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

How to Apply the Bible’s Narratives

By

For a religious book, is it not surprising that the Bible contains way more narrative than instructional material? What are we supposed to do with all those stories? What is their connection to our lives?

Some might say we shouldn’t apply Bible stories; they are only for telling what happened and not what ought to happen. But that doesn’t do full justice to the way the Scriptures themselves make use of the stories (1 Cor 10:6, 1 Jn 3:12, 1 Pet 2:21, etc.).

Christy Gambrell has a helpful piece where she begins to explain how to connect these stories to our lives.

It helps to understand what a narrative is. Narratives are not morality tales, but real stories about real people making real decisions. As such, they’re not necessarily intended to prescribe a pattern for our actions. But they are written for our instruction, showing us truth and helping us live in response to it.

I would not make such a sharp polarization between “prescribe a pattern” and “helping us live in response to” the truth. But Gambrell is helpful in showing that we ought not make a thoughtless, immediate example or non-example out of every Bible character. Reflection must take place to recognize how the narrator makes use of the character, so we might properly appropriate the message in our day.

Gambrell gives two very helpful tactics: respect the narrative genre, and look to what the rest of Scripture says about those characters. I would add another crucial tool: Observe the plot structure to find the main point (somewhere around the climax or resolution. Then seek to apply that main point and not merely the incidental character details along the way.

Gambrell offers much help to get the process started.

Check it out!

Does Genesis Have Two Creation Accounts?

By

How are Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 related? Benjamin Shaw states the issue as follows:

One often hears the idea that there are two creation accounts in Genesis 1–2, almost as if it were intuitively obvious. There are certainly differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. But the question is whether we have here two separate accounts of creation that have been joined together by some much later editor, or whether we have one unified account with different emphases. The former view came from the skeptical scholarship that arose from the Enlightenment. The latter has, for millennia, been the view of the church.

He goes on to briefly defend the latter “traditional” view. What do you think? Does he make a persuasive case? Does he show it from the text?

Regardless of whether you think Genesis presents one creation account or two, can you do more than simply assert your position? Can you demonstrate from the text itself that your conclusion is how the original author intended the text to be read?

Check it out!

Why Jesus is in the Midst of the Gathered Two or Three

By

I’ve written before of the promise of Matthew 18:20 (“For where two or three are gathered…”) in context. Because context matters, and it is abundantly clear that the “two or three” are not the folks who show up to your prayer meeting.

Amy K. Hall recently published a terrific piece making the same point, and I recommend you check it out. Not only because she agrees with me and makes the same point I do. But because she sees something I never noticed about why Jesus promises to be with these two or three folks who represent him. The allusion to 2 Chronicles 19:5-7 is quite remarkable.

Check it out!

Bible Interpretation that Dignifies God as Original Author

By

Jacob Toman has a thoughtful post on how to think about Bible interpretation. It is quite common and tempting to interpret the Bible in a way that focuses on “what it means to me.” However:

When we read and interpret the Bible, we should seek to do so in a manner that if we were to have a conversation with God, God would have no corrections for us. This means our interpretation should defer to what God intended in a passage, and also how God chose to communicate that passage, through a historical writer. 

Any meaning that God himself would disagree with, however meaningful it may be to the reader, fails to dignify God or do justice to his truth.

Check it out!

Topical Index for Proverbs

By

I’ve written before about the best idea I’ve ever heard for studying Proverbs, which is to read the book once a month, tracking a single theme each month, and writing down verse references to proverbs that speak to that theme. A simple, spiral-bound notebook is all that’s required for such an exercise.

Long ago, I spent 4 years in Proverbs doing just this, and the result was the creation of one of the most useful tools for my Christian walk and ministry. The problem is that the decades have not been kind to my spiral-bound notebook. And it doesn’t help me when I’m away from home and still require its use.

So I’m deeply grateful to my generous friend Felicia Kreider, who recently digitized the notebook for me. She alphabetized the topics, entered all the data into an attractive Google doc, and created a hyperlinked table of contents for me. Now I can access it from any device any time I need it!

Photo by Michelle Andrews

When I first disclosed to the general public the existence of this notebook of mine, I said I wouldn’t share it if you asked, since you’ll be better off if you create your own.

However… Felicia has made this into such a thing of beauty that I can’t resist showing it to you. I still believe you’ll be better off creating your own. But maybe you just need a little nudge to show you what glory awaits you with such an exercise. So I will show you my topical index.

Yet I can’t make it too easy for the entire world to access, so I’ve disabled the ability to copy, download, or print it. I’ve slapped on a full-blown copyright to reserve all rights. And I don’t plan to add it to our resources page, but will keep it buried here in the blog’s archives, so only faithful readers like you will see it.

Without further ado, here you go. Enjoy!

Framing the Book of Revelation from the Beginning

By

Have you been confused by the book of Revelation? Has your confusion kept you from reading or studying it? James Durham is here to help.

In this post, Durham walks clause by clause through the book’s first three verses to show you how to frame the book. How are we to approach this book, and what did the author seek to communicate? This is a revelation after all—a showing forth and disclosing. It was never meant to be an illusion or obfuscation.

It may look very presumptuous to read this book, or attempt to explain it. Indeed there is need of much humility and soberness in going about such a work, and much need that the Spirit of Jesus Christ, who has given this book as a benefit to His church, would help us to take it up rightly…

Yet its subject matter is very profitable and comforting to the church, to the end of the world. And when Christ gave it, as His last will and word to His church, his aim in doing so was to give a revelation, to make known His mind to them. This is why John is forbidden to seal it up – so that it would remain open for the good of His church. There is also plenty to motivate us and encourage us to read and search into it, for example the blessing in verse 3, “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy,” a saying which is repeated again after the prophetic part is immediately closed (chapter 22:7,14).

These all add up to notable encouragements, not only to try to read and seek to understand the Book of the Revelation, but also to lay it on us as a duty. We therefore resolve, through God’s grace, to attempt it, so that it will not be altogether useless to the “servants of God” to whom it is sent, according to verse 1.

Check it out!

Credit Where Credit is Due

By

My tenth commandment for commentary usage is:

You shall give credit to commentators where appropriate and not try to appear smarter than you are.

I suspect this may be easiest-to-swallow, least controversial of my ten commandments for commentary usage. Plagiarism is widely condemned in print, and it’s becoming increasingly unacceptable in spoken communication, such as preaching or small group leading, as well.

Photo by cottonbro

My greatest challenge is that, the longer I teach, the more difficult it is to remember where I got various ideas from. Especially when I read commentaries in order to dig back into the text—I chew on the best ideas of the commentators and reflect on them in light of the Scripture text itself, to the point where it becomes difficult to nail down exactly which idea came from the commentator, and which was a product of my own reflection.

So I’ve begun keeping better notes to track the sources of the most helpful ideas I come across.

But the point is simple: As long as you are not quoting a commentator as the final word, shutting down conversation (see commandment 9), make sure to give credit where credit is due. “I read this really helpful point in John Stott’s commentary, where he said… What do you all think about that? Does it fit with your observation of the text?”

The Demystifying Effect of Modern Bible Translations

By

Nitoy Gonzales writes from a part of the world where the King James Version of the Bible tends to be the most accepted version among those who speak English. Yet he offers some great insights about the power of more modern translations to demystify the Bible for believers.

With its archaic words that feels like it’s so holy and a reverend history taught by Bible Baptist preachers, it creates a mysterious or mystified look at this old version. The mere fact you have it and it’s the version preached at your church feels like a blanket of security that you belong to the “good guys” rather than to read, understand and learn from it. It feels like it’s not meant to be understood but to make a statement that we stand for “truth”. I rather feel that it’s too out there, up above a pedestal. Added to that are preachers acting like gatekeepers so that no one will rock the boat. Sure we are told that you can actually use a modern version for your quiet time or devotional but the damage is already done. Instilled in our minds that the modern translations are unreliable.

At this blog, we don’t get into the details of translation. One of the things we assume but don’t spend much time arguing for is that the Bible should be translated into modern languages so modern people can know it. Many English translations faithfully capture the meaning of the original text.

With that said, Gonzales brings a helpful perspective for those who can mistake high-falutin’ old language with clarity and faithfulness.

Check it out!

Your Test: Can You Do What the Commentator Did?

By

My ninth commandment for commentary usage is:

You shall not quote a commentator as the final word on an interpretive matter, but must demonstrate your conclusions from the scriptural text itself.

Perhaps you’ve seen it happen. Perhaps you’ve even done it yourself. I know I have. The discussion gets going, and people are bouncing ideas off one another. But suddenly the record scratches and the room goes silent, because someone dropped a name or invoked an expert. All rise! The final and authoritative word has been spoken from heights to which mere mortals could never attain.

Photo by Hert Niks

What I’m Not Saying

Before I get any further into the meaning or intention of this commandment, let me clarify what I am not saying.

First, I am not saying that you should never quote a commentator. By all means, please make use of the commentaries and resources available to you. And by all means, give credit where credit is due!

Second, I am not saying that you should never quote a commentator in a discussion or Bible study group. I am saying only that you ought not to do so on interpretive matters. And what I mean by “interpretive matters” is conclusions about the meaning or main point of the text. In this sense, commentaries are one of the 5 false authorities to watch out for in a small group discussion.

This commandment follows the previous one on purpose. If you heed that commandment, you will have taken care to draw a distinction between factual information in the commentary (cultural or historical background, direct observation of the text, etc.) and reasoned interpretations in the commentary (arguments made, with premises and conclusions, to draw principles or instructions from the text). That distinction can now serve you well. If your study group is in need of some factual information that might otherwise be inaccessible, go ahead and quote the commentator!

For example, in a Bible study discussing Genesis 21: “The commentary at the bottom of my study Bible says that the name ‘Isaac’ and the term ‘laughing’ are repetitions of the same Hebrew word. Could that repetition signal some sort of wordplay we ought to be aware of?”

Third, I am also not saying that we must never quote commentaries on interpretive matters. I am saying only that we must not do so as the final word on the matter. I would have no concern whatsoever with someone saying, “I read such and such in a commentary, but what do the rest of you think? Is such a conclusion supported by the text?”

What I’m After

The intention behind this commandment is found in the final clause, that we must be able to demonstrate our interpretive conclusions from the scriptural text itself. It might be helpful to quote a commentary to show that you’re not the only one in history who has identified a particular conclusion from a particular passage. As long as you can still articulate that conclusion from the passage itself.

If you read something in a commentary and trust the author’s conclusions despite what the text says, you have most likely violated commandment number 5. And if you submissively believe the commentator’s conclusions and simply can’t speak to the matter from the text, you have likely violated commandments 2 and 3. And if you proclaim a commentator’s conclusions as definitive truth on an interpretive matter, you probably have violated commandments 6 and 7.

The best use of a commentary is to help you understand the text. If, however, you come away understanding the commentary but not the text, the mission got off course somewhere.

In the first century, the Jewish scribes loved to hold debates, pitting one ancient commentator against another. At times, they even sought to rope Jesus into taking one side or the other (Mark 10:2). He wouldn’t play those games, and, as a result, the populace observed in him an authority they couldn’t find among their typical teachers (Matt 7:28-29). Of course, there was something unique about Jesus’ authority as the Son of God proclaiming the word of God.

However, Jesus delights to share his authority with his disciples (Luke 9:1-2). The authority of God’s word is present whenever God’s people seek the Lord in those very words (Acts 17:11) and proclaim them with intelligible simplicity (Acts 17:2-3). Can you do this from the Scriptures? Or do you tend to get stuck in merely explaining the various interpretive schools and camps you have read about?

Because I once read a commentary that suggested it might be a bad idea to do that.

Wise Commentary Use With Leah’s Weak Eyes

By

My pal Mark Ward has a wonderful piece at the Logos Word by Word blog, where he models exceptionally wise usage of commentaries to help him answer a specific question: What does it mean that Leah’s eyes were weak (Gen 29:16-17)? Ward is not so arrogant as to ignore the commentaries altogether, and he is not so slavish as to read only one commentary and accept the conclusions without inspection. He examines many commentaries, explores the nature of a variety of conclusions, and he takes the debate with him right back into the text to make up his own mind.

With something as simple as Leah’s doe-eyes, here’s what I would do: I’d land. I’d land without telling everybody where I’d flown. I’d stick with the intuitive—to me—opposition the text sets up, in which “weak eyes” are contrasted with Rachel’s beauty. And I’d appeal back to my gut feeling as someone who loves and knows language; I’d explain the text as an idiom communicating, in a delicate way, that Leah wasn’t quite the looker Rachel was.

His conclusion is rather straightforward, but the road he traveled to get there is deeply instructive. I commend it to you as a path you ought to follow him on when you have similar questions. For further reflection on this sort of methodology when using commentaries, see my ten commandments for commentary usage and the explanatory posts that have followed.

Check it out!