Peter Krol | Knowable Word

What Should We Make of Paul’s Shipwreck Narrative?

September 3, 2021 By Peter Krol

When our church’s team of preachers decided to preach through Acts, I knew chapter 27 would be a doozy (notice how I cleverly ignored this chapter in my interpretive overview of Acts). I have always been confused by this chapter and its role within the book, and though I’m sure compelling sermons have been preached on this text, I have yet to hear one of them. I’m used to hearing otherwise fantastic preachers punt on this chapter, in the name of practicality, to talk about “weathering the storms of our spiritual lives.” So the extraordinarily detailed travelogue of Acts 27 is reduced to a parable and a few minor observations (typically surrounding verses 23-25) seeking to inspire us toward deeper trust in Christ—a wonderful thing to be inspired toward, of course!

Therefore, since I’m in charge of managing our sermon schedule, I made sure to assign Acts 27 to someone else. Pro tip: When you don’t know what to do with a text, require a friend or colleague to deal with it instead. This resulted in one of the most exciting “aha!” moments in my Bible study this year.

A Key Structural Observation

The ~~sucker~~ fortunate fellow to receive the assignment was a good man and marvelous student of the word named Tom Hallman. Tom eagerly set himself to observe the text inside and out, to give him the raw materials for a series of interpretive questions. Our practice is that our team of preachers gives feedback on every sermon before it is preached. We collaborate in two phases: the study of the passage and the delivery of the sermon. So in that first phase, Tom regularly laid before us the fruit of his study for comment and evaluation.

And Tom made a key structural observation that shed tremendous light on the passage for me. In following the narrative’s plot, Tom observed that the main conflict centers on the centurion’s failure to listen to Paul’s counsel in Acts 27:11. This led Tom to recognize a few arcs within the plot:

Acts 27:9-20: Paul speaks, and the centurion pays more attention to others. The result is that all hope of being saved is abandoned.
Acts 27:21-44: Paul speaks, and the Romans start listening to him. The result is that all are brought safely to land.

These observations of the primary narrative tension and its accompanying resolution gave us hope that we could sift through the flood of details to discern the author’s main point in this chapter.

Further Dialogue

As we discussed it further and kept staring at the text to observe it more closely, we eventually realized that there were not two arcs but three. Paul actually makes three sizable speeches (Acts 27:10, 21-26, 33-34). He also speaks in Acts 27:31, but that briefer statement does not have the same appearance of introducing a new scene. It is a response to what’s happening in the moment (Acts 27:30).

So we’ve actually got three main speeches from Paul. Do we correspondingly have a clear resolution with each one, to make three complete arcs? This question drove us back into the text.

And sure enough, there it was. So plain and obvious we couldn’t believe we had missed it or ever believed this passage to be opaque to us.

Acts 27:9-20: Paul speaks, and the centurion pays more attention to others. The result is that all hope of being saved is abandoned.
Acts 27:21-32: Paul speaks, and no-one immediately rejects him. But eventually the soldiers heed him. (The centurion and soldiers both hear Paul’s words in Acts 27:31, but only the soldiers are mentioned as acting on them in Acts 27:32.) There is no immediate “salvation,” but only a sense of “let’s wait and see; we hope this works.”
Acts 27:33-44: Paul speaks, and all are encouraged and choose to eat (Acts 27:36). The result is that the centurion has heard enough, and he now wishes to save Paul (Acts 27:43). “And so it was that all were brought safely to land” (Acts 27:44).

These three arcs showed us that the primary tension revolves around whether the Roman centurion (prominent enough to be named in the text—Acts 27:1,3) will listen to Paul or not. And in particular: Will he listen to Paul with respect to salvation? This salvation goes in two directions: Paul wants to save the centurion—along with everyone else on the ship; the centurion, in the end, wishes to save Paul.

In the first arc, Julius will not listen to Paul, and all hope is lost. In the second arc, the soldiers listen to Paul, and it is as though the centurion is watching and deliberating before rendering judgment on this most unusual prisoner. In the third arc, the centurion fully listens to Paul and doesn’t want him to die.

Conclusions About the Text

I’m not weirded out by this chapter any more. It fits cleanly within the book’s main idea that the world’s salvation cannot be stopped. It also masterfully advances Luke’s primary agenda to petition for Paul’s exoneration before Caesar. “Julius was uncertain at first, and unwilling to listen to Paul. But he has been convinced that this Paul is who he says he is, and he refuses to let anyone execute him. Caesar: Why wouldn’t you do the same?”

And not only that, but Acts 27 also serves Luke’s secondary purpose to lead all of Abraham’s children to salvation through the Savior, who is Christ the Lord. “Julius was uncertain at first, and unwilling to listen to Paul. But many have been convinced that this Jesus, whom Paul preaches, is who he says he is. Don’t just stand there watching others listen and find rescue. Noble reader: Why wouldn’t you do the same?”

Conclusions About Our Study Methods

If Luke can have two simultaneous purposes in mind, so can I. While I wanted to help you observe and interpret Acts 27 along with me, I also wanted you to see how I got there. And the events that took place this past week in my dialogues with Tom highlight a few conclusions. First, Bible study needs to be a community project. Second, structure conveys meaning. And third, the most important tool for observing the structure of a narrative episode is plot structure.

Sometimes We Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Apply Scripture

September 1, 2021 By Peter Krol

Pierce Taylor Hibbs has a really helpful piece entitled “Christian, Here’s When You’re Allowed to Apply Scripture.” In it, he laments the way too many of us too often use the Scripture.

Much of the time, we’re pigeons grabbing bread crumbs of information and entertainment. And that crumb-picking habit carries over into our understanding and application of Scripture. We’re not asking questions of a text, working through context in widening circles, or even using our God-given reason to reach understanding. Instead, we’re crumb-picking. We grab a friend’s complaint here, a Facebook comment there, and a Scripture passage we found through a Google search, and boom: we’ve got an “argument,” an arrow to shoot in conversation. And because we’re quoting Scripture, it appears to be biblical. But let’s be clear: Quoting a Bible verse doesn’t mean you’ve made a biblical argument.

He then proposes that what authorizes someone to make use of the Scripture in application is that they have first done the hard work of observing it in its original context and interpreting it in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. He then walks through a 3-step process, showing how to do this difficult work, with the example of an easy-to-misuse verse: “God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control” (2 Tim 1:7).

This article is well worth your time. Check it out!

Hebrews: God has Spoken by his Son Whose Work is Finished

August 27, 2021 By Peter Krol

Hebrews appears to have been a sermon that was transcribed and then circulated in letter form. This theory explains not only the strange opening—with no greeting or identification of the sender—but also the regular alternation between exposition and application, and the label “word of exhortation” used in the appended postscript (Heb 13:22, phrase also occurs in Acts 13:15). Depending on your pace, you can read the whole book out loud in 45 to 60 minutes, which is a reasonable duration for a sermon. Reading the book with a view toward its live, public delivery helps us to grasp its organization and intentions.

Literary Markers

While it’s not difficult to recognize large cohesive blocks within Hebrews, it is notoriously difficult to nail down the precise beginnings and endings of the sections. I believe this is because of the nature of spoken communication. When a discourse is meant more for the ear than the eye, the transitions will naturally be more audible than visible. They won’t appear in sharp pronouncements, but will normally sound quite transitional. That makes it difficult to know whether those transitional statements belong with the previous section or the following section, as they serve as bridges between both.*

To give a few examples:

Heb 1:4 transitions from the prologue by introducing the first topic of Jesus’ more excellent name making him superior to angels. But it is only the final clause in the run-on sentence that begins at Heb 1:1, so Heb 1:1-4 naturally gets put together when we outline the book.
Heb 2:17-18 both concludes the previous section (“therefore”) and introduces the idea the Jesus has become a merciful and faithful high priest, which becomes the topic of the next section.
Heb 5:9-10 again concludes the previous section, while simultaneously introducing the next topic, broken into three parts: Jesus is perfect, the source of eternal salvation, and a Melchizedekan high priest.

I’ll explain the sermon’s flow of thought further in the walkthrough below, but the remaining transitional statements are found in Heb 10:36-39 and Heb 12:12-13. When the book is read out loud, it is easier to hear how those transitional statements are woven right into the conclusion of the previous section, while also introducing new ideas that get explained further in the following section.

Heb 13:20-21 then concludes the sermon, and Heb 13:22-25 serves as a written note to accompany the transcription.

Thesis

Like any good public lecture, the main thesis comes right at the beginning (Heb 1:1-4). Stripping all the dependent clauses away yields the following as the sentence’s essential grammar: “…God has spoken to us by his Son…who…sat down.” There have been many ways God has spoken before now. But now he has spoken by his radiant, appointed, powerful, and purifying Son. And that Son has now sat down at God’s right hand to rule, as the rest of his work is done. God has spoken. Through this Son. Whose first phase of work is now complete.

That is the big idea of this sermon. There are many reasons to listen to this Son. There are many competing voices that may tempt you to listen to them. But his work is finished in a way that the work of the other voices can never be. Implicitly: Do not reject him who is speaking to you.

Walkthrough

The argument of this sermon is both extraordinary and extraordinarily complex, so I wish to do it justice but will only have the space to use the broadest of strokes. The main thing we ought to see (or hear, if you can read it aloud) is how the transitional statements introduce the main topics. The following exposition then takes up those topics, nearly every time, in reverse order.

Having stated the thesis (that God has spoken to us by his Son who sat down), the preacher’s first explanatory point is that Jesus has become superior to the angels because he’s inherited a more excellent name. In this first point, he does us the kindness of taking his two matters in order. First, Jesus is superior to the angels (Heb 1:5-14). Second, his name is more excellent than theirs (Heb 2:5-18). Between those two expositions is the first point of application: Pay closer attention (Heb 2:1-4)!

The next transitional statement (Heb 2:17-18) takes things in a new direction: Jesus had to become a merciful and faithful high priest. Now the preacher begins his pattern of addressing the subpoints in reverse order. First, Jesus is a faithful high priest, greater than Moses and Joshua (Heb 3:1-4:14). Second, Jesus is a merciful high priest, very much like the Aaronic high priests (Heb 4:15-5:10).

Next transition (Heb 5:9-10): Being made perfect, he became a source of eternal salvation, being designated a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. Before he can really tackle this material, though, he must offer the second application: You have stopped hearing and doing (Heb 5:11-6:20). But then he explains his ideas in reverse order. First, Jesus’ priesthood is in the order of Melchizedek (Heb 7:1-28); he is a better priest. Second, Jesus’ priesthood brings eternal savation (Heb 8:1-9:28); he offers a better covenant in a better tabernacle. Third, Jesus’ priesthood is perfect (Heb 10:1-18); he offers a better sacrifice. This section closes with the third application: Keep helping one another to both hear and do (Heb 10:19-39, this application was previewed in Heb 3:12-13).

Next transition (Heb 10:36-39): You have need of endurance, and we are of those who have faith. He now goes into great detail showing us what faith looks like (Heb 11:1-40) and calling us to run with endurance as we consider the one who endured on our behalf (Heb 12:1-13).

Transition to sermon’s last main section (Heb 12:12-13), which is all application: Straighten that which has grown crooked or lame. Do this first in your walk with God (Heb 12:14-29). Understand how your vertical perspective affects your horizontal relationships (Heb 13:1-6). Then you can straighten out your walk with other people (Heb 13:7-19).

In the sermon’s conclusion (Heb 13:20-21), the preacher return’s to his opening thesis to drive it home. God has spoken in his Son by raising him from the dead. Because the first phase of his work is finished, he may now equip you with everything good that you may do his will. Those who listen to him will be pleasing in God’s sight.

Finally, a personal note has been appended to the sermon, giving a brief update on Timothy’s status and sending greetings from and for the brethren.

Conclusion

Though the argument of Hebrews may appear to meander at times according to the preacher’s stream of consciousness, the transitional statements, and the repetition of key words from those statements in the following section, do illuminate the path he wishes us to follow. Amid the exquisite detail and theology of this masterpiece, let us pay much closer attention to the one who is speaking, that we might keep helping one another to believe and do his word. For the long haul. Forever.

Interpretive Outline

Thesis: God spoke in a Son who sat down – Heb 1:1-4

The Son is superior to angels on account of his more excellent name – Heb 1:4-2:18
- Transition – Heb 1:4
- Superior to angels – Heb 1:5-14
  - Application: Pay closer attention! – Heb 2:1-4
- More excellent name – Heb 2:5-18
The Son is a merciful and faithful high priest – Heb 2:17-5:10
- Transition – Heb 2:17-18
- Faithful high priest – Heb 3:1-4:14
- Merciful high priest – Heb 4:15-5:10
The perfect, Melchizedekan Son brings eternal salvation – Heb 5:9-10:39
- Transition – Heb 5:9-10
- Application: You have stopped hearing and doing – Heb 5:11-6:20
  - Melchizedekan priesthood – Heb 7:1-28
  - Eternal salvation – Heb 8:1-9:28
  - Perfection – Heb 10:1-18
- Application: Keep helping one another to hear and do – Heb 10:19-39
The Son calls us to endurance and faith – Heb 10:36-12:13
- Transition – Heb 10:36-39
- Faith – Heb 11:1-40
- Endurance – Heb 12:1-13
Application: Straighten your walks with God and with people – Heb 12:12-13:19
1. Transition – Heb 12:12-13
2. Walk with God – Heb 12:14-29
3. Connection between walks with God and with people – Heb 13:1-6
4. Walk with people – Heb 13:7-19

Conclusion: May the one who spoke through his Son now equip you to please him – Heb 13:20-21

Postscript: Bear with this word of exhortation! – Heb 13:22-25

*This insight, and therefore much of my outline of Hebrews, is indebted to the keen observations of Albert Vanhoye in his Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews (affiliate link).

This post is part of a series of interpretive overviews of the books of the Bible.

Reading the Bible Today Without Losing the Benefits of Reading Like the Ancients

August 25, 2021 By Peter Krol

I haven’t read Reading the New Testament as Christian Scripture, but I appreciated this interview with its authors. In it, they speak of some of the differences between how we read the Bible today and how the ancients used to read it. We’ve certainly made many great gains in our understanding. But there remain some strengths of yesteryear we ought to be careful not to lose.

Every culture and age has particular insights and blind spots. This applies to biblical interpretation as well. In the West we’re a few hundred years into particular modes and habits of reading the Bible, what we can call modernist hermeneutics. Modernist hermeneutics serve us well in providing a depth of historical background, insights from literary analysis, and a focus on hearing the human author’s intent. But modern approaches to interpreting the Bible often fail to read theologically, canonically, and tropologically (for moral formation). Believing interpreters will also seek to interpret the Bible in these latter ways, but the modern hermeneutical commitments are ironically contrary to these good reading habits.
Premodern interpreters operated with different priorities and sensibilities when reading Scripture. Theological, moral formative, intra-canonical, devotional, and homiletical interpretations were seen as primary and ultimate because this is why God has given Scripture to his people—to shape us to be like him, to be holy as he is holy.

Check it out!

Disclaimer: Amazon link is an affiliate link. Clicking it and buying stuff will help to support this blog’s moral formation, at no extra cost to yourself.

Show, Don’t Just Tell

August 20, 2021 By Peter Krol

It’s a key principle of educational philosophy: Show, don’t just tell. Communicating ideas is a good thing. But it’s even better if you can show your work, present persuasive argumentation, explain it clearly, and illustrate it vividly. The show-don’t-just-tell principle has many applications for teachers and leaders of all stripes. And I would like to zero in on one particular application of the principle to any who seek to teach the Bible: Show them how you arrived at your conclusions so they can repeat the process for themselves.

crop unrecognizable woman holding vase with pink ranunculus — Photo by Алекке Блажин on Pexels.com

Last week, I suggested that the best response you can hope for from those to whom you teach the Bible is, “What a great text, that shows me our great God!” Now I propose that one of the most important means for producing such a response is to show your work, and not merely tell them your conclusions. Here are some examples.

You can tell them that God loves them. Or you can show them the “for” in John 3:16 and show them the logical connection in the verse between the first clause and the second clause. Now they can forever see for themselves that God sent his son, not because he was mad at the world, but because he loved it.
You can tell them that the Christian life is hard, but that it will be worth it. Or you can show them the context of Romans 8:28, how the “good” all things work together for is the “good” of conformity to the Son’s image (Rom 8:29)—which is a promise not of a healthy and wealthy life, but of crushing pain yielding to resurrection glory (Rom 8:17-25).
You can tell them the story of God’s great power demonstrated over Egypt in nine plagues. Or you can show them the structure of three groups of three plagues, each group with a unique emphasis, proving Yahweh to be the judge, the divider of peoples, and the destroyer of worlds. Once you have shown them this structure, they won’t be able to un-see it when they read these texts in the future.
You can tell them that chapter divisions are not part of the inspired text and should be taken with a grain of salt. Or you can show them Isaiah’s repeated refrain that clearly links the four stanzas of Isaiah 9:8-10:4 into a single poem, forcing us to read the text across the chapter break. “For all this his anger has not turned away, and his hand is stretched out still” (Is 9:12, 17, 21; 10:4).

Now I am not saying that Bible teachers should show all their work. There are always more observations to be made than can be included in a sermon or Bible study. We can’t include everything, and we ought not explain everything that happened to excite us in our preparation. One key principle I communicate when I train teachers is this: Do only as much observation as you must do in order for them to see how what you’re saying is rooted in the text. As soon as they have seen it from the text, move on. Explain it. Illustrate it. Show them Jesus. Apply it.

But sadly, teachers often show too little of their work. They may move their people to tears or inspire them to take drastic action. But ask those people after the sermon or discussion why they should take such action, or how this Scripture moved them so, and too often they can’t explain it. It just “is.”

Let’s show them a better way.

Does Proverbs Over-Promise?

August 18, 2021 By Peter Krol

Jim Davis has a brief but wonderful piece on this crucial question: “Does the Book of Proverbs Over-Promise?” Proverbs appears to offer extensive assurance of health and wealth, which some have taken almost as an assurance that we can manipulate God. In response, many others make the error of claiming that proverbs offer not promises but only probabilities.

Davis navigates this unfortunate state of affairs with a level-headed approach to the text.

To say the Proverbs are probabilities (rather than promises) is not false. It’s partially true. The sober, the cool-tempered, and the diligent will usually experience health and wealth more than the drunkard, the hot-tempered, and the lazy.
But only seeing the Proverbs as probabilities for wise decision-making minimizes what God wants for his people. He’s calling us closer to him. The conditions to these statements are that we trust in the Lord (3:5), fear the Lord (3:7), and honor the Lord (3:9). If they were merely probabilities for right living, why link them in any way to our relationship with God?

I’ve reflected on this very question myself on a few occasions. And Davis’s piece is worth your time as you consider it further.

Check it out!

What Response are You Going For?

August 13, 2021 By Peter Krol

As a Bible teacher, I believe I have failed if my students’ chief reaction is, “What a great teacher!” While it makes me feel great in the moment, it does little to help others to know God through the Lord Jesus Christ. A better reaction would be, “What a great God!” This would reflect a proper honor toward the Lord whom I seek to represent when I teach his word.

But follow me for a moment. At the risk of sounding unduly provocative, let me propose that there is another response that would be even better than “What a great God!” And that is the response, “What a great text!” And less I be misunderstood, let me expand on what I mean, because a fuller expression of this best reaction would be, “What a great text that shows me our great God!”

If all people get from my teaching is “What a great speaker,” then I have sadly made the teaching more about me than about the Lord. And believe it or not, if all they get from my teaching is “What a great God,” then I may still have put myself at the center. Because if I’m not careful, they will have to return to me time and again in order to behold how great their God is.

But if their response is “What a great text (that shows me our great God),” then I have succeeded at equipping the saints. You see, I don’t want them to remember only how I made them feel, or how inspired they were. I don’t want them to remember the stories I told or the personal application I drew for them. No, I want to teach in such a way that people can’t help but see the presented Scripture text in such a clear way that they will never be able to read that text again without seeing the chief message pop off the page for them. I want them to gain confidence that, when they study this passage, they can arrive at the same conclusions I have presented to them. I want them to trust that, when they study this passage, they can meet with the same God I have showcased before them. I want them to expect that, when they return to this passage in the future, they will be able to apply the same message in new and fresh ways to address whatever new circumstances they have come to face since they sat under my teaching.

In other words, I don’t simply want them to be fed or inspired by what I tell them. I want them to be equipped by my example to feed themselves and gain ongoing inspiration with the help of God’s Holy Spirit. This requires me not only to proclaim the truth, but also to show them how I arrived at that truth. If my methods are not transparent to them, they will never be able to imitate them. And if they can’t imitate them, they’ll be like scientists attempting to replicate my published lab results. If they can’t replicate those results on their own, they are likely to eventually question the validity of my conclusions altogether.

This goes not only for preaching, but for teaching Sunday school, leading a small group, and even leading family devotions. What response are you going for?

What Does “All Israel Will Be Saved” Mean?

August 11, 2021 By Peter Krol

In Romans 11:26, Paul makes a statement that has baffled interpreters for generations: “And in this way all Israel will be saved.” New Testament professor Jared Compton has attempted to explain the key phrase, “all Israel will be saved,” in this brief piece.

Compton approaches the topic through a series of four interpretive questions:

What does he mean by “saved”?
What does he mean by “Israel”?
What does he mean by “all”?
What does he mean by “will be”?

To be frank, I would probably disagree with Compton’s answers to a few of these questions. But I’m eager to link to his article anyway because he models some excellent Bible study skills in the process of seeking to answer his (insightful) questions. He engages with the text. He observes carefully. He reckons with the context of Paul’s argument in the chapter and this section of Romans.

Even if I might disagree with a few of the answers, based on further observation and investigation of the same text, I have much trust that Compton would be a fellow with whom one could have a productive debate on such things. One who isn’t committed to a particular theology despite the text, but one who may arrive at a set of theological conclusions precisely because of the text. I am happy to send you his way to consider his careful handling of this challenging topic.

Check it out!

Context Matters: We Bless You in the Name of the Lord

August 6, 2021 By Peter Krol

Perhaps you’ve heard it as a greeting or call to worship: “The blessing of the Lord be upon you! We bless you in the name of the Lord!” (Ps 129:8). Or if you haven’t heard it in such a setting, I suspect it is not difficult to imagine hearing it in such a setting. A simple internet search takes me quickly to a slide with this verse superimposed over a pastoral background image.

Now while it is fully consistent with scripture to pronounce God’s blessing on God’s people, this particular blessing comes in a rather unexpected setting. If we read the Bible’s poetry as we read other poetry and not as a fishing hole for motivational sentiment, we’ll see that some familiar expressions take on a deeper meaning than we originally thought.

The Blessing

Of course, the Bible often tells us of God blessing his people, even from the very beginning (Gen 1:28). He commands the high priest of Israel to pronounce his blessing (Num 6:22-27). In their lowest moments, the people long for this very blessing (Ps 80:3, 7, 19). The apostles often conclude their letters with such words of blessing (e.g. 2 Cor 13:14).

So the pronouncement of a blessing, either in greeting or as a call to worship, is a right and proper thing to do. But let’s not allow that fact to prevent us from reading Scripture as coherent literary texts. Let’s not ignore the context.

Psalm 129

Psalms 120-134 are a collection of “songs of ascents,” which pilgrims to religious feasts may have sung on their climb to Jerusalem for national feasts. As one of those poems, Psalm 129 meditates on the lives on those pilgrims who have suffered under deep affliction. This affliction seems incongruent with the life of blessing promised in Yahweh’s covenant. “Greatly have they afflicted me from my youth, yet they have not prevailed against me” (Ps 129:2).

Ps 129:4 is the turning point, where the poet remembers Yahweh’s righteousness, which requires him to fight back against wicked oppressors. The rest of the poem pronounces not blessings, but curses on those who would dare oppress Yahweh’s people. “May all who hate Zion be put to shame and turned backward!” (Ps 129:5).

And observe the entirety of Ps 129:8: The final curse is that, regarding these oppressors, nobody will ever look upon them and pronounce Yahweh’s blessing on them.

Nor do those who pass by say,
‘The blessing of Yahweh be upon you!
We bless you in the name of Yahweh!’

Conclusion

The irony of the greeting-card use of Ps 129:8 is that the statement “We bless you in the name of the Lord” is the very thing the poet does not want people to say. He wants those who hate God’s people to go without hearing such words or receiving such a blessing. And when we ignore the context, perhaps we fail to grasp the profound point that there is a time and a place not to bless. Instead, we can set our hope in the Lord Jesus to show up once again and set right everything that has gone wrong.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

We Need the Hard Texts

August 4, 2021 By Peter Krol

J.A. Medders has a wonderful piece for preachers entitled “Pastor, Your People Need the Hard Texts.” While he’s speaking to those who speak regularly from the pulpit, his point applies just as well to those leading small group studies. And to those studying God’s word for themselves, who are inclined to skip the weird or uncomfortable parts of the Bible.

Medders focuses on the disturbing narrative of Genesis 38, which includes sexual deviance, deceit, abuse, and neglect. We tend to be much more comfortable with Genesis 39, where the good guy resists the wiles of sexual temptation. But we need the grisly reality of Genesis 38 just as much.

The story of righteous Joseph ghosting Potiphar’s wife is no stranger to podcast feeds and pulpits. But if we aren’t careful, we could fall into the heinous error of communicating only one situation of sexual sin—a man resisting the advances of a woman—and then inadvertently paint women as the reason sexual sin happens. There’s a reason why #ChurchToo exists. We need a wide-angle lens for identifying sexual sin. And Genesis 38, in context with Genesis 39, shows us the sexual sin of men—Onan and Judah—and the sins of abuse and neglect that Tamar endures.

This is quite important stuff. Check it out!

« Previous Page