaching the text. When our focus is on delivering a three point sermon, we can easily find ourselves squeezing the text into our three points. By the time we end up delivering the sermon, we end up delivering what is essentially a collection of our thoughts about the text rather than a lesson on the text itself.

When we’re given the opportunity to teach the Bible, our aim is to deliver the same thoughts that were first delivered by the original author. Our first job is to understand the flow and development of what was delivered in the text itself. Once we understand what the text is saying and how the text is saying it, our next job is to figure out the most effective way to communicate those same thoughts to our audience.

Sometimes the Biblical author may make three supporting observations that lead up to their main point. In those situations, the lesson may translate quite well into a three point sermon. But in other places, the author may make eight or nine observations leading to the main point. Or he may make one point that leads to a second, that leads to a third, that leads to a fourth. Or you may find yourself teaching a section of poetry, where the author is more interested in painting a series of word pictures, and less interested in developing a structured argument. Or the text may be designed to be told as a story without any outline at all.

Preaching a sermon without three main points can be difficult. It requires a lot of work to really understand how a text works. But better Bible study requires extra effort. Keep God’s words front and center, and keep your own thoughts about the text out of it. Let the text drive your sermon. Don’t let your sermon drive your approach to the text.

Beliefs and opinions are formed by more than simply accumulating raw data. Emotions, attitudes, values, and worldviews all impact the way we think. They impact the way we process raw facts into a meaningful perception of what we think is true. That’s why it’s important that we are disciplined in every aspect of our thinking. We need to make sure we examine our attitudes, our emotions, our values, our worldview, our loyalties, and of course, we need to make sure we are informed by good data. Incorrect values will lead errors in how we process correct data. Incorrect data will lead to errors in conclusions we draw, which will in turn reinforce incorrect values. As we examine our own beliefs, it’s good to try to distinguish between beliefs that are based on good data, and those that are mostly driven by our feelings and loyalties.

When it comes to Bible study, the text itself is the raw data. For better Bible study, we need to carefully distinguish between exegesis and speculation. It can be fun to have speculate about things we don’t fully understand. It can be fun to speculate about angels and demons, or what will happen after Jesus returns. But if our beliefs are driven by speculative thoughts, rather than by the text itself, there’s a good chance that we will end up drawing some wrong conclusions.

It’s also important to examine our own attitudes and loyalties. People who are well versed in scripture often end up with incorrect beliefs, especially when their loyalties lie with a particular sect, denomination, or political party. Our loyalty must be to Christ and his church above any other group. We must strive to live with the same kind of attitudes and values that we see in Christ himself.

For better Bible study, be disciplined in your thinking. Examine yourself to make sure your loyalties are in the right place, and examine your beliefs to make sure they are founded upon good data, that is, upon the text itself.

It’s important to understand the Bible correctly. For that reason, it can sometimes feel unnerving to be uncertain about the meaning of a passage. If you’ve ever felt uneasy about your own grasp of scripture, you’re not alone. None of us are omniscient (Better Bible Study Tip #11).

In fact, feeling uncertain about the meaning of a passage is sometimes a good thing. It means you understand that you have more to learn. If you never felt uncertain about your own understanding, that would imply that you think you have it all figured out. Are we really okay with that level of arrogance?

Yes, it’s important to understand the Bible correctly. We never want to be satisfied with our own ignorance. We should continue to do the hard work of continual Bible study. But if we don’t understand a passage with certainty, we can still faithfully apply what we are able to grasp. The Bible is usually quite clear when it comes to basic virtues we should practice and basic vices we should avoid. As long as we are being faithful and humble in our study, and as long as we are striving to obey the very best we can, it’s okay to be uncertain about the meaning of a passage.