Sample Bible Studies | Knowable Word

Context Mattered to Jesus

January 20, 2020 By Ryan Higginbottom

The temptation of Jesus is a fascinating exchange. In this brief passage we find four explicit quotations of Scripture and deep theological themes.

In my last article I wrote about the way Satan misused Psalm 91 when he tempted Jesus to throw himself from the top of the temple (Matt 4:6). We saw that Scripture quoted out of context can be used for evil purposes.

I’m grateful to Seth S., one of our blog commenters, who suggested we look at the other side of this face off. He proposed we examine Jesus’s use of the Old Testament in his resistance of Satan in the wilderness.

This proved too much for a single post, so I will begin the task today and continue it in my next article.

Temptation to Produce Bread

Let’s set the stage. Matthew 3 ends with Jesus’s baptism, and Matthew 4 begins with his temptation.

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” (Matthew 4:1–4)

Satan tries to appeal both to Jesus’s hunger and his identity. Surely the Son of God could produce food for himself when he is hungry. Why not do it right here and now?

Jesus’s reply is worth studying in depth.

The Context in Deuteronomy

In all three instances of temptation, Jesus quotes from the book of Deuteronomy to turn away the devil. In the case of Satan’s appeal to turn stones into bread, Jesus looks to Deuteronomy 8.

And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord. (Deuteronomy 8:3)

Finding this verse is important, but we must also know its context.

The book of Deuteronomy is a second statement of the law to the people of Israel, given with an eye toward their upcoming entrance into the promised land. In this book, God reminds Moses what he has done for the nation of Israel, and he charges them with obedience in the future.

Jesus in the Place of Israel

There are several details in Deuteronomy 8 worth noting.

Israel is supposed to remember the way God led them for 40 years in the wilderness (Deut 8:2).
God humbled Israel in the wilderness, testing them to know what was in their heart, whether or not they would keep his commandments (Deut 8:2).
God humbled Israel and let them hunger, feeding them with manna, so that he would make them know that man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from God’s mouth (Deut 8:3).
God disciplines Israel in the way that a man disciplines his son (Deut 8:5).
Israel must keep the commandments of God because God is bringing them into a good land, a land with plenty of bread (Deut 8:6–9).

This context helps us to understand Jesus’s purpose.

Jesus has been led by God the Spirit into the wilderness for 40 days (Matt 4:1–2). He voluntarily went hungry for these 40 days (Matt 4:2). Jesus knows he is the Son of God, because he just heard his father say these exact words (Matt 3:17).

And, crucially, by resisting the devil’s first temptation, Jesus shows that he knows man does not live by bread alone; he does not need to learn this through the same discipline Israel faced.

Through examining the context of Matthew 4 and Deuteronomy 8, we discover some profound truths. Jesus has voluntarily put himself in the place of Israel. Furthermore, he has taken the first step in obeying God in this role by showing he depends on God—he does not need to turn stones into bread.

This sets up a crucial question both for the rest of the interaction with Satan and for the rest of the Gospel of Matthew: Will Jesus keep the commandments of the Lord? Will Jesus trust God to bring him through the wilderness and into the land of plenty, rejecting all other gods?

Conclusion

As Christians who know the rest of the Bible, we know the answers to these questions. But Matthew is framing the launch of Jesus’s mission with the themes of obedience, sonship, and substitution.

Be sure to come back to read my next article, when we continue to look at Jesus’s quotations of Scripture to deny the devil’s advances.

Can You Identify This Quote from the Bible?

January 17, 2020 By Peter Krol

In my current readthrough of the Bible, I recently came upon this gem of a poem. In my experience, it’s not quoted very often by Christians. But it’s rather encouraging and beautiful, isn’t it?

I’ll write more about this poem next week. For now, let’s test your Bible literacy.

To the first person who comments below with the name of the biblical figure associated with these words (the person who wrote or spoke them), I will give an extra entry into the drawing for a reader’s Bible. In addition, I will give another entry to the first person who can identify the reference for the poem (book and chapter). If one person guesses both correctly, he or she will be given two entries.

Here’s an extra two chances for you to win this.

Just one caveat: You may not look it up. I want to know if you can guess this from memory. Of course, you could look it up and comment anyway to get the reward. And I’ll never know, but God will.

I’ll confirm if someone gets one of the answers right. That will make it easier for others to guess the second answer correctly.

Here is the poem.

“Agree with God, and be at peace;
thereby good will come to you.
Receive instruction from his mouth,
and lay up his words in your heart.
If you return to the Almighty you will be built up;
if you remove injustice far from your tents,
if you lay gold in the dust,
and gold of Ophir among the stones of the torrent-bed,
then the Almighty will be your gold
and your precious silver.
For then you will delight yourself in the Almighty
and lift up your face to God.
You will make your prayer to him, and he will hear you,
and you will pay your vows.
You will decide on a matter, and it will be established for you,
and light will shine on your ways.
For when they are humbled you say, ‘It is because of pride’;
but he saves the lowly.
He delivers even the one who is not innocent,
who will be delivered through the cleanness of your hands.”

Quoting Scripture Contrary to Its Purpose is Devilish

January 6, 2020 By Ryan Higginbottom

*Temptation of Christ* (1663), Philips Augustijn Immenraet, public domain

Have you ever tried to hammer a nail with a hand saw? When was the last time you flipped a pancake with a whisk?

Using tools or utensils for unintended purposes just doesn’t work.

Context Matters

When it comes to the Bible, proper usage is even more important, because we are dealing with God’s word.

We have devoted many articles on this blog to the importance of context in the Bible. We have called attention to numerous examples of the proper use of Scripture, respecting the location of phrases and verses within paragraphs, chapters, and books.

But we can learn through both positive and negative examples. So today, we’ll look at a Bible quotation used out of context. And we won’t just look at any example, we’ll look in the Bible itself at an example of the misuse of Scripture.

The Temptation of Jesus

After Jesus is baptized, he is led by the Spirit to be tempted by the devil (Matthew 4:1). Jesus rebuffs Satan’s three-part temptation by quoting the Bible at each turn. (This narrative is found in both Matthew 4:1–11 and Luke 4:1–13. I’ll use Matthew’s version.)

This section of Scripture is often used to illustrate the value of knowing the Bible. Memorizing God’s word is a mighty tool in resisting temptation. This is all very good.

But in one of Satan’s temptations, he quotes the Bible, and that is worth exploring.

Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you,’ and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”(Matthew 4:5–6)

The devil cites Psalm 91:11–12 and, taken as quoted, the verses are compelling. God seems to promise protection in angelic form, without a qualification in sight. If we stick to Satan’s words, his case is persuasive.

Exploring Psalm 91

Jesus’s reply to the devil is simple, coming straight from Deuteronomy 6:16.

Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’” (Matthew 4:7)

How exactly is what Satan offers a test of God?

Instead of a blanket promise of safety, Psalm 91 is about God’s protection for those who seek their shelter in him. This thread runs throughout the psalm.

It is he who “dwells in the shelter of the Most High” that will “abide in the shadow of the Almighty” (Psalm 91:1).
The psalmist replies to this promise by calling God “My refuge and my fortress, my God in whom I trust” (Psalm 91:2).
The psalmist says that “Because you have made the Lord your dwelling place,” “no evil shall be allowed to befall you” (Psalm 91:9–10, emphasis mine).
God says, “Because he holds fast to me in love, I will deliver him; I will protect him, because he knows my name” (Psalm 91:14).
Finally, this “holding fast” to God takes a specific form: “When he calls to me, I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble; I will rescue him and honor him” (Psalm 91:15).

Psalm 91 does not offer a safety net to rescue everyone from the consequences of reckless behavior. Rather, God promises his protection to those who make him their dwelling place. To those who call to him. To those who hold fast to him in love.

Consider the Text

In the title of this article, I claim that the quoting of Scripture contrary to its purpose is devilish. I mean, very simply, that this is a tactic of the devil.

Not everyone who quotes Scripture in this way is evil or is possessed by a demon. But we should be sobered as we observe this strategy. The Bible can be used as a tool to accomplish evil purposes. The words of God are not a magical incantation of righteousness.

This understanding should affect the way we listen to sermons, digest proof texts, and read theological arguments. Let’s give ourselves to a careful study of the Bible, that we might recognize and avoid this devilish error.

Thanks for visiting Knowable Word! If you like this article, you might be interested in receiving regular updates from us. You can sign up for our email list (enter your address in the box on the upper right of this page), follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or subscribe to our RSS feed.

Context Matters: Abstain from All Appearance of Evil

January 3, 2020 By Peter Krol

Perhaps you’ve heard the injunction to avoid the appearance of evil. You won’t find the phrase in most modern English Bibles, as it’s a holdover from the King James translation of 1 Thessalonians 5:22. The ESV commands us to “abstain from every form of evil,” and the CSB simplifies it further to “stay away from every kind of evil” (1 Thess 5:22, CSB). This verse could be called upon to support just about any set of personal prohibitions, including interacting with someone of the opposite sex, dining at a tavern, choosing one’s friends, and forming political alliances, to name a few.

But is that what the Apostle Paul had in mind?

Context matters. If we learn to read the Bible for what it is—and not as a collection of independently assembled proverbial sayings—we’ll discover that some of our most familiar passages don’t actually mean what we’ve always assumed.

A Study in Contrasts

When we read the verse in context, we ought to observe that it makes up the second half of a contrast:

“Hold on to what is good. Stay away from every kind of evil.”
1 Thess 5:21b-22

So the staying away from every kind of evil is a companion to the holding on to what is good. The “evil” in view here is the opposite to the “good” that is likewise in view. We are to “hold on to” the one and “stay away from” the other.

What further clues can we find to help us understand precisely what sort of “good” and “evil” Paul has in mind?

A More Foundational Contrast

Moving back just slightly farther, we find another contrast. This one is more concrete.

“Don’t stifle the Spirit. Don’t despise prophecies, but test all things.”
1 Thess 5:19-21a

This one is a little more complex, but still poses no problem for the astute observer. Here we have two things not to do: Don’t stifle the Spirit or despise prophecies. And one thing to do: Test all things.

We ought to see how “stifling the Spirit” is parallel to “despising prophecies.” So the spiritual stifling Paul has in mind is the despising of prophecies. And because the entire paragraph is about church life (1 Thess 5:12-22), it doesn’t seem likely that Paul is describing enscripturated (written) prophecies, but the verbal prophecies being made in the course of ancient Thessalonian church life.

And how does Paul want people to express their dependence on the Spirit? How can they show their regard for those verbal prophecies? Is it by shutting off their minds and swallowing wholesale whatever is spoken in the name of the Spirit?

No: “Test all things,” he commands. The church will express its dependence on the Spirit of God, and its high regard for prophecies, by testing them all. By examining them in light of the enscripturated Word. By evaluating their consistency with the rest of God’s revelation. By making distinctions between true and false prophets, true and false prophecies, things to be heeded and things to be discarded.

The Punch Line

And upon such evaluation of the prophecies made in the church, the people are commanded to “hold on to what is good” and “stay away from every kind of evil.”

So the contrast between “good” and “evil” follows directly from the “testing” of the prophecy. Not every prophecy is legitimate. Not every claim to speak on behalf of God’s Spirit is to be taken seriously. Each of them must be tested.

And those that prove to be “good” are to be held on to. Those that show themselves to be any “kind of evil” are to be stayed away from.

Conclusion

Paul’s command here is similar to Jesus’ instruction to “be on your guard against false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravaging wolves. You’ll recognize them by their fruit” (Matt 7:15-16a).

We’ve been given an objective set of criteria by which to distinguish between true and false prophecy. We ought to cling to the first while staying away from the second. Jesus and Paul are in harmony on this matter.

And “abstain from all appearance of evil” has very little to do with how other people perceive your behavior in any given situation. It has more to do with whom we listen to and whose instruction we choose to heed. Stay away from those prophets and prophecies who are not in line with that which is good, right, and true.

Context matters.

Thanks to Daniel Tomlinson for the idea for this post. Click here for more examples showing why context matters.

Why Was Baby Jesus Laid in a Manger?

December 13, 2019 By Peter Krol

“And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.” (Luke 2:7)

This time of year, the words roll right off the tongue. And every child’s first question is: What is a manger? When the teacher explains that it is a feeding trough for animals, the astute youth then wonders: Why was the baby laid there?

Now enters the ancient and hallowed tradition of Nativity speculation. Since we’re supposed to reflect on this narrative for a few weeks each year, we need some way to fill in the gaps left by the gospel narrators. And so we wax eloquent about Mary and Joseph’s poverty. Or the pathetic rejection they faced by the innkeeper. Or the influx of tourism to Bethlehem on account of the census. Or the astonishing degradation to which the Son of God submitted himself in setting aside, for a time, his heavenly glory in order to clothe himself in earthly humiliation—all to win a people for himself.

And every one of these speculations might be true. But in connecting such historical and theological dots, let’s please be careful not to neglect the main reason Luke gives for including this detail in his narrative.

Luke’s Purpose

If we read Luke like a book and not simply as a Christmas photo shoot, we’ll realize that we’re only in chapter 2. It was not all that long ago in the book that Luke made his purpose quite clear and explicit:

“…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)

Luke writes an orderly account of the early Christian movement, so the Roman official Theophilus can be certain about the things he’s heard about it. This is Luke’s purpose: to provide enough evidence to enable Theophilus to be sure about what he’s heard.

But what is it that Theophilus has heard, of which he ought to be certain? The main point of Luke’s gospel is something along the lines of: “The hope of Israel, God’s plan of salvation for the world, has arrived in Jesus.” (You can find my case for this main point here.) It is on account of this hope that Paul is on trial (Acts 26:6-7), and the facts surrounding this hope ought to lead, Luke believes, to Paul’s exoneration before Caesar from the charges brought against him by the Jews (Acts 24:5-6).

So Luke wants his reader to be certain about this hope, with the aim of exonerating Paul from all charges.

The Manger

Now how does this overall purpose help us to understand why Mary laid Jesus in a manger? I confess it will not be all that helpful in understanding why this woman laid her baby in the manger (we’ll need to employ our venerable Nativity speculation to close that gap). But it will help us in every way to understand why Luke saw fit to tell us she had done so.

Just follow the manger through the passage:

The narrator declares: “And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger” (Luke 2:7).
The angel proclaims: “And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger” (Luke 2:12).
Finally, the narrator recounts: “And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger (Luke 2:16).

Do you see the flow of thought? Mary lays him there. The angel tells the shepherds they will know they have the right baby when they see him lying there. Then they go to see for themselves, and yes, they find him there, just as they had been told.

So can the shepherds be certain of the things they were taught? Can they be sure that this is the right child?

“And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them.” (Luke 2:20)

Conclusion

Luke’s reason for mentioning the manger is that it provided for the shepherds corroboration of what the angel said. The detail of the manger serves a clear narrative and persuasive purpose to show the fact (the baby was laid there), the prediction (the angel said they’d find him there), and the testimony (they did in fact find him there, just as they were told).

So why was the baby Jesus laid in a manger? In Luke’s narrative world, it was so that Theophilus (and by extension, you and I) could be certain that these shepherds were eyewitnesses to the birth. They are among the many eyewitnesses from the beginning (Luke 1:2) whom Luke has researched and included in his account to promote certainty. And just as they could be certain, from the sign of the manger, that they had located the right baby, so also you and I can be certain of the same.

And what is it, precisely, of which they and we can be certain regarding him? What is the hope of which they can be certain?

“For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.” (Luke 2:11)

This child is the one. He is the one to rescue us (Savior). He is the Messiah, the Chosen One (Christ). He is Yahweh (the Lord) in the flesh.

This advent season, let us, too, “go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.” And may we, too, return, “glorifying and praising God for all [we have] heard and seen, as it [has] been told [us].”

Context Matters: Peace on Earth

December 9, 2019 By Ryan Higginbottom

Perhaps you’ve heard that Jesus came to bring peace on earth, that the angels sang this very phrase when his birth was announced to the shepherds. You’ve got piles of cards (and maybe boxes of ornaments) bearing this phrase. And at this time of year, the words “peace on earth” invoke a warm, reflective mood, just right for hot cocoa and soft-focused photography.

But is this how we should read the divine birth announcement? Did Jesus really come to bring peace on earth?

We always need to pay attention to the context of our favorite verses and phrases. When we learn to read the Bible for what it is—and not just as a collection of slogans or choruses—we may find that it has a deeper or different meaning than we’ve assumed.

The Immediate Context

We begin with the immediate context of the phrase in question. In Luke 2, after the angels tell the shepherds about the birth of the Savior, we read this:

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!” (Luke 2:13–14)

The angels are not announcing a general, earth-blanketing peace. They announce and pray for peace “among those with whom he is pleased.” This is an important first qualification.

The Broader Context in Luke

There is certainly a need for peace at the beginning of Luke’s Gospel.

Luke deliberately calls attention to the political setting of his narrative in the first two chapters; he mentions King Herod (Luke 1:5), Caesar Augustus (Luke 2:1), and the Syrian governor Quirinius (Luke 2:2). Mary praises her God who has “brought down the mighty from their thrones” (Luke 1:52). During the Roman occupation of Jewish land, these markers and desires were pointed.

Additionally, many of the characters we encounter could use a healthy dose of peace. Mary is troubled by her angelic visitor (Luke 1:29) and so is Zechariah (Luke 1:12). Zechariah remembers the enemies of the Lord’s people when he prophesies over his son (Luke 1:71, 74), and he points forward to the work of the Messiah. At the end of the prophecy, we get a partial description of the peace about which the angels will sing.

And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace. (Luke 1:76–79)

Later, in the midst of a long string of teaching, Luke records a striking statement from Jesus about his purposes for coming.

I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. (Luke 12:49–51)

Jesus goes on to speak primarily about divisions within a family, but it is clear that universal peace is not one of Jesus’s immediate objectives.

There is one last cry about peace in Luke, as Jesus is approaching Jerusalem for the last time.

As he was drawing near—already on the way down the Mount of Olives—the whole multitude of his disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen, saying, “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” (Luke 19:37–38)

We can now tie off this thread of peace that runs in the background of Luke. The disciples hail Jesus as the king, and Luke captures their praise as an echo of the earlier angelic song. Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!

The Peace that Jesus Came to Bring

Jesus came to bring peace. But his peace is not the world’s peace. It is not for everyone, and it is not immediate.

Peace often requires confrontation, sacrifice, and suffering, and this describes much of Jesus’s time on earth. He came primarily to bring us peace with God, and that required his obedient life, his brutal death, and his resurrection.

But the thing about peace with God is that it spreads. The angels announced peace on earth among God’s people because that is a fruit that the Spirit of Christ brings. The church now is to be a glimpse of what the world will be. It happens slowly and imperfectly, two steps forward and one step back. But it happens.

Jesus came to bring peace. That peace is not for everyone, and it does not arrive in fullness now. But it is real and life-giving and earth-rocking. It is worthy of a sky full of angels.

Context matters.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

Context Matters: For Everything There is a Season

December 6, 2019 By Peter Krol

Perhaps you’ve heard that there is a season for everything, and a time for every matter under heaven (Eccl 3:1-8). Perhaps this idea has inspired you to try new things, to make a change, or to find contentment in your situation. Maybe the idea even comes along with fond memories of the 60s—or at least affection for some of its iconic music. But what did the Preacher of Ecclesiastes wish to provoke with this glorious poem? And how ought we to read it in light of the book’s argument?

Context matters. When we learn to read the Bible properly—and not merely as a collection of quotable quotes or inspiring poems—we’ll find that some of our most familiar sayings are more provocative than we at first believed.

Let this song play in the background while you read the post.

The Quest

I refer you to another post where I explore the meaning of “vanity” in Ecclesiastes. To summarize:

The Preacher undertakes a quest to discover what we can possibly get out of life (Eccl 1:3).
The answer is that all we can get out of life is vanity (Eccl 1:2).
He then illustrates what exactly he means by “vanity” with a series of images and propositions (Eccl 1:4-18). By vanity he refers to the unsatisfying, endless repetition of old things that nobody will remember; nothing you do will last, and at the end you die. And you can’t fix it.
In short, all we have to gain from life is a puzzling frustration. We simply cannot figure out what God is up to in our daily lives.

This context drives the argument of the book. We should expect the Preacher to show us why life is so frustrating.

The Educational Paradigm

But the end of the book also provides relevant context to help us understand the poem of chapter 3. In chapter 12, we’re told not only about the Preacher’s conclusion, but also about his instructional methods. How has he gone about making his case?

Besides being wise, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging many proverbs with great care. The Preacher sought to find words of delight, and uprightly he wrote words of truth. The words of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings; they are given by one Shepherd. (Eccl 12:9-11)

So the Preacher took great care in both studying his material and arranging it. He sought words of delight, not words of doom and gloom. And he wrote words of truth. But observe how he seeks to employ that truth: as goads and as nails.

As goads, his words are meant to poke us. To stimulate us to action. To provoke us, bother us, and disturb us.

As nails, his words are meant to stabilize us. To affix us to God’s reality. To ground us, establish us, and root us in something solid.

So how does this affect the way we ought to read chapter 3? With this poem, the Preacher seeks to draw us in and delight us. He does that so he can nail truth into our minds and disturb and shock us into action. He doesn’t want to lull us into a sense of placid sentimentality. He seeks to inject us with 1.21 gigawatts of electrifying truth so we might be shaken up and moved toward greater delight.

The context of the book’s beginning and the context of the book’s ending should both shape our reading of the text. But there is another context we ought to consider as well.

The Theological Ecosystem

The Preacher does not write his book in a historical or theological vacuum. He names himself “Son of David” (Eccl 1:1), which puts him squarely in the context of God’s covenant with the King of Israel. In this context, he’s constantly alluding back to what God has done for his people, and he hangs on to the hope of what God will yet do for his people.

For example, as the Preacher describes his first particular test—that of seeking gain from pleasure—he cannot do this without evoking images from Genesis (Eccl 2:1-8). Building things, planting things (Eccl 2:4). Gardens, parks, and fruit trees (Eccl 2:5). Pools of water to irrigate the trees (Eccl 2:6). Even silver, gold, and sexual delight (Eccl 2:8). These things hearken back to Eden and the state of affairs before the fall of humanity into sin. The Preacher is trying to reinvent Eden that he might somehow rediscover paradise on earth.

Later, the book will speak regularly of the king, the house of God, wisdom and righteousness, the land and the holy place. The argument all throughout is neither abstract nor broadly philosophical. It is closely connected to the covenantal context of Israel in relationship with her God.

So in chapter 3, we’re not presuming too much to expect more of the same.

The Text

Arriving finally at the text of chapter 3, and keeping all this context in mind, what do we see?

We see (Eccl 3:1) a time for every matter under heaven. These concepts of timing and “under heaven” (i.e. on earth) are reminiscent of God’s work in creation in Genesis 1.

Then we see a glorious poem of 14 lines (Eccl 3:2-8). Each line has a pair of opposites or contrasts. Born/die, plant/pluck, kill/heal, break/build, etc.

But looking even more closely, we ought to see that the 14 lines come in 7 pairs of 2 lines. Born/die fit together with plant/pluck (saying the same thing with respect to the animal world and the plant world). Kill/heal fits with break/build, relating the natural world to the manufactured world. It’s not hard to see how weep/laugh and mourn/dance fit together. And so on, all the way to the final couplet of love/hate and war/peace.

So what we’ve really got is 7 couplets describing contrasting pairs of related activities in various spheres of earthly existence. The beauty of the poetry and its structure shows us that the Preacher has in mind all of earthly existence. He’s covered every base in a sevenfold manner, echoing the seven days of creation. Here is all of created existence in both its glory and its agony.

But what is his point? Why is he giving us a poetically comprehensive picture of all of created existence? What does he mean that “there is a season” or “there is a time” for every one of these activities?

Following the poem comes his commentary (Eccl 3:9-15). He makes an observation (to poke us) before delivering two pieces of knowledge (to nail us to reality).

Eccl 3:9-11: An observation (“I have seen”): God has made everything beautiful in its time, and eternity in our hearts, so that we cannot find what God has done. Don’t let the poem lull you into sentimentality. Let it provoke you to realize that you have no idea whether love or hate, killing or healing, building or breaking lie in store for you today, tomorrow, or the next day.
Eccl 3:12-13: Fact #1 (“I perceived”): Nothing is better than to be joyful and do good.
Eccl 3:14-15: Fact #2 (“I perceived”): God has done it this way so people would fear him.

Conclusion

So when you read the poem, or hear the song, be careful not to deceive yourself. Don’t treat it like a food coma after Thanksgiving dinner, with contented lethargy and sentimental complacency taking over. Instead, treat it like a wild bull or a bucking bronco. You don’t know which way it will kick at you next, so you’d better remain fully alert. Not only love, peace, and embracing are part of this life, but also war, hatred, and rejection.

And if you are willing to allow the nails of truth to drive into you, meditate on the outrageous fact that God made the world to work this way. He did it with every intention. So that you might fear him.

The buckingest bronco of all is not this world in which you live, but the God you claim to worship. Therefore, let us find our greatest joy in him and do the good he commands of us.

Context matters.

The idea for this post came out of a few conversations with David Helm, Chairman of the Charles Simeon Trust. The best and most provocative ideas here came from him; any errors in developing them are my own.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

New and Old Garments

November 8, 2019 By Peter Krol

There are parts of the Bible I’ve read so many times that I’m prone to mistake familiarity with them for understanding of them. But once in a while, when I set my familiarity aside, I can take a look at what’s actually there. This happened to me recently in a study of Luke 5.

Image by Mabel Amber, still incognito… from Pixabay

At the end of the chapter, the Pharisees get upset with Jesus and his disciples for not fasting like either John or the Pharisees themselves. Part of Jesus’ response is a straightforward parable:

He also told them a parable: “No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment. If he does, he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old. (Luke 5:36)

The issue (the problem with my familiarity) is that I’ve spent years of my life studying Mark’s version of this story. This is the first time I’ve taken a close enough look at Luke’s account to realize that Luke is saying something quite different from Mark. Check out Mark’s version:

No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. (Mark 2:21)

And just for the sake of completeness, here is Matthew’s version:

No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made. (Matt 9:16)

Observe the Difference

Matthew and Mark are very similar. They talk about cutting an “unshrunk” garment to make a patch for an old garment. The problem is that the new patch will subsequently shrink and tear away from the torn garment, making the original tear far worse.

But Luke is using the same cast of characters to tell a completely different story. He speaks of ripping up a new garment to fix an old one. The problem here is twofold: 1) You’ve ruined a perfectly good (and new) garment, and 2) the fix won’t even match the original.

Why does this matter? What really is the difference between them?

Matthew and Mark are concerned with the damage to the old garment, while Luke is more concerned with the damage to the new garment.

Why Does This Matter?

The epiphany for me was simply to realize I was assuming Luke was telling the same parable as Mark. I needed a jolt to actually look at the text and observe the bare facts of Luke’s presentation. It is so easy to assume I know what a story says. And the unfortunate result of that assumption is that I stop looking!

As for how this affects interpretation: I’m not exactly sure yet, but perhaps you have some ideas. It’s surely related to the extra line Luke adds, which is not found in any other gospel: “And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, ‘The old is good.’ (Luke 5:39).” The problem here is that the new thing is damaged to the point of being perceived as undesirable in comparison to the old thing. And this is a little different from the way Matthew and Mark present the situation.

Perhaps you’re already more familiar with Luke’s version, and it’s difficult for you to see what Mark/Matthew has to say. Either way, it’s another example of the danger of hasty harmonization. Let’s make sure to grasp the particular point each author seeks to make, and not lump them together, presuming they’re communicating the same thing!

How an Overview of Luke Helps You to Grasp a Particular Passage

November 1, 2019 By Peter Krol

I proposed a few weeks ago that if you fail to grasp the big picture of a book of the Bible (in this case, Luke), you’re in danger of getting the pieces wrong. Let me now give an example.

Let’s say you’re ready to begin studying the Gospel of Luke, and you come to the first episode (after the prologue). How does the work you spent in overviewing the book help you?

Structure of Luke 1:5-25

After some careful observation of literary clues, you’ll see that the passage breaks clearly into sections based on the narration and dialogue:

Narrative setting – 5-7
Narrative introduction of conflict – 8-12
Angel speaks – 13-17
Zechariah responds – 18
Angel speaks – 19-20
Narrative climax and resolution – 21-23
Narrative new setting – 24-25

And as you look even more closely at the details, you’ll see that these sections are actually arranged concentrically (as a chiasm). Even the narrative sequence of events supports the structure (mention of Zechariah the priest, and the people praying in reverse order in 8-12 and 21-23).

Setting: An elderly couple’s reproach – 5-7
- Tension introduced: Priest chosen for incense duty – 8-9
  - Rising action: People outside praying – 10
    - Rising action: Angel appears with words from God – 11-17
      - Zechariah: “How will I know? I’m old!” – 18
    - Rising action: Angel decrees silence until word fulfilled – 19-20
  - Rising action: People waiting outside and wondering -21
- Climax/resolution: Priestly service ends in silence and signs – 22-23
New setting: The wife speaks of her reproach being taken away – 24-25

So the narrative conflict revolves around the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for this elderly, reproached priest to offer incense. How will he do? Will he prove faithful? Will his disgraced, childless status affect his ability to serve as priest in any way?

The word of God comes to him, but he does not believe (Luke 1:20)—not even when the most important, chief angel is the one to deliver the message. Whoops! So the passage hinges on Zechariah’s response in Luke 1:18.

The resolution of the tension is actually an anti-resolution: He emerges successful from his service of offering incense, but unable to speak. Since he will not listen to God’s words through the angel Gabriel, he will have no words of his own to speak.

Help from the Big Picture

So what are we to make of this? We could draw significant lessons simply from observing and interpreting the text itself. How does the book’s big picture help at all?

First, we must remember that Luke’s stated purpose to his primary audience (Theophilus) is “that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:4). Paul is on trial for his life, and Luke wants to give Theophilus all the facts of this Christian movement.

Then the very first scene of the book hinges on the question “How shall I know this?” (Luke 1:18). Luke opens his book with a man asking the very question Theophilus would have regarding Christianity and Paul’s defense.

Second, when we consider that the Jewish priests are the chief accusers of Paul (Acts 24:1-8), we realize it’s no accident that Luke opens his book with the story of a Jewish priest. A priest serving in the temple — the very place Paul was accused of having profaned (Acts 24:6). And that priest’s service in the temple doesn’t prevent him from being characterized by unbelief (Luke 1:20). It’s as though Luke wants Theophilus to see from the beginning that you can’t really trust what Jewish priests say. Even when they serve in the temple. Even when they get a message directly from God by the hand of the most famous angel.

Now, of course we see Zechariah come around by the end of his story, believing the promises of God (Luke 1:62-64, 67-79). But that doesn’t change the fact that he clearly does not believe God’s word at first. And this only highlights Luke’s purpose for his secondary audience — that the Jews might repent and believe.

The Main Point of Luke 1:5-25

So Gabriel says some remarkable things in Luke 1:13-17. And it’s all there for a purpose. But we should note that the prophecy about John, his role like Elijah, his presumed Nazirite lifestyle, and his effect on the hearts of his generation are all supportive of the main point. These things certainly make up part of the message we must believe. But if we come away from this passage armed with only the theology of John’s role in God’s plan, we have missed the main thing.

The main point is: How do we know? Can we really trust any of these reports? Can we trust an account about an encounter with a supernatural being?

Luke wants Theophilus, along with the rest of us, to know that we can have certainty regarding what we’ve heard about Christianity — just possibly not from a first century Jewish priest. And those who will not listen to the word from God will have nothing useful to say.

Application

Having seen Luke’s main idea, we’re ready to consider application.

We all tend to know what ails us. We are aware of the reproach and shame we feel.

And we can know God’s rescue plan. We can know God’s intentions to turn our hearts back to him. We can know joy and gladness once again, in the Lord’s plan of salvation.

But listening to the wrong voices (those with the greatest authority and the largest following in our culture) won’t get us any closer to the truth. Those who won’t listen to God’s plan for the world’s salvation will have nothing of value to say.

Therefore, we can trust God’s plan to rescue us from our worst ailment. This passage doesn’t say anything about Jesus yet, but it sets us up to be ready for him.

And we don’t need to fear the bluster of those who won’t believe. They may have all kinds of accusations against the faithful. But we can know that their accusations will fall to the ground. They will one day be silenced.

The Main Point of Luke’s Gospel

October 18, 2019 By Peter Krol

Would you like to study Luke’s gospel? Whether you do it for your own edification or to lead a group of friends or students, you must grasp the big picture. Fail to grasp the big picture, and you will get the pieces wrong.

Too often, we study the Bible like we’re United States Navy SEALs. We infiltrate the book via HALO—high altitude, low opening—jump (learn just enough about the book’s basic historical background). We parachute in to the landing zone (the chosen text) and conduct our mission to secure the asset (a nugget of truth or practical application). We then pursue extraction under cover of darkness and radio HQ with the “all clear” (bridging contexts from the ancient world to today).

And we do this week after week, chapter after chapter, without coming away with any real grasp on the argument made by the author, or his intentions for his original audience. Therefore, like Navy SEALs, we can accomplish a narrowly-defined mission. But we haven’t taken the time to assimilate to the culture we’re infiltrating. We don’t understand that foreign nation’s political process, class consciousness, economic aspirations, folk tales, or hopes and dreams for the future. We’re not able to represent the interests of this foreign land (in this case, the book of Luke) nor serve as competent ambassadors to our own (as we seek to apply this ancient text in our setting).

What’s at Stake

You’ve probably got some favorite or familiar passages from Luke. Maybe you’ve taught or preached them to various audiences.

The Christmas story
Simeon’s and Anna’s testimony regarding the infant Jesus
Jesus’ preaching of Isaiah in the synagogue at Nazareth
Simon’s great catch of fish
The good Samaritan
Martha serving while Mary sits at Jesus’ feet
Sending out the 70
Repent or perish
The prodigal son
The rich man and Lazarus
The disabled woman healed
The Last Supper
The crucifixion
The resurrection
Walking down the road to Emmaus
Explaining the Old Testament to the disciples

But can you confidently or competently explain what Luke meant by these episodes? Can you explain how they fit into his structure, or how they drive his main idea home? Can you identify why Luke cared enough to include these stories, or why Luke’s take on them differs from that of other gospel writers?

If the answer to any of those questions is “no,” how can you be certain you haven’t been using these stories the way a drunk uses a lamppost—more for support than for illumination? Can you be sure these words have been speaking to you, and you haven’t been dictating to them?

Rounding Up the Data

This is why I’ve spent many weeks overviewing this lengthiest of all New Testament books. That length can be daunting enough to dissuade us from a full-book overview and make us more comfortable to simply parachute in to a chapter here and a chapter there.

So here is where we’ve been so far in this overview:

Let me remind you of the train-of-thought outline I proposed for the book:

Christianity is on trial, and this orderly account will help you to be certain regarding what you’ve heard about the movement – 1:1-4
The Defendant’s Credentials – 1:5-4:13
1. The Salvation of God – 1-2
2. The Son of God – 3:1-4:13
The Defendant’s Fundamentals – 4:14-9:50
1. His Teaching – 4:14-6:49
2. His Offer of Salvation Through Faith – 7:1-8:56
3. His Followers – 9:1-50
The Defendant’s Goals – 9:51-19:27
1. Proclaiming His Kingdom – 9:51-10:37
2. Growing His Kingdom – 10:38-13:21
3. Numbering His Citizens – 13:22-17:10
4. Timing His Kingdom – 17:11-19:27
The Defendant’s Vindication – 19:28-24:53
1. Judaism is Guilty – 19:28-21:38
2. Jesus is Innocent – 22:1-23:56
3. Israel’s Salvation has Arrived – 24:1-53

Proposing a Main Point

All that work leads me to the following main point:

The hope of Israel, God’s plan of salvation for the world, has arrived in Jesus.

Now I’m not saying that I’ve found the perfect or the absolute best way to state Luke’s main point that couldn’t be improved upon. It’s still possible that I’ve missed something or could refine this further. This sentence simply represents an effort to pull together all the data and be as clear and succinct as possible.

But as far as I can tell from my study, this statement captures the essence of what Luke aims to communicate. It encapsulates the entire train of thought from the book’s structure. It takes account of both primary (Theophilus) and secondary audiences (children of Abraham). It fits with the very purposes we can reconstruct from Luke’s intentions.

As we now study any and every passage within the gospel, we should be able to see how that passage advances Luke’s agenda. Some passages will riff on the hope of Israel. Others will expound on that hope as God’s plan of salvation. Others will direct our attention to see this hope of Israel being not merely for Israel but for the world. And yet others will land on the person of Jesus being himself the arrival point for all these hopes.

But when we consider each passage’s placement in the structure of the argument, and how that placement serves the overall agenda—we’ll be in the best place possible to grasp the author’s intent in that passage. Let’s not read our favorite stories from Luke in a vacuum, as though they were dropped from heaven for our next Sunday school lesson.

Let’s make sure we’ll have no need to be ashamed, because we handle these words of truth rightly.

« Previous Page