Sample Bible Studies | Knowable Word

What Does “Meaningless / Vanity / Futility” Mean in Ecclesiastes?

June 6, 2019 By Peter Krol

Last week I summarized three remarkably divergent interpretive approaches to the book of Ecclesiastes. A few readers helpfully pointed out that the translation of the Hebrew word hebel in Eccl 1:2 (and throughout the book) can play a role in nudging readers toward one interpretive approach or another. This keen insight warrants further exploration.

Study the Word

Canvassing English translations produces three main options for translating hebel into English:

Vanity—ESV, LEB, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, KJV
Futility—CSB, NET
Meaningless—NIV, NLT

The Hebrew lexicon BDB suggests a primary translation of “vapour, breath,” with a figurative use of “vanity.”

And by looking up all uses of hebel in the Old Testament, we drum up the following variety of translations from the ESV alone (listed in order of frequency):

vanity
breath
idols
vain
worthless
false
nothing
empty
gained hastily
vapor

This is all well and good. But we quickly confront the limitations of a word study. These lists don’t help us to understand what the word means in Ecclesiastes. We won’t get at the message of the book by simply choosing our favorite option from the menu and running with it. We need more help.

Consider the Context

So we must look to the context for the clues we need. And there is good news! Ecclesiastes is written almost like a research paper, where the introduction introduces the problem and states the thesis.

Thesis (Eccl 1:2): “Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity.”
Problem (Eccl 1:3): “What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun?

So the problem under consideration is: What do we have to gain from our toil under the sun? In other words, what do we get out of life? What will we have to show for it at the end? What reward will there be to make all the pain worth it?

And the answer to the problem is: All that we have to gain is vanity. This much is clear, but it still begs the question: What does “vanity” (hebel) mean?

So the Preacher unpacks his concept of hebel for us with a brilliant panoply of illustration (Eccl 1:3-18).

The universe consists of endless repetition – Eccl 1:4-7
That repetition is deeply unsatisfying – Eccl 1:8
Nothing you do is novel; all new things are merely discoveries of old things that have always been there – Eccl 1:9-10
Nothing will be remembered – Eccl 1:11
Nothing is permanent; there will be nothing at the end to show for the effort – Eccl 1:14 (also suggested in Eccl 1:4)
Nothing you do can fix it – Eccl 1:15

Point #5 gets expanded later in the book as “I must leave it” (Eccl 2:18), or “All go to one place” (Eccl 3:20), or “Just as he came, so shall he go” (Eccl 5:16), or more directly, “The living know that they will die” (Eccl 9:5).

So we can construct a definition for hebel (“vanity”), according to its use in Ecclesiastes, as follows: “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.”* This is hebel. This is what you have to gain from all the toil at which you toil under the sun.

Return to the Word

So what does this mean for the best translation of the Hebrew word hebel? I’m not qualified to render a judgment on whether “vanity” or “futility” or “meaningless” is the best option. I frankly don’t care which of those English words we use when discussing the book (which is why I used a few of them interchangeably in my summary post).

But I can say that any interpretation of the book that doesn’t frontline the “unsatisfying, endless repetition of old things…” is not using hebel the way the Preacher used hebel. For him, hebel is not really about nihilism, cynicism, or purposelessness. It’s about the tedium, transience, impermanence, and dissatisfaction God built into the universe.

*Though I heard this eloquent definition of Ecclesiastic hebel in a sermon by my dear friend Warren Wright, I am certain even this is not new (Eccl 1:10).

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.

Three Approaches to Ecclesiastes

May 31, 2019 By Peter Krol

In my observation, Ecclesiastes is second only to Revelation in the number of competing interpretive approaches available to readers of the book. It offers a great case study in how perception can drastically affect both interpretation and application. This fact ought to motivate us to be as meticulous as possible in observing the text within its context.

I’ve found interpreters of Ecclesiastes to fall into three general categories, though there are subtle distinctions of flavor even within each category.

Approach #1: The Cynic

This first approach seems to be most common in the academy, where scholars conclude that the text of Ecclesiastes, by and large, is neither orthodox nor commendable.

A conservative proponent of this approach is Tremper Longman, who sees Ecclesiastes as having two voices. The most air time is given to the Cynic, as most of the book is an extended quote of his cynicism (Eccl 1:12-12:9). The outer frame (Eccl 1:1-11, 12:9-14), however, refers to “the Preacher” in third person; therefore it was composed by someone else, who is evaluating the Preacher’s message. This outer frame is the only place in the book where we find an orthodox, praiseworthy message.

Other flavors of this approach suggest that the frame narrator is just as cynical as the Preacher is, and therefore the message of the “frame” is just as suspect as the rest of the book.

In short, this approach typically sees the book as entirely (or almost entirely) negative and not to be commended as godly. It is in the Bible primarily to help us understand the worldview of a thoughtful unbeliever. And the best way to apply the book is to reject the counsel found within the book.

Approach #2: The Hedonist

The second approach, which in my observation is most common among pastors, says the book of Ecclesiastes is to be commended and held up as a model for the wise life. Some proponents of this approach are Zack Eswine and Douglas Wilson.

Now the first approach often sees in Ecclesiastes a hedonism, albeit an ungodly hedonism: “Life is meaningless, so let’s just live it up while we can.” The hedonism of the second approach is a commendable, godly hedonism: “Life is meaningless in itself, but God miraculously blesses us with the ability to enjoy it anyway.”

In other words, Ecclesiastes presents both a dark side and a light side to life. The dark side is the vanity of life “under the sun” (which is all human existence); the light side is the supernatural gift of joy from God, despite the ubiquitous vanity. God has created a world with no meaning inherent within it; yet he also blesses his people with an irrational joy in the midst of that vanity.

In short, this approach typically sees the book as entirely (or almost entirely) positive and to be commended for imitation. It is in the Bible to help God’s people learn how to derive joy from the Lord even when the vanity of life may war against such joy. And the best way to apply the book is to recognize both the vanity of life on earth and the gift of joy from God.

Approach #3: The Apologist

The third approach, which in my observation is most common among evangelists and engagers of culture, says the book of Ecclesiastes is to be commended as a model of how to expose a false worldview and replace it with the truth. Some proponents of this approach are Sinclair Ferguson and Leland Ryken.

Some, such as Ryken, see in Ecclesiastes two competing voices, which alternate, almost in dialogue. There is the voice of the unbeliever, for whom life under the sun is meaningless and hopeless. And there is the voice of the believer, who expresses the joy of seeing the God who superintends everything from beyond the sun.

In this approach, the phrase “under the sun” tends to refer not to human existence universally (as in the Hedonist approach), but to the human existence of the unbeliever. Believers, therefore, can be freed from an “under the sun” perspective and have it replaced with an “eternal” perspective.

In short, this approach typically sees the book as roughly half true and half false. It is in the Bible to help God’s people relate to those whose only perception is “under the sun,” and to win such folks to a more truthful and satisfying outlook on life. The best way to apply the book is to help people grapple with the despair of materialism and naturalism, and to win them to a God’s-eye view of the heavens and the earth.

Conclusion

You can see that these three approaches produce markedly different results when it comes time to interpret a particular text within the book of Ecclesiastes. And with such divergent interpretation, application is bound to be light years apart.

For example, consider Eccl 10:19: “Bread is made for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answers everything.”

The Cynic might tell you that the only way to cope with reality is through food, pleasure, and financial gain. But God wants you to reject this outlook.
The Hedonist might tell you that bread, wine, and money may come and go, but, whether they come or go, only God’s children can receive the gift of enjoying such created commodities. So use them while you can, to the glory and enjoyment of God, and remain aware of how the world works.
The Apologist might tell you that the laughter, gladness, and success of food, alcohol, or money is fleeting. So let go of those things to find life in the unceasing satisfaction of trusting and obeying the only wise God.

Just picture the dramatic small group meeting, where all three approaches are represented in the discussion!

Charge

Now I charge you, as those approved by God to handle his word rightly: Don’t choose your approach according to which one feels best to you. And don’t simply stick with the approach you’ve traditionally heard in your circles.

Please allow this analysis to jolt you from your inertia, to expose the fault lines in your presumption, and to blast your familiarity—and thus free you to dive back into the text to observe it meticulously. Which approach (whether one of these three, or something else) does it seem the original author most likely intended when he wrote the book?

Disclaimer: While the Cynic may believe disclaimers to be a waste of time, the Hedonist is asking God for joy through the vanity, and the Apologist wishes to persuade me to drop the meager pleasure of affiliate relationships: I remain under obligation to tell you that Amazon links in this post will provide a fleeting satisfaction to this blog under the sun, if you have the courage to click them and make a purchase.

And thanks to my delightful colleague Andy Cimbala for the idea for this meaningless post.

Context Matters: He Who Began a Good Work in You

May 24, 2019 By Peter Krol

Perhaps you’ve heard that the one who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ (Phil 1:6). Perhaps this promise has encouraged you to press on in the Christian life, maturing and becoming more like Jesus day by day. And while this could certainly be part of Paul’s intended meaning in this verse, perhaps there is something more in the context we tend to miss.

Context matters. When we learn to read the Bible properly—and not merely as a collection of quotable quotes or personal promises—we’ll find that some of our most familiar sayings have more to say than we typically assume.

Personal Sanctification

The popular usage of this verse—to refer to an individual’s sanctification between now and the day of judgment—can certainly be supported from the context.

Paul follows up the promise in verse 6 with a defense of how he feels toward the Philippians (Phil 1:7). He then prays for their love to abound, with knowledge and all discernment (Phil 1:9). He wants them to approve what is excellent (Phil 1:10a). And he wants them to be pure and blameless for the day of Christ (Phil 1:10b), filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ (Phil 1:11).

So with the repetition of “day of (Jesus) Christ,” the explanation of his affection, and the clarification of each person’s purity and righteousness—the popular use of this verse to refer to individual sanctification fits. So much, so good.

Communal Partnership

But look at what else we find in the surrounding context.

“I thank my God in all my remembrance of you…because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now.”
Phil 1:3-5

The sentence immediately preceding the promise of verse 6 is Paul’s expression of prayerful thanks for the Philippians’ financial partnership in his gospel ministry. Paul will return to this thanksgiving in chapter 4. In fact, he likely asks them to stop giving, since he knows they can’t really afford it (“Not that I seek the gift itself…” Phil 4:17).

In short, we see that the letter of Philippians is, at its heart, a thank-you letter from a missionary to members of his support team. And in that light, it is altogether possible that when Paul wrote of the “good work,” begun “in you,” and “brought to completion at the day of Christ,” he was speaking of this gospel partnership. God’s good work among you, Philippians, includes this outrageous generosity, which has borne much fruit in Paul’s labors around the world.

And it will be brought to completion when the final harvest is reaped on the last day, when Jesus returns to judge. The gospel will go forth, and the good work of God will be completed when the redeemed have been gathered in.

We Don’t Have to Pick One

I don’t think we can or should nail down exactly one thing that Paul meant by the “good work.” He certainly has their financial partnership in mind. But then he also immediately moves into their personal sanctification (of which their financial partnership is but one expression).

So I’m not arguing that Phil 1:6 is not about personal sanctification. I only want to add that, when we see how their communal partnership is also in view, we see personal sanctification tangibly demonstrated in the community. In this way, Phil 1:6 is similar to 3 John 8, which describes financial support of missionaries in partnership language, and as an expression of walking in the truth (3 John 4).

Context matters.

Thanks to my colleague Dave Royes for the idea for this post.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

How to Understand the Context of the Proverbs

May 17, 2019 By Peter Krol

Context really matters. But it matters in different ways for different genres of literature. I showed last week how the poetry of the psalms sits within the context of the public and private worship of Israel. This week, I’d like to show how the poetry of the proverbs sits within the context of Israel’s wisdom tradition.

Try Memorizing Proverbs

I once tried to memorize portions of the book of Proverbs. It was smooth sailing, as long as I was working within the first 9 chapters. But it was agonizing to try memorizing sizable passages from chapters 10 or 11 (and following). The agony mainly derived from the lack of coherent thought from verse to verse!

Chapters 30 and 31 aren’t so bad, but chapters 10 to 29 of Proverbs contain such a jumble of topics that it can be difficult to study them or even read them. They were simply meant for slow, meditative digestion. Sometimes, there may be a coherent subject matter for a few successive verses (for example, laziness in Prov 26:13-16 or gossip in Prov 26:20-28). But most of the time, you never know what will come next. Ecclesiastes 9:17-11:6 works the same way, presenting an assortment of proverbs for reflection.

Now we can only conjecture why God decided to deliver this wisdom to humanity in this way. We can’t know for sure why this is, but I respect the theory I heard from a seminary professor: that real life works this way (constantly jumping from topic to topic, and task to task); therefore, the wisdom of Proverbs mirrors our experience of daily life.

Potential Misuse of the Proverbs

This lack of coherent argumentation creates a potential pitfall, into which hordes of aspiring gurus delight to hurl themselves: exploiting Proverbs for practical purposes. There are many books out there on how Proverbs can help you to run a business, optimize your life, or thrive as a family. Here is just one example. (To be clear: I’m not recommending this book. I just put an affiliate link there in case I can plunder someone’s drive for success, wealth, and happiness to help support this blog).

The problem is that we can then use the Proverbs to support our personal dreams or preferred lifestyle. So Prov 18:13 becomes a habit of a highly effective person. And Prov 29:18, KJV provides a strategic planning process.

The Context of the Proverbs

So what is the context for the proverbs? In what light ought we to interpret these sound bites and wise sayings?

Proverbs 9:1 tells us that “wisdom has built her house; she has hewn her seven pillars.” In light of the structure of the book as a whole, I believe this “house” refers to the first 9 chapters. I’ll simply assert the point now, as I’ve already dedicated more space elsewhere to defend it.

Solomon labors to lay a foundation in those first 9 chapters. He defines wisdom, he explains how to become wise, and he clears out the obstacles that will hinder wisdom. He spreads the feast of wisdom clearly and repeatedly within the dining hall of “the fear of the Lord.” He illustrates why there can be no wisdom apart from both a humble reception of God’s truth and a passionate imitation of God’s character.

So he builds that house. He constructs the pillars and the framework. Then he invites us to tuck into the feast laid out in the book’s remaining chapters.

Conclusion

The point is this: The context of every proverb (the sayings found in chapters 10-31) is the worldview constructed in Proverbs 1-9. If we attempt to apply a particular proverb to any part of life, and we don’t begin with the fear of the Lord and overcome the obstacles of easy money and easy sex, we are misusing that proverb. We are disregarding the context and working in opposition to the intentions of the Holy Spirit who inspired the proverb.

So we typically won’t access the context of a proverb by looking at the verses right before and after it. Instead, we must become familiar with the worldview constructed in the first 9 chapters of the book. Check out my series on Proverbs 1-9 for an analysis of this worldview.

How to Understand the Context of the Psalms

May 10, 2019 By Peter Krol

We’ve given a long list of examples to show how critical literary context is for interpreting Bible verses. Many of our favorite and most-quoted verses either find greater nuance or challenge our presumption when we read them in the context of the argument or story in which they reside.

But different kinds of literature work in different ways. And “context” does not always work in exactly the same way.

Take, for example, the Psalms. While each psalm is a self-contained poem that ought to be read in its own right—and not twisted to say whatever we want it to say—”context” in the psalms is more fluid than in other books of the Bible. The poetic/literary context may help us to avoid clear misinterpretation. But there is another equally important context for these poems: Israel’s life of worship and personal devotion. Similar to how we might quote a line of a favorite hymn without deep analysis of the statement’s context, we might find ourselves using Psalm verses in the same devotional manner.

For example, before I can quote or sing, “hither by Thy help I come,” must I first understand what an “Ebenezer” is (Come Thou Fount, verse 2)? For another example, I can find encouragement that “I once was lost but now am found” without having to explain in detail that this amazing grace is a sweet-sounding doctrine that saves wretches like me.

Why can I say this about the Psalms? Where does this idea come from?

From looking at how the Psalms were actually used in ancient Israel. If we look at Old Testament examples of people referencing the Psalms, they rarely quote an entire psalm. Instead, they mash together a pile of quotes from a variety of psalms. This mash of verses becomes a newly sung or prayed poem in its own right.

Example #1: Relocating the Ark

When King David moves the ark of the covenant back to Jerusalem and sets it inside his new tent, a celebration erupts, rife with harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets, and singing (1 Chr 16:1-7). And the song they sing that day is recorded for us:

1 Chr 16:8-22 largely matches Psalm 105:1-15 (only the first third of the psalm).
1 Chr 16:23-33 has been modified from Psalm 96:1-13 (most of the psalm, but with a few lines omitted).
1 Chr 16:34 concludes with a common introductory refrain from many psalms (Ps 106:1, 107:1, 118:1, 118:29, 136:1 ).
1 Chr 16:35-36 presents a second, responsive song, consists of a modification of Ps 106:47-48.

So here, in a concrete example of Israel’s worship, we see selections from at least 3 psalms mashed together with a refrain found in four other psalms. They did not need to clarify, to take one example, the context of Psalm 105 or 106 (the ups and downs of Israel’s history) in order to sing the “praise verses” from those psalms as part of the medley.

Example #2: Praying in the Fish’s Belly

We have a more rapid-fire example of selecting an assortment of verses and mashing them together in Jonah 2. This example also shows us not the corporate worship of the assembled people, but the private worship of a man crying out to his God.

Jonah 2:2 = Ps 120:1, Lam 3:55-56
Jonah 2:3 = Ps 88:6-7, 42:7
Jonah 2:4 = Ps 31:22
Jonah 2:5 = Lam 3:54, Ps 69:1, 18:4-5
Jonah 2:6 = Ps 116:3, 9:13, 30:3
Jonah 2:7 = Ps 142:3, 143:5, 18:6, 88:2, 11:4
Jonah 2:8 = Ps 31:6
Jonah 2:9 = Ps 50:14, 26:7, 22:25, 116:14, 116:18, 3:8

Now you’ll notice that the lines from Jonah are not typically exact quotes of the related psalm verses. But it should be easy to see how those verses from many psalms have shaped Jonah’s prayer. He’s taken all the verses about watery judgment, earthen graves, and rising up to call upon the Lord, and he’s compiled them to make the prayers of many psalmists his own.

Conclusion

While we are never justified in using a psalm verse in a manner contrary to its meaning in the context and flow of the poem, it is clear that we can and should draw on verse selections, or compilations of verse selections, to inform both our corporate and personal worship. We do not violate the principle of “context” if we take a selection of verses with a common metaphor and combine them into a new poem.

Context Matters: I Never Knew You; Depart From Me

April 26, 2019 By Peter Krol

Perhaps you’ve heard that not everyone who calls Jesus “Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt 7:21). And that Jesus will blindside such folks on the last day when he claims not to have known them, and he commands them to depart from him (Matt 7:23). Have you ever feared finding yourself among that number of woefully deluded souls?

Context matters. When we learn to read the Bible properly—and not merely as a collection of isolated quotes or arbitrary threats—we’ll find that some of our most familiar sayings have more nuance or qualification than we typically assume.

The Text

The warning Jesus issues near the end of his Sermon on the Mount is, in fact, rather sobering. Anyone unmoved by it ought to be the first to fear:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ ” (Matt 7:21-23)

It is clear that calling Jesus “Lord” is not enough, on its own, to gain a person entry into the kingdom of heaven. Neither is speaking prophesy, nor casting out demons, nor doing mighty works in the name of Jesus.

And these facts ought not surprise anyone who has read the Bible.

Balaam spoke true prophecy from the Lord (Num 23-24), but did not end well (Num 31:8, 16).
Saul had his demons cast out (1 Sam 16:23). Judas Iscariot, along with the other 11 disciples, was authorized to cast demons out (Mark 3:14-19).
Solomon did mighty works of wisdom (1 Kgs 3:16-28) and temple construction (1 Kgs 6:1, 7:51). Yet he did not stay the course (1 Kgs 11). (Though it’s possible that Ecclesiastes represents Solomon’s repentance in old age.) We could also cite Jonah, Joab, King Uzziah, Demas, and Judas Iscariot as examples of those who did “mighty works” but arguably may not have entered the kingdom of heaven.
Of course, Judas is our chief example of one who called Jesus “Lord” without membership in the kingdom.

So the warning is real, and particular examples can be given. But what does the warning mean, and who exactly should tremble at it?

Preceding Context

In the preceding paragraph, Jesus sets an expectation that his community, his kingdom on earth, will consist of a number of wolves dressed up like sheep. These are what he calls the “false prophets” (Matt 7:15).

Jesus says two times that “you will recognize them by their fruits” (Matt 7:16, 20). The nature of the fruit matches the nature of the tree. Good fruit comes from good trees. Grapes come from vines. Thorns come from thorn bushes. You can’t pick up a fig and conclude it came from a thistle.

And the trees that fail to bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire (Matt 7:19). This is exactly what John said when describing the coming judgment (Matt 3:10b).

So the argument goes like this: The new community of Jesus will have false prophets within it. You will recognize them by their fruits, which prove what sort of tree the person is. And the unfruitful tree will be burned.

This paragraph demands a “so what” question: So what kind of fruit signals that one presenting as a sheep is in fact a wolf? What exactly is the fruit of a false prophet?

A Preliminary Answer

Matt 7:21-23 begins to answer that question by explaining what we are not looking for. Jesus thereby flips the question around. Instead of defining the fruit of a false prophet, he first defines what is not the fruit of a true sheep:

Calling Jesus “Lord”
Speaking prophecy in Jesus’ name
Casting out demons in Jesus’ name
Doing mighty works in Jesus’ name

Such fruit does not guarantee that the apparent sheep is an actual sheep. There could still be a wolf lurking underneath the wool dressing gown. They are called “false prophets” for a reason!

A Fuller Answer in the Subsequent Context

So we look to the next (and final) paragraph of the Sermon to get the answer we’ve been looking for.

“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock… And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.” (Matt 7:24, 26)

Here is now something observable. Does the person not only hear Jesus’ words, but do them? This is the mark of a true sheep. Does the person only hear his words but not do them? This is the mark of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

And the “doing” he refers to cannot be the “doing” of theatrical rituals, such as naming Jesus’ name, speaking prophecy, or casting out demons. The “doing” almost certainly refers back to everything Jesus has covered in this Sermon.

Being poor in spirit, meek, peacemaking, etc. (Matt 5:2-16). Honoring God’s law from the heart and not merely outwardly (Matt 5:17-48). Avoiding ostentation in the practice of piety (Matt 6:1-18). Seeking the kingdom instead of money and possessions (Matt 6:19-34). Living generously and graciously in community (Matt 7:1-12).

These are the folks, the true sheep, who “enter by the narrow gate,” which is hard but leads to life (Matt 7:13-14).

And they know how to recognize the “many” who try entering through the wide gate that leads to destruction. The fruit of the false prophets is the outward exercise of religion divorced from the personal and private transformation of the heart to love God and love his people.

Conclusion

If this warning from Jesus doesn’t cause you to tremble, you are most likely in danger from it. Please re-examine whether your religion is any deeper than outward conformity to a set of public practices. If your life doesn’t change when you hear this word of Christ, yours will be a pitiable case on the day of judgment.

But if your heart quails at the thought of ever missing your Lord Jesus and his kingdom, you’re probably already well on your way down that narrow road toward eternal life (Matt 5:3-6).

Context matters.

Thanks to Bonnie S for the idea for this post.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

Context Matters: God Won’t Give You More Than You Can Handle

March 22, 2019 By Peter Krol

Perhaps you’ve heard that God will never give you more than you can handle. That, when life turns against you and sin bares its fangs, you can get through it with enough courage and persevering faith.

Context matters. When we learn to read the Bible properly—and not merely as a collection of quotable quotes or inspirational sayings—we’ll find that some of our most familiar sayings aren’t actually in the Bible.

Biblical Context

First, we should deal with the fact that the larger biblical witness clearly contradicts the statement that “God won’t give you more than you can handle.”

Just ask Job, whose vexation at his condition was heavier than the sand of the sea (Job 6:2-3). He would prefer to be crushed than to have to handle his situation any longer (Job 6:8-9). He loathed his own life (Job 7:16) and wished God would lay off him long enough that he could swallow his spit (Job 7:19). And these things all come from only one of his speeches!

Just ask the psalmist (perhaps David), who also asks God to look away from him so he can smile again (Ps 39:13).

Just ask Jonah, who was so completely unable to handle what God gave him that he figuratively died from it (Jon 2:1-3), and later wished he could literally die (Jon 4:8-9).

The consistent biblical witness is that: God gives people more than they can handle so they will learn to trust that only he can handle it. The common aphorism that “God won’t give you more than you can handle” is triumphalistic nonsense that fails to account for the common human need for lament through deep suffering.

Lauren Macdonald (2014), Creative Commons

Literary Context

The phrase “God won’t give you more than you can handle” won’t show up in a Bible keyword search. Just try it. This mistaken sentiment typically arises from a superficial reading of 1 Cor 10:13, which warrants a closer look.

“No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” (1 Cor 10:13)

This glorious verse sets up Paul’s chief command in this passage: “Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry” (1 Cor 10:14). How did he get here?

In this section of the letter (beginning with 1 Cor 7:1), Paul answers a number of questions the Corinthians had asked him in a letter. In 1 Cor 8:1, he takes up the question of what to do with food sacrificed to idols—a major source of meat in the Corinthian market.

In chapter 8, he gives a preliminary answer that knowledge is important and helpful: There is only one God; therefore eating meat that was sacrificed to a non-existing entity doesn’t really matter. However, what’s even more important than true knowledge about the spiritual realm is love for other believers. If eating this meat might tempt someone back into worship of those idols, don’t do it. Therefore, we can restrict our liberty (due to mature knowledge) at times to serve others.

In chapter 9, Paul uses himself as a positive example. He restricts his liberty, his right, to get paid as a minister. He does this out of love, so he can preach the gospel to more people.

Then in chapter 10, Paul uses Israel’s wilderness generation as a negative example. They took their privileges and liberties for granted. As a result, they fell into idolatry and immorality, and God removed their right to life.

Paul’s point is simply: Liberty + selfishness = idolatry and death. But liberty + love = greater gospel impact on people’s lives.

In this context, he states that “no temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man.” In other words, don’t look down on the characters of Scripture as boneheads. You’re no different than they! You think you can eat meat sacrificed to an idol and not get sucked back into idolatry? You think you’re beyond this? You should remember you have the same inclination toward pride and self-trust as the ancient Israelites. And that temptation will lead nowhere good.

“God…will not let you be tempted beyond your ability.” He doesn’t say he won’t give you more than you can handle. He says that whatever temptation you face will always have an escape. The rock that is Christ still follows you through your wilderness, pronouncing blessing and spewing life. When you can’t handle your circumstances, don’t forget that he can.

Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

Context matters.

Thanks to Andrew J for the idea for this post.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

Context Matters: This is the Day the Lord has Made

March 15, 2019 By Peter Krol

Perhaps you’ve heard that this is the day the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it (Ps 118:24)! But what makes today any more joyful than another day? And has God not made all the other days?

Context matters. When we learn to read the Bible properly—and not simply as fodder for tired slogans—we’ll find that some of our most familiar verses have a surprising power to change our lives.

State Library of South Australia, Creative Commons

Analysis of the Psalm

I’ve written before on Psalm 118, where I analyzed the poem’s structure and flow of thought. I won’t repeat that material here, but will assume it and move directly to the verse in question.

Processional

Psalm 118:19 begins the victory parade for the returning, victorious king. He starts at the gates of Jerusalem (Ps 118:19), gathers a crowd (Ps 119:20), moves up toward the temple (Ps 118:26), and ends up inside the temple complex at the altar for burnt offering (Ps 118:27b).

It is during this homecoming parade—right where the celebration moves from the lips of the king (the singular “I” and “my” in Ps 118:19-21) to the responsive cries of the people (the plural “us” and “our” in Ps 118:23-27)—that the people proclaim God’s great joke. Their king, who had been rejected by the warring nations surrounding him (Ps 118:10-13), now takes his rightful place as the cornerstone of God’s world-building project.

“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. This is Yahweh’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes” (Ps 118:22-23)

It is at this moment that they beg God to save them (Ps 118:25) and offer a sacrifice to take their place (Ps 118:27).

This day—the day of salvation, the day of praise and thanksgiving for rescuing them through their rejected king, the day of lavish feasting—is the day Yahweh made (Ps 118:24). They have much reason to rejoice and be glad, for their God has had the last laugh against their enemies.

Another Such Day Comes

Yet another such day would come. The Jews sang Psalm 118 annually at the feast of the Passover, which explains why it was on their minds when Jesus rode through the gates of Jerusalem like a returning king (Matt 21:9). This also explains why this psalm was on Jesus’ mind when he went to inspect the temple (Mark 11:10-12).

There was a feast on, but these people couldn’t even recognize the one they were supposedly celebrating (Mark 14:1-2).

King Jesus rides through the gates and up to the temple, but he receives no blessing. He never binds the festal sacrifice to the horns of the altar (Ps 118:27); instead he reinterprets the sacrifice around himself and what he’s about to do (Luke 22:14-20). Then he becomes the sacrifice himself.

And this king is not rejected by the surrounding nations. He is rejected by his own people (Matt 26:63-66, John 1:11). And in this way salvation comes to the world (John 3:17, Rom 11:11-12).

“Save us, we pray, O Yahweh! O Yahweh, we pray, give us success!” (Ps 118:25).

Now this is something worth celebrating. This is the day the Lord has made. This is a day that can change your life. Let us rejoice and be glad in it.

Context matters.

Thanks to Elizabeth H for the idea for this post.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

Context Matters: I Can Do All Things Through Him Who Strengthens Me

March 8, 2019 By Peter Krol

Perhaps you’ve seen the face paint or placard at an athletic event: “I can do all things through him who strengthens me.” Sometimes the mere reference “Phil 4:13” is enough to inspire. Perhaps you’ve drawn on this verse to motivate your best efforts and deep confidence. But is that what Paul had in mind when he wrote it?

Context matters. When we learn to read the Bible properly—and not merely as a collection of proof-texts for personal inspiration—we’ll find that some of our most familiar verses speak to situations we hadn’t considered.

Encouraging Quotes (2016), Creative Commons

What are the “All Things”?

Phil 4:13 ends a paragraph where Paul expresses joy at how concerned the Philippian church has been for him. And their “concern” was expressed through financial support of his ministry (Phil 4:15-16, 18).

Paul rejoices at their concern for him, but he wants to make sure they know that he is not in grave need (Phil 4:11). His need is not great because he has learned to be content in whatever situation he finds himself. He knows how be brought low, and he knows how to abound. He can handle plenty and abundance. He can handle hunger and need (Phil 4:12).

In other words, in all circumstances, he has learned how to be content with his lot, and to make it last as long as it must. How can he do this?

Because the one who strengthens him enables him to do it. He can survive any and every situation without panicking or being anxious. So these are the “all things” he can do: plenty and hunger, abundance and need. He can do (live with) them all, for whatever he has is just enough.

Why Does Paul Say This?

We know from the historical context that the Philippian Christians were not wealthy people themselves. Their generous contributions to Paul were given as a test of affliction, despite their extreme poverty (2 Cor 8:1-2). Though they have expressed their “concern” for Paul by giving generously, Paul has his own concern: that they may have given even beyond their means (2 Cor 8:3). This gives him a great opportunity to spur on the wealthier Corinthians to greater generosity. But it leaves him in a tough spot with the Philippians.

Is it really in their best interests to continue giving to him when they have greater need than he does?

So it’s likely that one of Paul’s motives for writing to the Philippians was to ask them to stop giving! He makes his request in quite a roundabout way, so as not to communicate any lack of gratitude.

“It was kind of you to share in my trouble” (Phil 4:14).
No church partnered with me financially except you (Phil 4:15).
You gave time and again during my time in Thessalonica (Phil 4:16).
I don’t want your money, though I am so grateful for the fruit it has borne, which is to your credit (Phil 4:17).
I’ve received it all. I’ve received enough, and more. I am well supplied already (Phil 4:18).
My God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in Christ Jesus (Phil 4:19). In other words, may God continue to grant you exceptional contentment in all circumstances.

Conclusion

Paul wants the Philippians to know that, while he is tremendously grateful for their donations, he does not need them to keep giving for him to continue in ministry. In case they fear he’ll go bankrupt without them, he wants them to know that the Lord Jesus strengthens him to endure both plenty and need, making the most of his available resources.

Context matters.

Thanks to Alison and Daniel for the idea for this post.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

Context Matters: Forgetting What Lies Behind

March 1, 2019 By Peter Krol

Perhaps you’ve heard that you ought not dwell too much on the past. Especially your regrets, failures, or inadequacies. Or maybe you’ve been to a business seminar, inspiring you to keep the past in the past and press on toward a glorious vision of the company’s future. At such times, especially if it was a Christian business conference, you may have heard reference to Phil 3:13: “…forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead…” Now are these things really what Paul had in mind?

Context matters. When we learn to read the Bible properly—and not merely as a collection of sound bites or independent proverbial sayings—we’ll find that some of our most familiar verses mean something other than what we may have assumed.

The Statement

Believe it or not, the phrase in question is part of a complete sentence:

“But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.” (Phil 3:13b-14)

Paul states that he does one thing. And this one thing has three parts.

Forgetting what lies behind
Straining forward to what lies ahead
Pressing on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

The first two parts set up the third part. So the “one thing” is really just the third part. The first two parts are the prerequisites for the third part.

So what Paul is after is to press on toward the goal, which is the prize of God’s upward call in Christ Jesus. Now what does that mean?

Haakon von Martinsky (2014), Creative Commons

Work Backwards

The sentence immediately before this is: “Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own” (Phil 3:13a). A critical interpretive question we ought to ask is: “What is ‘it’?” What is the thing Paul has not yet made his own?

Going back one more sentence, we see: “Not that I have already obtained this…but I press on to make it my own…” (Phil 3:12). So here we see Paul pressing on for something—a good sign that it’s the same thing as “the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.” But we still don’t know what “it” is. What is the thing Paul wants to make his own, which he has not yet obtained?

Going back one more sentence, we hit a very long sentence, which ends like this:

“…that I may know him and the power of his resurrection…that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead” (Phil 3:10-11).

Now we’re getting somewhere! So the thing Paul presses on toward, that he wants to attain, is the resurrection of the dead. So it makes sense that he would later call this “the upward call.” Just as God called his Son Jesus Christ up from the grave to new life, so he calls Paul to new life, to resurrection from the dead.

Now how does this affect the way we read the phrase “forgetting what lies behind”?

The Things Paul Left Behind

We must go back a little further into the context to see what exactly Paul has left behind. What has made up his “life,” according to which he must “die” (Phil 3:10), so he might attain to resurrection?

In verse 3, Paul claims to be part of “the circumcision,” which is defined as those “who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh.” This is in contrast to the dogs and evildoers who “mutilate the flesh” (Phil 3:2). So circumcision is not about mutilating flesh—about cutting off a foreskin—but about putting no confidence in the flesh.

Paul has much reason for confidence in the flesh (Phil 3:4-6). Circumcised on the eighth day, an Israelite from the tribe of Benjamin, a superb Hebrew, a meticulous keeper of the Law, a zealous persecutor of “false” religions, a blameless adherent to the righteousness of the law.

“But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him” (Phil 3:7-9).

So all that important stuff that made up Paul’s pedigree—all the things in which he had taken pride—are now considered but manure scrapings stuck to his sandals. He was happy to lose it all for the sake of Christ. He has suffered the loss of these things so he might have new life in Christ. He has thereby shared in Christ’s sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that he might attain the resurrection from the dead (Phil 3:10-11).

Conclusion

So that which lies behind Paul, which he is committed to “forget,” is all the great stuff on his spiritual CV that formerly shaped his identity. It was all his accomplishments, his law-keeping, his zeal for God, and his righteousness. He sets all these things aside so he might obtain new life, resurrection, through knowing Jesus and becoming like him.

So this verse is not about forgetting your failures or regrets. (In fact, it’s often important to remember these things to highlight God’s grace at work in you – Eph 2:1-4, 11-13.) And it’s not about casting vision for the future. It’s about repenting of your self-reliance, and coming to realize you have absolutely nothing to offer to make you right with God. Even your obedience to God and your ministry in service to him—such things ought never be your confidence.

“Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you” (Phil 3:15).

Context matters.

Thanks to Josh T for the idea for this post, and for showing me the flow of Paul’s argument in Philippians 3.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.