Peter Krol | Knowable Word

What Circumstances Occasioned Luke’s Gospel?

August 23, 2019 By Peter Krol

I’ve argued that the genre of Luke’s gospel is history (in contrast to the genre of Matthew, Mark, and John, which is biography). And I’ve discussed the commonly accepted likelihood that Luke’s primary recipient, Theophilus, was a Roman nobleman.

What more can we conclude regarding the occasion of Luke’s writing? In other words, why did Luke write this two-volume history to this Roman nobleman at this time?

Let me state this post’s thesis up front: In his excellent overview articles on Luke and Acts, Daniel Wallace argues that these books were composed as a trial-brief for the Apostle Paul’s first hearing in Rome.

Evidence from Acts

Wallace is not the only one to propose this thesis, but he articulates it clearly and concisely, especially in his introduction to Acts. Since Luke and Acts go together as two volumes, the occasion for Acts is highly relevant to the occasion for Luke.

Wallace brings 8 pieces of evidence to the argument (in his article, you’ll find these under point E: “Occasion and Purpose”):

Not only is Theophilus called “most excellent” in Luke 1:3, but it occurs in the vocative case (direct address). This term in the vocative case can be found in ancient literature only in petitions.
The unusual and extraordinarily anti-climactic ending to Acts strongly suggests that Luke is writing while Paul is still in custody awaiting trial. No other theory of dating or composition has satisfactorily accounted for the petering-out and inconclusive nature of Acts 28.
The mention of Paul’s house arrest having lasted two years (Acts 28:30) suggests that his right to a “speedy trial” was soon to be fulfilled, and action must soon be taken on his behalf.
The literary parallels between Peter and Paul, in the first and second halves of Acts, suggest an agenda to legitimize Paul’s professed apostleship by comparison with Peter’s already-acknowledged apostleship.
Peter’s story ends with his release from prison (Acs 12:17), thus implying a petition for a similar end to Paul’s story.
Acts 1-20 covers 24 years of history, but then Acts 21-28 slows down to cover only four years. In particular, the narrative crawls through Paul’s legal drama, clarifying the facts of Paul’s case through 5 detailed defenses (before the Jewish feasters, the Sanhedrin, Felix, Festus, and Herod Agrippa).
The Greek word for “first” in Acts 1:1 cannot be used to support a theory that Luke intended to write a third volume, which was either never completed or simply lost to us.
The shipwreck narrative of Acts 27 fits with an ancient pagan belief that survival in shipwreck implies innocence.

While point #8 fits with Luke’s narrative clues (Acts 28:4-6), Wallace confesses that Acts 27 “ostensibly does not fit with the trial-brief idea.” However, that shipwreck narrative goes out of its way to show Paul complying with the Roman authorities and not once entertaining either seditious or escapist motives. The one who had every reason to flee, and every opportunity to do so surreptitiously, chose quite the opposite. Only one who was confident in his innocence would behave in this way. This certainly fits with the trial-brief idea as Luke nears the conclusion of his history, in real time, with Paul still in custody.

Further Evidence Within Luke

In his Logos Bible Software course on The Gospel of Luke, Andrew Pitts, who argues the same thesis as Wallace, proposes one further significant piece of evidence: Luke’s positive portrayal of Roman officials.

When compared to the other three gospels, Luke has a surprisingly positive view of Roman officials.

In Luke alone, there is no scene with Roman soldiers beating and mocking Jesus, putting a crown of thorns on his head, or asking him to prophesy about who is hitting him. There is a scene where Jesus’ Jewish captors mock him (Luke 22:63-65). And there is another scene with Herod’s soldiers mocking Jesus (Luke 23:11), but they would have been Jews or Idumeans, not Romans.
In Luke alone, there is a scene where people ask Jesus about Pilate’s brutality toward the Jewish people (Luke 13:1-5). We’d expect at least a critical assessment of Pilate, if not a full-blown denunciation of such wickedness. But no. Instead of criticizing Pilate, Jesus responds with a dire warning for those present to repent of their own sin before they too suffer as their countrymen did.
In both Matthew (Matt 8:5-13) and Luke (Luke 7:2-10), we’re told of Jesus marveling at the faith of a Roman centurion, which surpassed the faith of any in Israel. But Luke alone adds this fascinating characterization: Though the elders of Capernaum consider this military officer “worthy” of Jesus’ attention, the man himself has the humility to confess, “I am not worthy” (Luke 7:4-6).
In Luke alone, Pilate does not look like a buffoon at Jesus’ trial. He labors to give Jesus justice for his evident innocence. He doesn’t lose his cool and relents only when the crowd is on the verge of all-out riot (Luke 23:15-25).

Acts continues this positive portrayal of Roman officials. Just read the book and count how many times a governor or judge in some town declares a Christian or group of Christians to be innocent of any wrongdoing. And notice how the first Gentile convert to Christ is another Roman centurion.

Conclusion

I confess that, since Luke doesn’t tell us his purpose, we cannot be certain. And because no early church fathers declared clearly that Luke wrote to help exonerate Paul, some Bible dictionaries say things like: “Still’s theory that Theophilus was Paul’s defense attorney during his audience with Caesar in Rome lacks evidence (Still, St. Paul on Trial, 84)” (Lexham).

I am making an inductive argument, which is an argument where the conclusion most likely follows from the premises. It’s not a deductive argument, where the reasoning is either valid or invalid, and where true premises make the conclusion certain.

But induction is what we use almost all the time when we piece together the historical circumstances of biblical books. It is not for us to be deductively certain regarding our theories of composition. The question is one of strength: How strong is the conclusion in light of the premises?

I won’t go as far as to say that Theophilus must have been Paul’s defense attorney. Perhaps he was a lower court judge, a clerk, an expert witness, or an investigator of some sort, connected to the courts. But regardless of Theophilus’s precise role, the evidence suggests that Luke wrote his two-volume history to Theophilus as a petition for Paul’s exoneration.

Outstanding New Testament Book Overviews

August 21, 2019 By Peter Krol

When we want to study a passage of the Bible, we will not get it right unless we have grappled with the main idea of the entire book. And that requires doing our homework to research, as best we can, the author, audience, occasion, and structure of the book. That research is what we call a book overview.

The best method for researching this historical background is to read and re-read the entire book many times in a row. Nothing beats developing your own deep familiarity with the text as a whole.

The second best method is to find articles or commentaries that can stimulate your thinking and highlight things you could never see or grasp on your own. The trick is to find articles that give you more than trivia. Knowing possible dates and theories of authorship and reception are only as helpful as they enable you to grasp the text’s main idea and flow of thought. The trick is to find articles that illuminate the persuasive genius of the authors of Scripture. What arguments were they making, to whom, and to what end?

For this reason, I keep have kept this page bookmarked in my web browser for years. Daniel Wallace is a first-rate New Testament scholar. He specializes in New Testament manuscript tradition and curation, and he understands the persuasive power of these inspired texts.

On that page, you’ll see an article by Dr. Wallace for every book of the New Testament. Each article contains an “introduction, argument, and outline” for the book.

In the “Introduction,” Wallace thoroughly addresses every credible hypothesis for who wrote the book, when he wrote it, how he wrote it, whom he wrote it to, why he wrote it to these people at this time, and what the main theme is. Wallace evaluates the arguments made by various scholars in light of both internal (within the book itself) and external (early church writings about this book) evidence. By the end, Wallace typically reconstructs the situation and circumstances of the book, with a clear view toward how these circumstances shape our understanding of the book.

In the “Argument,” Wallace guides us through the entire book, tracing the train of thought and showing us the transitions from one major section to the next. If the details of Wallace’s evaluation get to be too much for you, this birds’ eye view of the book’s rhetorical strategy is must reading.

In the “Outline,” Wallace attempts to represent the main sections of the book in standard outline form. I usually find Wallace’s outlines to be the least helpful part of his article, as they’re too detailed, almost exclusively observational, and too modern (they look like the outline for a modern academic dissertation instead of that for an ancient piece of literature).

Every time I prepare to study a New Testament book, I read Wallace’s article on that book. I might skip some of the tediousness of the “Introduction,” though I always give full consideration to his proposal of the book’s Occasion, Purpose, and Theme. I savor the “Argument,” as I find the greatest usefulness here. And I scan the “Outline,” but don’t get too hung up with it. I usually find other sources to be more helpful in clarifying a book’s true rhetorical outline.

You, too, might want to bookmark this page as well for the next time you prepare to study a book of the New Testament.

Check it out!

Who Was Theophilus?

August 16, 2019 By Peter Krol

Luke addresses his two-part history of the early Christian movement to a man named Theophilus.

…it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:3-4)
In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach… (Acts 1:1)

Who was this person, and how does knowing help us to understand the purpose of Luke and Acts?

Nonspecific Address

The early church father Origen (ca. 185-254) was the first to suggest that “Theophilus” was not a particular individual, but simply a way of addressing all believers. The name literally means “lover of God,” and therefore could become a pseudonym for all Christians everywhere, almost like composing an open letter today with the address “Dear Christian.”

While this is possible, it seems unlikely, and very few scholars today hold this opinion. If Luke wanted to address believers generally, it would have been very unusual for him to speak to “Theophilus” in typical grammatical forms that signal a communication to an individual (such as second person singular pronouns). He would have been more likely to do something along the lines of what Peter does in his first epistle: “To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion” (1 Pet 1:1). Or he could have signaled his intentions with something more symbolic, such as John’s “to the elect lady and her children” (2 John 1).

Particular Individual

The name “Theophilus” is well attested in the time period in which Luke wrote. It was a common name, over a few centuries, all over the Roman empire. Josephus even mentions a Jewish high priest with the name a few decades before the temple fell. So it’s highly credible to conclude that Luke was writing to a specific person.

But what other clues can we find regarding the identity of this Theophilus?

Most Excellent

The most significant clue is Luke’s use of the phrase “most excellent” when addressing Theophilus the first time (Luke 1:3). This is not a casual California-surfer-dude sort of greeting. It has a ring of formality to it.

The address “most excellent” appears in Scripture only in Luke’s writings, and only in very formal settings.

1. A court appearance, spoken by the prosecuting attorney:

“Since through you we enjoy much peace, and since by your foresight, most excellent Felix, reforms are being made for this nation…” (Acts 24:2)

2. Another court appearance, spoken by the defendant:

“I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words.” (Acts 26:25)

3. And, though translated differently, the same Greek term appears also in a prisoner transfer order written by a Roman centurion to the governing official:

“Claudius Lysias, to his Excellency the governor Felix, greetings.” (Acts 23:26)

For this reason, it seems likely that Theophilus is at least a Roman noble with means of some sort. Our understanding of the title is rather limited, so many scholars are hesitant to conclude any more than this.

Additional Evidence

However, additional evidence from within Luke and Acts may help us to identify Theophilus with greater precision. In additional posts, I will take up more of this evidence.

OT Narratives: Pointers to Christ or Moral Examples?

August 14, 2019 By Peter Krol

There is an ages-old debate among interpreters of Old Testament narratives: Were these stories written to point us to the coming Messiah, or to provide moral examples to imitate or avoid?

Early in my ministry, I was a strong proponent of the “Christ-centered” approach to interpretation. And though I haven’t lost my fervor for seeing Jesus in every Bible passage, I’ve come to realize that such an approach really doesn’t need to be set in conflict with seeing OT characters as exemplars of what to do or not do. I don’t think we can read Hebrews 11 or 1 Corinthians 10 and conclude otherwise.

So we don’t have to pick one of the two approaches. We should expect both to be true. A Christ-focus without moral examples will fail to connect to people’s lives. An exemplar focus without Jesus will ultimately produce legalism or moralism. But both together provide a robust biblical view of the Christian faith and life. Let’s only first seek to understand the passage’s main point for its original audience, then connect it to Christ, and then apply it specifically to our lives.

And here is a great article, where Jim Savastio makes this very point for preachers. Any serious student of the Bible, not only preachers, will benefit from his thoughtful argument.

Check it out!

Robert Alter’s Hebrew Bible: Conflicting Extremities

August 9, 2019 By Peter Krol

Robert Alter is a distinguished scholar of the Hebrew Bible, having taught at UC Berkeley for more than 50 years. He has served on the Council of Scholars for the Library of Congress, and he has been a Senior Fellow for the National Endowment for the Humanities. His scholarship is widely recognized and respected.

His books The Art of Biblical Narrative and The Art of Biblical Poetry are landmark works in the field of reading the Bible as literature, and he has influenced generations of Bible students to see the artistry and magnificence of this ancient collection of books we call the Old Testament.

And yet, Alter, as far as I can tell, makes no profession of faith in Jesus Christ. He appears more widely acclaimed in Jewish than Christian circles. And a number of bedrock principles that underlie Christian belief carry little weight with him. Inerrancy, infallibility, and authority don’t show up in his thinking about these texts. And the New Testament is another historical data point, but not an authoritative interpretation of the Old Testament.

These factors produce a fascinating cohabitation of conflicting extremities in Alter’s recently published translation and commentary of The Hebrew Bible. On the one hand, there is deep respect for, and glorious handling of, a collection of beautiful texts. On the other hand, judgment is pronounced time and again over these texts, with respect to their shaping, content, and effectiveness.

Components

This three-volume set, divided according to the traditional Hebrew divisions of Torah, Prophets, and Writings, offers three tools for the student of the Old Testament:

A masterpiece of translation
Guidance through commentary
A survey of books and groups of books through introductory essays

All three components deserve comment.

Translation

Alter’s translation is truly a masterpiece. Though it might suffer at times from being the work of an individual instead of a self-policing team of scholars, it benefits from its complete freedom from partisan or economic concerns. Since Alter is not seeking a living from massive sales, he is free to be as clear and honest about the text as possible.

Most Bible publishers, for example, refuse to translate Psalm 23:6 as anything but “I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever,” since they won’t sell Bibles if they mess with what people expect from Psalm 23. Yet any honest Hebrew scholar will freely admit that, without doubt, the Hebrew is better translated, as Alter puts it, “And I shall dwell in the house of the Lord for many long days.”

Time and again, Alter defies our expectations of favorite memory verses. I found myself especially tripped up by Proverbs 1:7: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge [so far, so good!]. Wisdom and reproof dolts despise [Now wait a minute…].”

Such jarring breaches of expectation serve a commendable purpose: representing the Hebrew as best as possible in English. Alter explains his translation philosophy in his Art of Bible Translation, which also came out this year. This philosophy includes such maxims as:

Never use synonyms in English when the Hebrew repeats the same word.
When the Hebrew uses word play or sound play, find a comparable English alliteration or word play.
Translate not only the words, but also the tone and style. High Hebrew literature should sound like high English literature. A vernacular Hebrew style must be represented accordingly in English.

These principles are to be highly commended. The second point leads to such gems as “dolts despise” in Proverbs 1:7, reflecting the lilt of the underlying Hebrew phrase. And his rigorous following of these principles makes Alter’s translation a literary masterpiece.

It’s worth the space to consider an example. Read the following narrative out loud to better pick up the rhythmic and stylistic glories:

And all the earth was one language, one set of words. And it happened as they journeyed from the east that they found a valley in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to each other, “Come, let us bake bricks and burn them hard.” And the brick served them as stone, and bitumen served them as mortar. And they said, “Come, let us build us a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, that we may make us a name, lest we be scattered over all the earth.” And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the human creatures had built. And the LORD said, “As one people with one language for all, if this is what they have begun to do, now nothing they plot to do will elude them. Come, let us go down and baffle their language there so that they will not understand each other’s language.” And the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth and they left off building the city. Therefore it is called Babel, for there the LORD made the language of all the earth babble. And from there the LORD scattered them over all the earth.
Genesis 11:1-9

Notice the relatively short sentences. Notice the lack of identifiable subject in the second sentence (“they”). Notice how almost every sentence begins with “and.” Notice the word play of Babel/babble. All these things are clear and obvious in the Hebrew text, but almost never captured in typical English translations.

Commentary

I find the commentary either spectacular or dreadful, depending on the agenda behind it. Alter is most engaging when he explains his word choices and makes literary connections. He is far less engaging when he sits in judgment over the text, presuming to explain what the “original” text really said—even in places where there is zero manuscript evidence to support such conclusions.

Introductory Essays

Alter provides an essay for each book, along with an essay for each volume. In addition, a few essays survey sub-groups such as the wisdom literature. And one long essay on the entire Hebrew Bible and approaches to translation is reprinted in all three volumes.

Again, these essays have both spectacular moments and dreadful ones. The opening, thrice-reprinted essay, contains such gems as:

The unacknowledged heresy underlying most modern English versions of the Bible is the use of translation as a vehicle for explaining the Bible instead of representing it in another language, and in the most egregious instances this amounts to explaining away the Bible. (p.xv)
An adequate English version should be able to indicate the small but significant modulations in diction in the biblical language. (p.xxvii)
A suitable English version should avoid at all costs the modern abomination of elegant synonymous variation, for the literary prose of the Bible turns everywhere on significant repetition, not variation. (p.xxvii)

The book introductions likewise contain marvelous analyses of metaphor, poetry, artistry, or thematic development.

But at the same time, there is good dose of stinkers, such as:

It is of course possible to link each of these sexual details [from Ezekiel 16] with the allegory of an idolatrous nation betraying its faith. But such explicitness and such vehemence about sex are unique in the Bible. The compelling inference is that this was a prophet morbidly fixated on the female body and seething with fervid misogyny…Ezekiel clearly was not a stable person. (Vol 2, p.1051)
At this point [Job 32], in the original text, the LORD would have spoken out from the whirlwind, but a lapse in judgment by an ancient editor postponed that brilliant consummation for six chapters in which the tedious Elihu is allowed to hold forth. (Vol 3, p.460)
The book of Daniel, then, is an imperfect composition. In style, its Hebrew sections are seriously flawed. Its narrative is primarily a vehicle for laying out tales of miraculous aid that demonstrate God’s power, or for setting the circumstances for elaborately coded revelations of the future course of history that require deciphering. (Vol 3, p.749)

There are times to bask in these essays, and there are times to hold the nose while plodding forth.

Recommendation

This three-volume set is not a reader’s Bible. The commentary takes up much space on each page, and the typesetting unfortunately presents the text in unbearably long paragraph blocks. But I would recommend it for at least two purposes.

First, I recommend this set for those who always wonder what might be lying “underneath” the English text in the Hebrew original. Alter’s masterpiece will give those who don’t read Hebrew the clearest picture of it in translation.

Second, I recommend this set for those who would like to read the Bible out loud. When I finish reading the New Testament to my kids on Sunday nights, I plan to return to the Old Testament with them, in Alter’s translation. It’s possible that much of the high-style books, such as Isaiah, will go over their heads. Alter makes sure that Isaiah, in English, sounds just as lofty and high brow as the Hebrew is. But that’s all the more reason to read this work out loud. In the Hebrew Bible, we have a collection of the greatest literature the world has ever seen. And it was meant to be read out loud.

Alter’s masterpiece was kindly handed to us for just a time like this.

And all the people gathered as one man in the square that is in front of the Water Gate, and they said to Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Teaching of Moses with which the LORD had charged Israel. And Ezra the priest brought the Teaching before the assembly, men and women and all who had understanding to listen, on the first day of the seventh month. And he read from it before the square that was before the Water Gate from first light to midday in the presence of the men and the women and those who had understanding, and the ears of all the people were listening to the Book of Teaching.
Ezra 8:1-3

Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary, Norton, 2019

Disclaimer: I received a free copy of this work from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. Amazon links are affiliate links, which means that clicking on them and making a purchase will grant a small commission to this blog at no extra cost to yourself.

What Does It Mean to Be Born of Water and the Spirit?

August 7, 2019 By Peter Krol

Here is a cogent and brief article from D.A. Carson on the phrase “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5. Carson observes the text in light of Jesus’ argument to Nicodemus. He compares and contrasts the statement with another statement in the same discussion. He explains why some common interpretations don’t fit the context. And he explains the Old Testament imagery that Jesus draws on, and which Jesus expects Nicodemus to have understood.

The question is important, because it lies at the heart of Jesus’s explanation of “born again,” of new birth, of regeneration…
Many people think the question Nicodemus poses shows that he is a rather dimwitted literalist. But that’s almost certainly too harsh. You don’t get to be called “the teacher of Israel” (John 3:10—possibly a title) if you can’t spot the odd metaphor. When he hears Jesus say that to enter the kingdom one must be “born again,” I suspect Nicodemus understands Jesus to mean that we are not good enough to enter the kingdom: we must start over, have a different origin, spring from a different life. Nicodemus thinks Jesus is going too far: people can’t really start over or claim a new life, boast of a new birth, or enjoy a new beginning.

This is world-class Bible study. Check it out!

The Genre of Luke’s Gospel

August 2, 2019 By Peter Krol

I’ve been studying Luke these days, to prepare for a new sermon series at our church. And this Sunday, I’ll kick off the series with a book overview.

To help me grasp background matters, I’ve been working my way through a course with Logos Bible Software on Luke’s gospel, taught by Dr. Andrew Pitts. The course has been outstanding, and Pitts’s comments on the genre of Luke have been particularly stimulating.

Overall Genre

Certainly, Luke belongs to the genre of historical narrative. However, there are many sub-categories of genre that fall under the umbrella of historical narrative. On a large scale, there are epics, histories, and biographies. On a small scale, there are miracle stories, confrontation stories, healings, teaching, parables, and origin stories.

Regarding Luke, Pitts argues that there is a difference between ancient biography and ancient history. Biographies focus on one individual, the subject, who is praised or lifted up in some way, and readers are called to imitate or follow that figure. Histories, however, focus more on events than on any particular person, and they are concerned with explaining why something is the way it is, or with making a political or social point in light of the relevant history.

jean louis mazieres (2018), Creative Commons

Comparing the Four Gospels

I have always presumed Luke to be the same genre as the other gospels. Of course, it’s closer to Matthew and Mark, which is why those three are often referred to as the “synoptic” (similar perspective) gospels. John is unique, with a completely different style and method of narration.

However, Pitts argues that, at least with respect to genre, the oddball among the four gospels is really Luke. He suggests that Matthew, Mark, and John are biographies, but Luke is a history.

Why does he conclude this?

Ancient biographies tend to introduce their subject in the first sentence (or very close to the first sentence). Matthew 1:1, Mark 1:1, and John 1:1 all reference Jesus as the book’s subject. But Luke doesn’t even mention Jesus until Luke 1:31, and then only in predictive speech. Jesus doesn’t become a character or subject until Luke 2:7, or even Luke 2:11. This late mention of the chief subject would be very unusual for a biography. But such late mention of a major protagonist fits right with the expectations for a narrative history.
Compared to ancient histories, ancient biographies have a much higher density of citation of authoritative sources to support the portrait of the biography’s subject. Matthew, Mark, and John all fit the parameters of citation density (quoting the Old Testament, in their case) expected from biography. Luke’s density of OT citation is much lower, fitting more closely the parameters of ancient history. (Though Luke cites the OT more times than Mark does, Luke is much longer than Mark, thus making his density of citation significantly lower than Mark’s.)
When Luke does introduce his subject matter in the first verse, he terms it “the things that have been accomplished among us” (Luke 1:1). He doesn’t speak of a person, but of a series of events. This is what we’d expect from a history, not a biography.
Luke is the only gospel with a sequel (the book of Acts), so we need to read Luke and Acts as a single work in two parts. And Acts clearly moves well beyond the life of Jesus of Nazareth, telling the tales of a number of Jesus’ followers. It might be possible to say that Luke-Acts is a collection of biographies, with Jesus’ life being the first subject. But compendiums of biographies were also known in the ancient world, and there is no other example of such a collection following a single narrative thread (from the first subject, to the second, to the third, etc., instead of treating each biography as a completely separate narrative). If Luke-Acts were a collection of biographies, it would be the only ancient document to take this meta-narrative approach. However, Luke-Acts does follow the standard expectations of an ancient history, moving from one event, to another, to another, in a seamless overarching narrative.

What Difference Does It Make?

What difference does it make whether Luke is biography or history?

Simply that we’ll better observe Luke’s focus, which enables us to focus there with him. Since Matthew, Mark, and John are biographies of Jesus, we read them rightly when we focus on the person of Jesus. Of course, we can’t ignore what Jesus did or what resulted from his work. But with the emphasis on who he was, the other things fall into place as implications of the main idea (Jesus himself).

But if Pitts is right that Luke-Acts presents itself as history, then we’ll better understand Luke-Acts if we focus on what that two-volume work says about the Christian movement. Of course, we can’t ignore who Jesus is when we read Luke-Acts; the movement’s founder is, well, the movement’s foundation. But the identity and character of Jesus, in Luke’s case, are more the implications than the main idea.

Another way to state the hypothesis is that the biographies of Matthew, Mark, and John are meant to tell us, first and foremost, about Jesus. And the history of Luke (along with Acts) is meant to tell us, first and foremost, about Christianity.

This understanding of Luke’s genre is one piece of the puzzle that is Luke’s purpose in writing, along with his main point. In future posts, I may revisit Luke with yet more pieces of that puzzle.

Basic Observation Skills for Children

July 31, 2019 By Peter Krol

I commend Joe Carter for taking up the topic of OIA Bible study in his call to Christian parents to teach their children not only to read but to study the Bible.

Two key differences between reading and study are pacing and focus. When we read the Bible, we generally do so at the quickest pace our comprehension will allow. We may consume large chunks at one time, such as reading an entire book. We also look for the broad outlines of the text to know what it’s about or to determine how it fits into the larger scope of God’s Word. Bible reading precedes Bible study because it provides the broad perspective we need before we narrow in on specific passages.

He then goes to explain the basic of observation, offering a few tools:

Ask basic questions
Words, phrases, and relationships between propositions
Make lists
Contrasts and comparisons
Metaphors
Expressions of time and terms of conclusion
Connection to other parts of the Bible
Teach them to improve

This is an outstanding toolbox to draw on. My only beef would be that “connections to other parts of the Bible” almost always should wait until much later in the process. Get the main point of the passage at hand before flipping around to check out cross-references.

But that is an extremely minor variation in practice. Carter’s summary of the process is well done, motivating, and helpful for parents to take to their children.

Check it out!

Summer Bible Camp Teaching Plan in Proverbs

July 26, 2019 By Peter Krol

This week, I’m serving as chaplain at a pretty terrific Christian summer camp. We’ve got girls from grades 3 through 11 learning about the great outdoors and our Father in heaven who made it all. Last year, I served a week of boys’ camp, where I taught the same material (though with very different application!).

sinisterbluebox (2009), Creative Commons

I have found that Proverbs is a fantastic book to teach to children and teenagers. It is clear. It stimulates. It provokes thoughtful questions. It gets intensely practical. And it easily sets us up to exalt Jesus as our Wisdom from God.

In case you might find it helpful, here is my teaching plan. It covers a broad range of pertinent topics for children and youth, while also enabling me to teach some basic Bible study skills. Each day, we just open up the text, read it, and talk about it. No expensive children’s curriculum required! For further explanation of these texts, see my blog series on Proverbs.

Day 1: What is wisdom? Proverbs 1:1-7.
- The first study explains the fundamental principle that wisdom is simply a journey in the right direction. It is not a location or a state of maturity. It is all about whether you are moving from where you are in the right direction.
- I had time for a second study on Day 1, where I gave examples of wisdom (very small, but extremely wise creatures) from Proverbs 30:24-28. In this study, I clarified that the journey of wisdom is a journey away from trusting in myself—a truth hinted at in Prov 1:7 but fleshed out here. May we be like lizards, and always be found in our King’s palace!
Day 2: What is the path of wisdom? Proverbs 2:1-11, 20-22.
- The journey of wisdom doesn’t just go wherever you want it to go. This path takes us toward the Lord and away from ourselves. Climax in John 14:6: Jesus is the path we must take to get to God.
Day 3: Obstacle to wisdom #1: More stuff. Proverbs 2:12-15, 1:10-19.
- There is nothing wrong with having or acquiring stuff (money, possessions, etc.). But when we live for it, when our desire for more stuff becomes the focus of our lives, we move in the wrong direction. Wanting more stuff causes me to trust in or please myself instead of the Lord. This is folly.
- Climax: Jesus was rich, but became poor so we could become rich in him (2 Cor 8:9).
Day 4: Obstacle to wisdom #2: More pleasure. Proverbs 5:1-6, 2:16-19.
- Though I broaden the application to all pleasure (food, sports, friends, reading, etc.), I make sure also to touch down on the chief pleasure Solomon has in mind: sexual pleasure. Children need to hear about this, even at a young age! And, as with the previous day’s teaching, I clarify that pleasure in itself is not bad. What matters is whether the pleasure makes me more enamored with the Lord (wisdom) or more enamored with myself (folly).
- Climax: Jesus doesn’t use people for his own pleasure. He loved the Church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by his word (Eph 5:25-26).
Day 5: Hard work. Proverbs 6:6-11.
- Look at the ant! She is self-motivated (Prov 6:7) and seasonally productive (Prov 6:8). She can teach us the wisdom of asking ourselves some hard questions (Prov 6:9), beginning with small choices (Prov 6:10), and remembering the consequences of foolishness (Prov 6:11).
- Climax: Jesus is still working on our behalf, just as his Father is working (John 5:17).
Day 6: Steady progress. Proverbs 26:11, 4:10-19.
- Closing vision for walking in wisdom, step by step, for the rest of your life. When you leave here, please don’t be like dogs licking up your own vomit (returning to your folly). The path of wisdom is like the sunrise, shining brighter and brighter until the full day. It doesn’t matter how far you are down that path. It doesn’t matter how you compare in maturity to anyone else. It matters only that you move toward the Sunrise from on high, one step at a time.
- Climax: Luke 2:51-52. Even Jesus “increased in wisdom.” He knows what it’s like to walk this path. Our hope is not even in our ability to stay on this path, but in the one who walked this path before us and calls us to follow him on it.

I picked the topic of hard work for Day 5, only because I was particularly excited about that topic when I first put this plan together. But it could easily be replaced with wise speech, money matters, friendship, thought life, truthfulness, or any other of the myriad topics of applied wisdom from Proverbs 10-31. Or, if you have only a 5-day program (such as a weekday VBS), you could drop my Day 5, and the rest would hang together just fine.

Through frequent repetition, during teaching times, of the following Q&A, which adds a new piece each day, I’ve seen the children solidly internalize the framework.

What treasure are we hunting for this week (Prov 25:2)?
- Wisdom.
What is wisdom?
- A journey in the right direction.
What is the right direction toward?
- God.
What does it move you away from?
- Myself.
What is the path you must take for this journey?
- Jesus.
What is the first thing that will turn you away from God and back toward yourself?
- More stuff.
What is the second thing?
- More pleasure.
What is the main thing that will make you wise—it’s more important than anything you’ve ever learned, and it’s more powerful than anything you’ve ever done or had done to you?
- Taking just one step toward God by trusting Jesus. Then another step. Then another.

Examples of Jesus in the Old Testament

July 24, 2019 By Peter Krol

Jesse Johnson did us a great favor by giving 6 thoughtful examples of how to preach Jesus from Old Testament texts, where “the coming Messiah” is not the main point. Even when a text doesn’t directly predict the coming of Christ, we ought to make sure we see it climax in the good news about Jesus’ death and resurrection, and/or the message of forgiveness being preached to all nations.

Johnson’s examples are good models of first determining the author’s main point for his original audience, and second connecting that main point to the good news about Jesus. This prevents forced or tenuous gospel connections that fail to land with transformative power. See my post on this topic for further explanation.

Johnson’s examples are: