November 23, 2025

This time Jack Wilkie describes a common problem with Bible Study. Sometimes even when sincere we go to the bible looking for confirmation instead of revelation. 

Robin Hood didn’t become good at archery by shooting arrows at random and then drawing a bullseye around them wherever they landed. Neither will we become good Bible students by coming to the text with a conclusion and then drawing a bullseye around it by finding a way to make the Scriptures say what we want.

One of the best ways to guard against this error is to apply two of the previous steps: keep everything in context, and don’t pit the Bible against itself. Finding what the Bible says rather than what I want it to say requires me to dig deep into the context of the verses in question. That way I can understand them the way the original writer (and, more importantly, the Holy Spirit) intended before applying them. If I come looking for a conclusion, on the other hand, I can simply pull out a concordance and look up any verses that talk about my topic of interest and then string them together to say what I want them.

The name for this approach to Bible Study is commonly called proof texting. This bad habit has become all the easier with the ability to do a computer search and get a list of passages. I am not saying that topical research is bad. I do want to say that we need to engage in detailed study of all passages which are relevant to our topic. This is very time consuming and often difficult but our understanding of a topic will be deeper and more complete if we are willing to put in the work. We will be much less likely to make mistakes and miss the point that God is trying to make. Further we will be more able to defend our conclusions should the need arise. 

A good question to consider is what biases we are bringing to the text and how those biases might impact our understanding. 

Kevin Cleary

November 16, 2025

The next point that Jack makes is a very good one. He offers some examples, but I will give you the two I hear most frequently. It really looks like we are living in the end times. Another one is Jesus loved and accepted everyone. Both of these have a grain of truth but are missing two key things. First citations, if you are going to talk about what the Bible says you should know where it says that. Second as discussed previously is context. 

Jack Wilkie says:

This one seems like an oxymoron, but it’s sadly not all that uncommon. This happens when we start understanding the Bible based on what we think it says rather than what it actually says. Consider, for example, how much has been said about money being the root of all evil. What Paul actually wrote is that the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil. That’s a pretty big difference, no? While that example is a less consequential one, there are plenty of opportunities to make the same mistake with more impactful teachings, too.

When we get into this habit, it’s a short trip to get to saying things like “I don’t think God would prohibit women from preaching,” or “God wouldn’t tell some people they aren’t allowed to be married,” or “Jesus wouldn’t care about (insert pet issue).” Don’t get in the dangerous habit of drawing conclusions about God without consulting His Word.

There is a common habit these days of using the internet for Bible Study, there is much that can be learned but there is also a great deal of bad information. What are some principals that can help us

Jacks last point is especially challenging which combined with my complaint above. It’s easy to google a Bible verse or topic and get a result that may look like it goes with what we are trying to say. This is very dangerous as there is a good chance that we miss the point of the passage because we have taken it out of context. 

A good rule of thumb is to back up what you say with a citation. It’s also a good idea to look up citations that others have used to be sure you are sharing the right one. I have regularly had typos in my sermon outlines for example, so were someone to simply copy my work they would also copy my mistake. Good Bible Study is careful and accurate. 

Kevin Cleary

November 9, 2025

The next of Jack Wilkie’s bad Bible Study practices is pitting the Bible against itself. The way I often see this one expressed is in a questioning sort of manner suggesting since the Bible seems to make two contradictory points we can’t be sure of a position. This is kind of like someone saying they know where London is, and in response someone says “are you sure because there is a London in Ontario and one in England.” The questioner is being purposely obtuse in effort to sound wise or informed. Further they are trying to deconstruct a fairly obvious statement about the world and how it works. 

Jack offers a different kind of example which is still quite helpful.  

“1 Peter 3:21 says baptism now saves you.”

“Oh yeah? Well Ephesians 2:8-9 says we’re saved by grace through faith and not works.”

“But James 2:17 says faith without works is dead.”

“Yeah but Romans 3:28 says we’re saved by faith apart from works.”

See the problem here? The Bible does say all of those things, it’s true. But to engage in what I call “Scripture Wars” like this makes a big implication that I don’t think we want to make – namely, that the Bible contradicts itself. The key is to (you guessed it yet again) put each verse in its proper context.

Ephesians 2 and 1 Peter 3 are both necessary to the plan of salvation. We are saved by grace through faith, which Paul emphasized to show that it is God’s gift we receive by trusting Him rather than working for it. And, we are also saved by baptism, which Peter pointed out to emphasize the washing away of sin that sparks the new life. What does James mean by “works?” Read James 2 and you’ll see he was discussing the kind of actions that will naturally flow from the heart of someone who has faith in God. What did Paul mean by “works” in Romans? He was clearly taking aim at works of merit done to try to earn God’s favour.

Using one verse against the other to score a rhetorical point is shamefully disrespectful to God’s Word. He did not contradict Himself. Our understanding of what He wants must be an understanding that does not depend on making one verse fight another.

Questions: 

What is deductive reasoning? And what is inductive reasoning? What role do these play in our Bible Study?

Do you know of any other examples where people will make an effort to pit the Bible against itself without any context? 

Kevin Cleary

November 2, 2025

I AM the way to God: I did not come
To light a path, to blaze a trail, that you
May simply follow in my tracks, pursue
My shadow like a prize that’s cheaply won.
My life reveals the life of God, the sum
Of all he is and does. So how can you,
The sons of night, look on me and construe
My way as just the road for you to run?
My path takes in Gethsemane, the Cross,
And stark rejection draped in agony.
My way to God embraces utmost loss:
Your way to God is not my way, but me.
Each other path is dismal swamp, or fraud.
I stand alone: I am the way to God.

I AM the truth of God: I do not claim
I merely speak the truth, as though I were
A prophet (but no more), a channel, stirred
By Spirit power, of purely human frame.
Nor do I say that when I take his name
Upon my lips, my teaching cannot err
(Though that is true). A mere interpreter
I’m not, some prophet-voice of special fame.
In timeless reaches of eternity
The Triune God decided that the Word,
The self-expression of the Deity,
Would put on flesh and blood — and thus be heard.
The claim to speak the truth good men applaud.
I claim much more: I am the truth of God.

I AM the resurrection life. It’s not
As though I merely bear life-giving drink,
A magic elixir which (men might think)
Is cheap because though lavish it’s not bought.
The price of life was fully paid: I fought
With death and black despair; for I’m the drink
Of life. The resurrection morn’s the link
Between my death and endless life long sought.
I am the firstborn from the dead; and by
My triumph, I deal death to lusts and hates.
My life I now extend to men, and ply
Them with the draught that ever satiates.
Religion’s page with empty boasts is rife:
But I’m the resurrection and the life.

D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, p492-93

 

~ Kevin Cleary

October 26, 2025

Here is another of Jack Wilkie’s thoughts related to bad Bible study. I want to add another element to it. If we are not using context what filter are we using to determine when a passage applies to us and when it doesn’t? I would suggest it’s often our subjective opinion. If I like what a passage says then it’s not about me. It’s not by mistake that everyone makes Jeremiah 29:11 about them it makes us feel nice. 

Bad Bible Study assumes everything is directly about me

The Bible was certainly written for me and you but that doesn’t mean it was written to me and you. Jeremiah 29:11 may say “I know the plans I have for you…” but the “you” God was talking to there isn’t the high school graduate receiving a Hallmark card and $20 from the sweet older lady at church. Looking at the (you guessed it) context tells us who the “you” is, and once we understand that we can understand what the verse was truly intended to mean.

The other way to insert ourselves into the text is to read the Bible’s “you” individualistically. Our southern brethren use language more effectively than the rest of us when they divide “you” and “y’all,” and the King James Version has a similar distinction with its use of “you” and “ye.” The commands and promises given to “you” in the Bible are generally given to a people, not to a person. Yes, God wants us each to obey those commandments, but they were given to all of us to do together, helping each other along the way. And yes, He has great promises in store for each of us, but those are promises we share with all of our brothers and sisters, and we would do well to emphasize the shared nature of what we have in God.

When we read ourselves into the Bible, we end up with an individualistic religion that elevates ourselves and misses the text’s intended meaning.

What are some examples you can think of where a command or promise does not apply to us today? What are some common misunderstandings associated with this? 

George Dehoff made an interesting point in a short book I read many years ago. He said “The Bible is written in such a way that if a man wishes to cavil he may.” What Dehoff was saying was that if we are not very careful, we will use the varied nature of scripture to justify ourselves instead of to reflect our shortcomings and grow. 

Kevin Cleary