Knowable Word

Helping ordinary people learn to study the Bible

Copyright © 2012–2026 DiscipleMakers, except guest articles (copyright author). Used by permission.

You are here: Home / Archives for Peter Krol

Is the Bible Suitable for Children?

By

Amid calls to censor the Bible and remove it from school curricula, John Stevens proposes that the problem is not with the Bible but with what and how we instruct our children. Here is a taste:

The real question is whether God intends [the sexual and violent bits of the Bible] to be kept from children. I suspect that we are shaped more by a romantic vision of childhood that owes more to Rousseau than Scripture, and Victorian notions of childhood innocence. In most of the world, and certainly, in Bible times, children were familiar with harsh reality and the simple ‘facts of life’ from a much earlier age. After all, families shared a single room and yet there were multiple children! Kids on farms know a lot about sex.

God commanded parents to teach the Law to their children and make it part of daily life. They were to talk about it. This includes the vulgar and violent parts, which are crucial to the identity shaping of the people of God. The Bible does not shy away from reality. Most of the time God’s people lived in threat of violence & in proximity to idolatry with its sexual immorality. The Bible is not sentimentality but realism. It is the fallen world seen red in tooth and claw. Israelite children were not to be isolated from this, but taught how to live faithfully in it and resist its temptations…

I think we need to be on the front foot and stop hiding reality from our kids, but truly teach them the Bible (in an age-appropriate way) and not shy from preparing them for the real world.

Stevens’s argument is well worth considering. As a father, I enjoy reading some children’s Bibles to my children. But I have always sought to give them a steady diet of the entire Bible.

Check it out!

Let’s Not Employ the Gospel as Justification to Keep Sinning

By

In Romans 6:1, the apostle Paul asks a crucial question to clarify a potential misapplication of his gospel: “Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” In other words, does the grace of God give believers permission to continue in their sin without ever having to change?

By no means!

Photo by Ray Harrington on Unsplash

An Old Problem

Misconstruing God’s grace in this way was not unique to Paul’s mission or Paul’s gospel. This problem is not a strictly Pauline one. Consider Jeremiah’s fiery words in the Jerusalem temple of his day, shortly before its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar:

Thus says Yahweh of Armies, the God of Israel: …Behold, you trust in deceptive words to no avail. Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, ‘We are delivered!’—only to go on doing all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?

Jeremiah 7:3-11

The people of Israel committed all kinds of sin against their God, yet they trusted in God’s grace to get them through. They believed God’s grace was big enough to prevent them from having to actually change their behavior.

So the Lord goes on to tell them to look at the ruins of their previous sanctuary in Shiloh (from before the Philistines conquered them centuries earlier). This temple would end up the same way.

Today’s Gospel

Of course, we must be careful to preach Christ and him crucified whenever we lead Bible studies and teach the Scriptures. The good news about the Christ is the center of all of God’s revelation.

But we have misunderstood that message if we make it sound in any way as though people won’t have to change. As though coming just as they are means always remaining just as they are. As though repentance (change) were not the indispensable companion to belief (Mark 1:15).

I’ve found we must use caution with such phrases as “struggling with sin.” If by that phrase you mean that it is hard to put sin to death—but you are making progress in that direction—then well and good. Keep on keeping on!

But if by that phrase you really mean, “I’m sad about it, but I’m just going to have to live with it for the rest of my life,” then please reconsider what the whole point of the “struggle” ought to be (Col 3:5, Titus 2:11-14).

How Would They Have Applied It?

By

In recent posts, I’ve been trying to help you get the most out of the interpretation phase of your study. We’ve considered different uses for different types of questions, the power of implicational questions, and the best place to find answers to your questions.

Another Angle

Another way to think of the value of implicational questions is that they help us to grasp how the original audience would have applied the text. When we ask our questions with the original audience in mind, we’re more likely to land on the true message and proper application of the text.

Our understanding of a text will be strongest—and therefore our application will hit home with greatest force—when it is very closely connected to the author’s primary intent for his audience.

So we do as much as we can to put ourselves in the shoes of those who first read this text, and to consider what this passage calls them to believe, love, or do.

Photo by Allan Mas

To do this, we must pull together all of our work in observation and interpretation so far. All our questions and answers, along with our work on the context: historical, biblical, and literary.

An Example

In Proverbs 31:1-9, King Lemuel’s mother offers him wise counsel for kings and rulers. She tells him what not to do with his strength (Prov 31:3) and mouth (Prov 31:4-5), and she promotes what he ought to do with his mouth (Prov 31:8-9a) and strength (Prov 31:9b). There is a time an place for forgetting (Prov 31:6-7), but during one’s exercise of kingly rule is not it (Prov 31:4-5).

Thus far my observation, with some progress on definitive, rational, and implicational questions. But how would the original audience have applied this poem?

It may be tempting to go directly to contemporary application, considering how we make use of our own strength and mouth, and whether we employ them to wise, selfless, and just ends. Such time would certainly be profitable, but perhaps a less direct route will lay an even stronger foundation for application.

The book of Proverbs is something of a manual for training up nobles and rulers in Israel. When Solomon speaks to “my son” in chapters 1-9, he is speaking not only to his direct heir but also to all the youth among the nobility (see where Prov 4:1, 24:21, etc., where the “sons” are either plural or are not in direct line to the throne). So if we apply every passage directly to the Christian “everyman,” we lose something of the book’s focus on training leaders.

The people of Israel hearing Proverbs 31:1-9 may not have immediately considered how they used their own strength or mouth. After all, many of them would be in the category of those for whom it would be appropriate to forget their poverty (Prov 31:6-7)!

Instead, upon hearing this text, they would be far more inclined to consider what sort of king they need to rule them in wisdom. They might expect their king to take this poem more personally than they themselves do. And if he wouldn’t, they would keep waiting and watching for another such king to arise.

Such consideration of the original audience helps us to see Christ more clearly in the text. And since we have been united to him through faith, it remains appropriate to apply the text to us today. But having gone through Christ to get to application, we’ve ratcheted up the urgency and persuasiveness.

One Caution

In order to determine a text’s implications on the original audience, we must be able to identify who that original audience is. Such identification is quite tricky for narratives, for at least two reasons.

The first reason is that we often don’t know who the precise audience was. It would be difficult to nail down exactly which generation was the first audience for Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel, or Esther. We can’t be too precise about the audience for some of the gospels, as we’re not told. In all such cases, we must remain fuzzy, though it still helps to know “these people needed a king,” or “these people must have been Jewish Christians.”

The second reason the identification is tricky is that we often confuse the text’s audience with the text’s characters. So when studying the sermon on the Mount, we might find ourselves putting ourselves in the shoes of those who were present, listening to the sermon as Jesus preached it. But instead, we ought to put ourselves in the shoes of those reading the book that Matthew wrote.

So the implications of the text on the characters within the text might help you to understand the text. But what’s even more significant is to grasp the implications of the text on those who first read the text.

Conclusion

When you can clearly answer the question of “how would they have applied it?” you’ll be far more likely to get a strong answer to “how should we apply it?”

How to Develop a Culture of Bible Study in Your Church

By

The Logos Word by Word blog recently published a piece I wrote entitled “How to Develop a Culture of Bible Study in Your Church.” In the post, I encourage church leaders to have a method, train a few, raise their expectations, set them loose, check in, and reproduce.

Here’s a taste:

There is one question I receive more than any other when Christians discover I’m involved in a collegiate discipleship ministry: What materials or resources do you use?

I appreciate the eagerness behind the question, as folks generally aim to improve their own efforts to make disciples of Christ. But sadly, my answer doesn’t usually satisfy the inquirer.

The Bible. We use the Bible to make disciples.

Check it out!

Dangerous Approaches to Application

By

Here is a thoughtful piece by Ty Kieser called “Potential Dangers of ‘Applying Scripture to My Life’.” In it, Kieser explores three faulty assumptions that can make the practice of application go very wrong.

  1. I should start with me and my questions.
  2. The Bible is (primarily) a collection of principles.
  3. The goal of reading the Bible is improving my life.

Kieser makes some excellent points that ought to be considered. It is for many of the same reasons that I generally avoid the question of “How do I apply the Bible to my life?” and frame application more as “How does the text instruct me to change?”

I might quibble with a little of Kieser’s rhetoric. At times it sounds like he believes we shouldn’t change personally but only get swept up in the Lord’s story. But by the end, he clearly wishes change for God’s people as they draw closer in relationship to him. But that really is but a quibble, as I would heartily cheer the sort of application he wishes for more of.

Check it out!

Why Elisha Called Bears to Attack 42 Youths

By

The book of 1-2 Kings has some strange incidents in it. One of them is when Elisha curses forty-two “small boys” for calling him “baldhead.”

23 He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” 24 And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.

2 Kings 2:23-24

What is going on here?

Crossway recently published a wonderful piece by Gary Millar, excerpted from his commentary, where he explains the historical and covenantal context for what’s happening in this episode.

Is this a shocking incident? Yes it is… But this incident is also one that fits perfectly with the flow of 2 Kings 1–2, in which we see very clearly how God not only works in the darkness but will not be silenced, continuing to speak through this prophet. It is the response to this prophetic word that determines whether God’s people experience blessing or curse.

Check it out!

Beware The Leech’s Daughters

By

I’ve always been puzzled—but fascinated—by Proverbs 30:15a:

The leech has two daughters: Give and Give.

Prov 30:15a, ESV

The NIV puts the “gives” in their mouths rather than in their names:

The leech has two daughters. ‘Give! Give!’ they cry.

Prov 30:15a, NIV

Regardless of whether “give” is their label or their lingo, what is going on in this proverbial saying?

Image by István Asztalos from Pixabay

Notice what follows

The next stanza, about four things that are never satisfied, certainly relates.

There are three things that are never satisfied, 
four that never say, ‘Enough!’: 
the grave, the barren womb, 
land, which is never satisfied with water, 
and fire, which never says, ‘Enough!’

Prov 30:15b-16, NIV

The demands (or names) of the leech’s daughters are parallel to these four things that never say “enough.” Just as the grave is never satisfied with the size of its membership, and fire never decides it’s time to pack up and go home—so also there are leech fathers and daughters who will always demand more and more and more.

Okay, that makes sense, but what is the point? What wisdom is the sage trying to teach here?

Notice what sandwiches

These sayings about perpetually dissatisfied things come right between two stanzas about a generation that rejects the wisdom of ages past. A generation that believes itself to be on the right side of history, having developed beyond the antiquated wisdom of its ancestors.

There are those who curse their father
and do not bless their mothers.
There are those who are clean in their own eyes
but are not washed of their filth.
There are those—how lofty are their eyes,
how high their eyelids lift!
There are those whose teeth are swords,
whose fangs are knives,
to devour the poor from off the earth,
the needy from among mankind.

Prov 30:11-14

The eye that mocks a father
and scorns to obey a mother
will be picked out by the ravens of the valley
and eaten by the vultures.

Prov 30:17

Can’t help but ask

So what is it that drives such a generation to reject the wisdom of previous generations? To curse and mock fathers and forefathers?

Could it be an insatiable drive for more? A perpetual lack of satisfaction?

Or is it the other way around? Is it the rejection of ancient wisdom that causes the perpetual dissatisfaction of a generation of leeches? Such that, when you lose your grounding in the reality of God’s world, you have nothing left but to make increasing demands of the people and the world around you?

The leech has two daughters. Not only in ancient Israel, but quite alive and well today.

How to Study the Prophets

By

Have you ever struggled to navigate the prophetic books of the Old Testament? These ancient poetic texts speak to circumstances far removed from our own, yet with great impact on our understanding of the person and work of Christ. The apostles quoted often from the prophets when seeking to explain the good news of Christ’s kingdom.

Brian Estelle has a few brief but meaty suggestions to help you read these books with greater profit.

  1. Investigate the context.
  2. Recognize the role of the prophets as God’s covenant lawyers.
  3. Learn to be aware of the prophetic idiom.
  4. Hunt for ways in which the New Testament Scriptures cite, allude to, or echo the Prophets.

He explains each point with clear examples to help you along your way. Check it out!

How to Find Answers to Your Questions

By

When we study the Bible, most of interpretation consists of asking and answering questions. The questions themselves arise from our curiosity over our observations. But the answers? Do you know where to find those?

The Most Important Place to Look for Answers

At this point, conventional wisdom lists a number of resources and reference works that ought to be in a Christian’s library. I’ll get to such a list soon, but don’t let it distract you from the better portion.

The most important place to seek answers to your questions is in the text itself. Some of you reading this find this conviction self-evident and obvious, and you have already made a habit of seeking answers in the text. But for many others, it will take more practice. Seeking answers in the text itself is a habit that must be formed, and sometimes bad habits are very slow to die.

For example, I recently listened to podcast discussing the creation account of Genesis 1. The teacher based most of his instruction on the proposition that Genesis 1 is in the form of poetry. His evidence for this assertion arose from the assessments of scholars, comparisons with other ancient texts, and his philosophical framework regarding eastern vs. western worldviews.

The problem was that he never supported his primary assertion with evidence from the text itself. Now I’m open to discussing the question of the genre of Genesis 1. And all of the external evidence certainly matters. But that which trumps all of the external evidence is internal evidence from the text itself.

  • Genesis 1 does not present clauses in parallel lines like other Hebrew poetry does.
  • Genesis 1 does not use similes, metaphors, or emotive language the way other poetry does.
  • The Hebrew syntax of Genesis 1 uses verb forms and verb sequences standard to the narratives of Scripture. The same sort of syntax employed in most of the rest of the book of Genesis, which is clearly (and commonly agreed to be) made up of narratives.

Such evidence from the text supports a conclusion that Genesis 1 presents itself as narrative (even historical narrative), just as the rest of the book does. Now this evidence in itself does not guarantee that the events of Genesis 1 must be in a strict chronological sequence, since biblical narratives often rearrange chronology in order to communicate a particular message. But the evidence does strongly suggest that we ought to read the chapter as narrative and not as poetry.

Answers Addressed in the Text

So when your noble curiosity generates questions regarding your observation of the text (questions such as, what genre or text type is this?), your best instinct to cultivate is an instinct that searches the text itself for the answers. Search and search and search.

Let your questions drive you deeper into observation. Let observation and interpretation swirl round and round like a cyclone, in ever tighter loops.

You may be surprised to find how many of your questions can be answered within the text, if you only learn how and where to look. When such examination of the text becomes habitual, you will improve dramatically at being able to defend your conclusions and persuade others.

Answers Assumed in the Text

One obstacle for us today is when the biblical author assumes the answers to your questions. He wasn’t writing to you or me. He had his own audience. So he wasn’t trying to anticipate your questions, but those of his own audience.

This means that there is quite a bit of background information that’s not stated explicitly but nonetheless affects interpretation. For example, the author of Genesis 1 presumes prior knowledge of which “God” is the one engaging in the work of creation. Is it Yahweh, Astarte, Baal, Zeus, or last season’s winner of American Idol? Learning from external reference works about the author and audience of Genesis would help to clarify the answer to this question somewhat quickly.

For another example, comparisons to other ancient creation stories will yield great benefit. What makes this God in this story different from the Gods of Gilgamesh’s epic, or Enuma Elish? Some of these contrasts would have been obvious to those living in ancient times, but we can miss them on account of centuries of distance.

How to Determine When an Answer is Assumed

In the name of “the answer is assumed,” we run the risk of justifying just about any conclusion we can find in a reference work. How do we determine whether the answer is truly assumed, or we are simply importing it where it doesn’t belong?

This process isn’t a perfect science, but the key issue is: Do you have good reason to believe the original audience would have made this assumption? The more reason you have to believe that, the stronger will be the answers you find in reference works.

So ask: Would the original audience already have the necessary background knowledge? Would they have truly been familiar with this parallel text, cultural artifact, body of knowledge, etc.?

If so, then it makes sense to look up your answer in a commentary, study guide, or Bible atlas. We have a wealth of tools available to us today to help us get into the mindset of the original readers. Let’s make good use of them.

When to Let it Go

But if you can’t find the answer addressed in the text, and you don’t have good reason to believe it was assumed, you probably need to make like Elsa and let it go.

Resist the urge to close the knowledge gap simply with systematic theology, denominational tradition, or prior experience. Theology and tradition are important, but they fit best not while interpreting (answering interpretive questions) but while correlating (after determining the author’s main point). We must understand the present passage on its own terms, in light of its original audience, first, before we attempt to connect it to teaching found elsewhere in the Bible.

One exception to the principle in the previous sentence lies with certain implicational questions. Because implicational questions bridge the gap from interpretation into application, they often work best after we’ve determined the main point. So it may make sense to make use of reference works to help draw out those implications and stimulate our own reflection concerning them.

So how do we find answers to our interpretive questions? By shoving our noses back into the text for deeper observation. When further observation suggests that the answer would have been assumed and self-evident to the original audience, we’re then justified in pursuing external resources to help us better understand the mindset or culture of that audience. However, if we don’t have good reason to believe the answer is either addressed or assumed in the text, we’re best off letting the question go until another passage takes it up. There’s no shame in setting aside a particular question for a brighter day.