Book Study Intro Note
About My Book Studies
The majority of my book studies are not formatted as traditional commentaries. Rather than offering a verse-by-verse analysis from start to finish, they gather reflections on particular verses and passages that captured my attention in prayer and study. At times, this means the flow is not linear, and sections may appear disconnected when read straight through.
These studies are, in essence, snapshots of my engagement with Scripture. They record observations, questions, and applications that arose in specific texts, without forcing every insight into a single framework. You will often find cross-references, brief word notes, or theological connections that stand on their own, inviting you to pause, compare, and return to the biblical text itself.
They also trace a progression in my understanding. As I continue to study, certain themes deepen, others are refined, and still others are corrected by the Word. I have left that development visible on purpose. My hope is that this approach will encourage you to open your Bible, test every thought against Scripture, and grow with me in humility before the Lord who continues to teach His people.
Scholarly Acknowledgment and Research Method
I have not prepared these studies in a vacuum. Over many years of studying Scripture, I have accumulated and consulted a substantial library of biblical commentaries, theological works, Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias, Greek and Hebrew word-study resources, works on biblical interpretation and textual history, church history, philosophy, apologetics, and other reference materials. These works represent a wide range of theological traditions and viewpoints, including positions with which I strongly agree, positions with which I agree only in part, and positions with which I substantially disagree.
Although I have consulted extensively from these and many other resources, the study notes and commentaries published on Clark’s Anchored in Christ are not reproductions of any single commentary, author, or theological work. They are my own compilation and synthesis of years of biblical study. In preparing them, I compare Scripture with Scripture, examine the observations and arguments of numerous writers, consider linguistic, historical, textual, and theological evidence, and then organize, evaluate, and express the resulting study in my own words and according to my own conclusions.
This distinction is important. An observation found in these studies may have been prompted or informed by something I encountered in a commentary, lexicon, theological work, historical source, or other reference material without the resulting exposition simply being that author’s commentary rewritten. Often several sources contribute pieces of information to the examination of a passage, while the way those observations are brought together, compared with Scripture, evaluated, and developed into the study presented here is my own. At other times, observations and arguments arise directly from my own examination of the biblical text. Where I directly quote another writer, closely follow or paraphrase a distinctive argument, or rely substantially upon an identifiable scholarly contribution, I seek to acknowledge that source specifically.
Among the resources that have contributed to my study are commentary and reference works from the Yale and Anchor Bible series, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Willmington’s Guide to the Bible, the IVP Bible dictionaries, and numerous other biblical commentaries and reference works. My study of the biblical languages has also benefited from resources such as Strong’s concordance and dictionaries, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, the Zodhiates word-study resources, Hebrew and Greek interlinear works, and the Septuagint, including Brenton’s Greek and English edition.
I have likewise read and consulted theologians and Christian writers representing substantially different theological traditions and conclusions. These include Reformed and Calvinist writers, non-Calvinist and Arminian writers, dispensational and covenantal theologians, early Christian writers, historians, apologists, philosophers, and contemporary biblical scholars. I believe there is value in allowing those who hold a position to explain that position in their own words and then examining their arguments in light of Scripture rather than relying solely upon the descriptions of their critics.
The presence of an author or work among the resources I have consulted should therefore never be understood as an endorsement of everything taught by that author, denomination, theological tradition, or publication. I may find a writer’s grammatical observation persuasive while rejecting his theological conclusion. I may agree with an author concerning one passage and disagree with him concerning another. I may also consult a work precisely because I am examining or challenging the position it represents.
Secondary sources are especially valuable for drawing attention to matters that deserve examination: the meaning and usage of Greek and Hebrew words, grammatical constructions, manuscript evidence, historical and cultural background, geography, ancient customs, competing interpretations, theological arguments, and the history of Christian thought. Many such observations belong to the accumulated work of generations of biblical scholarship and can be found across numerous commentaries, dictionaries, lexicons, and reference works.
For that reason, this general acknowledgment of the scholarship behind these studies should not be understood as a substitute for specific attribution. Where a particular study directly quotes another writer, closely follows or paraphrases a distinctive argument, or relies substantially upon an identifiable scholarly contribution, I seek to acknowledge that source within the study itself. The purpose of this broader acknowledgment is to recognize the wider body of scholarship and study that has helped inform my understanding over the years while still distinguishing that background research from the particular sources that warrant individual attribution.
Neither age, reputation, academic credentials, denominational acceptance, nor agreement with my own conclusions makes a secondary source authoritative. I have attempted to weigh what I read against the biblical text, compare it with the broader witness of Scripture, and retain, modify, or reject conclusions according to the strength of the evidence. The same standard should be applied to what I have written.
Accordingly, while the studies published on Clark’s Anchored in Christ have benefited greatly from the work of others, the organization, synthesis, theological evaluation, application, and conclusions presented here are my own unless otherwise stated or attributed. I do not ask the reader to accept those conclusions because I have written them any more than I would ask the reader to accept a conclusion merely because it was written by a respected theologian or commentator.
A companion page, Selected Study and Reference Resources, identifies many of the commentaries, lexicons, dictionaries, theological works, historical sources, and other reference materials that have contributed to my study over the years. That list is intended as a broad acknowledgment of scholarly and historical indebtedness; it does not imply that every listed work was used in every article or that I agree with every conclusion contained in those works.
The final authority is Scripture. Commentaries can help us understand it. Lexicons can help us examine its words. Historians can help us understand its setting. Theologians can help us recognize questions and consequences we may not have considered. Even those with whom we disagree can expose weaknesses in our reasoning and force us to examine the biblical evidence more carefully. But every one of them, and every conclusion presented on this website, must ultimately be brought back to the Word of God: “Test all things; hold fast what is good”. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)