Method | Knowable Word

Do What You Wish Your Theological Opponents Would Do

May 20, 2022 By Peter Krol

My sixth commandment for commentary usage is:

You shall hold your conclusions (and your theological tradition) loosely enough to allow commentaries to compel you back into the text to discover the biblical author’s intentions for his original audience.

Please understand that I am not opposed to theological traditions. I do not believe it is possible to escape all tradition and construct a perfectly objective theology from scratch. Nor do I think it would be desirable to do so if we could. Theological tradition holds great value as a safeguard and alignment across localities and generations, in defiance of the shifting winds of the world. Theological tradition rooted in faithful handling of the scripture is to be celebrated and encouraged.

As long as we are careful not to replace the scripture in the tug of war with those traditions.

The Problem

The problem is that almost nobody believes they are doing this. Most people with a dearly-held set of theological convictions believe they have derived those convictions from the scripture. Consequently, they believe their theological opponents are the ones who have replaced the scripture with their traditions. And I am not pointing my finger at you, dear reader, but at myself, as I am just as guilty of such presumption toward my detractors as anybody.

I’m sure there are some people in the world who do this—replace the scripture with their tradition—intentionally. It is not to them that I write, for they are outside the pale of biblical Christianity. Anyone who claims to follow the Jesus of the Bible must love and revere the Bible the way he did and not willingly set it aside in favor of manmade religion, however enlightened or modernized that religion may claim to be.

But the chief problem I address is with those inside the pale of biblical Christianity. Those who want to follow Jesus and not their own hearts. Those who honor the Bible as containing the very words of God, to be believed and put into practice. Because too often, in the name of Jesus and the Bible, they willingly impair their vision of Jesus and the Bible with the sunglasses of their theological tradition. And so the tradition becomes primary, and the scripture itself becomes secondary.

An Example

To give only one example, consider the following scriptures:

John 6:44: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
1 Tim 2:3-4: “This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

We can tie ourselves in knots trying to reconcile these two verses. But when doing so, many first presume that one of the verses is a universal truth about the character of God, and the other is a particularized truth for a given context. But which one is universal and which one is particular depends on your tradition. Is he an irresistable-drawing God with particular salvation-desires, or is he a salvation-desiring God with particular-drawing behaviors?

But what if we could rest ourselves content in uncovering, in all its fullness, what Paul meant by the second statement in its context, and what Jesus (or more precisely, John recording Jesus) meant by the first statement in its context? Would you be willing to stand on both truths, unfiltered by tradition and unadjusted by preconception? And if your tradition didn’t have a clear place for both truths to coexist, such that one had to be given primacy over the other, would you be willing to allow the scripture to replace that tradition in this matter? Can you hold your tradition loosely enough to allow each text to speak for itself, such that the meaning it would have had for the original audience drives the meaning you assign to it today?

Application to Commentary Usage

I imagine you wish your theological opponents would hold their tradition more loosely, so they could truly observe and receive what the scripture teaches. And I am sure they wish the same for you. This is where commentaries can be a great benefit to us.

Commentaries give you an opportunity to poke and prod your tradition with the insights and observations of others who are not as beholden to that tradition. Insofar as a commentator’s commitment is to proclaim a particular tradition, the value of his commentary may be reduced for those outside his tradition. But insofar as a commentator’s commitment is to proclaim and parade the text in all its glory, the value of his commentary is increased for those of any theological tradition.

Find those commentaries, and let them inflame your delight in the word of God. Then you can set the commentaries back down and gaze anew on the living and abiding word of God with sharper sight.

Which Voice Delights You Most?

May 13, 2022 By Peter Krol

My fifth commandment for commentary usage is:

You shall not spend more time reading commentaries than reading and listening to the Bible.

If you’ve been tracking my advice thus far, you know I’m not opposed to commentaries; I find them an essential part of one’s study routine. And last week I encouraged you to read more commentaries. So with this commandment, I’m not suggesting you spend less time with commentaries but only that you spend more time with the Scripture itself. Unmediated. Unfiltered, except perhaps through translation to your native tongue.

In short, this commandment urges you to give priority to the voice of your Chief Shepherd over that of his under-shepherds. If you fail to cultivate that discipline, here are four risks you run.

Risk #1: Misidentifying the Source of Authority

If the majority of your time in “Bible study” is spent reading commentaries, you are unwittingly trusting, and not-so-subtly communicating, that the authority over the church and the Christian life is not the word of God, or the Son of God who spoke it, but its interpreters. Theological tradition is a very good thing … unless it becomes the primary thing. In which case, it obfuscates the best thing.

Risk #2: Becoming a Consumer of Theological Options

When you spend most of your time reading commentaries, you may end up treating theological traditions as a marketplace with you the consumer. You consider and evaluate the options until you find one that suits you best. You may end up persuaded, not by the option most faithful to the text, but by the option most persuasive in rhetoric. Or you pit one option against another, as though there must be an either/or instead of some sort of both/and dynamic.

Risk #3: Misdirecting Your Joy

When most of your time is spent in commentaries, instead of in the Scriptures themselves, you risk finding your joy in the commentaries rather than in the Scriptures. If you are bored or confused by the Bible, to the point where you must read one or more commentaries to find joy in the process of study, you are in danger of wandering from the lover of your soul. His sheep hear his voice; they do not know the voice of strangers.

Risk #4: Limiting Your Intimacy With the Lord

Following from the previous risk, this risk is the consequence of finding greater joy in the voice of someone other than the bridegroom himself. Bible study is not merely an academic or educational enterprise. It is a relational transaction. It is the means by which God’s people hear his voice so they may respond to him in faith and worship. For this reason, it is not a bad thing when Bible study is hard. It forces us to wrestle with our creator, to delve the depths of his wisdom, to know him through his promises, warnings, and encouragements. Do you believe that, in the Scripture, you hear the very voice of God? Don’t deny yourself this opportunity to develop your relationship with him.

Risk #5: Failing to Learn How To Study God’s Word for Yourself

A few years ago, I shared a post about a man who had learned to study commentaries but not the Bible. If you spend more time in commentaries than in the Bible, you run the risk of learning how to be told what to think. You may not understand where your conclusions came from, or how they are driven by the text. In a counseling session, or a firefight with false teaching, you’ll have nothing to shoot but nerf darts, while unlimited rounds of sniper ammunition remain boxed up in a storage closet. This brings us full circle back to the first risk, for you may be able to quote many commentators at whatever problem you face. But you will have missed the true authority to bring about truth or change.

Conclusion

I don’t mean to be pedantic. I’m not saying you should time yourself to ensure that the precise number of minutes and seconds spent reading commentaries must be exceeded by time with the plain Scripture. I am aiming at your motivations and intentions. Your joy and delight. Your relationship with the Lord. If setting a timer will help you to diagnose the distance or dryness you’ve felt in your Bible study, so be it. But in the end, I simply want you to be able to say with the psalmist: “Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day. Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies, for it is ever with me” (Ps 119:97-98).

If such raw delight has been hard for you to come by, perhaps you could try to lose yourself for an entire afternoon simply enjoying the glorious drama of God’s word. Here is a place you could start.

The First Commentator to Plead His Case

May 6, 2022 By Peter Krol

My fourth commandment for commentary usage is:

You shall not read only one commentary, but shall invite a plurality of voices into the conversation.

Is this because I think you have no limits on your time, or that you must become a professional researcher in order to study the Bible? No, it is simply because our Bible study is part of a conversation that has been going on for thousands of years. We were created to live and learn in community, and therefore, having a single influence on your study is counterproductive to your study.

Let me give two reasons.

The First to Plead His Case Seems Right, Until…

Consider Proverbs 18:17:

The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Unless you are among the most naturally skeptical of learners, if you read only one commentary on a passage, you will be inclined to presume the commentator you read is right. Especially if that commentator engages with other commentators and points out all the places where they are wrong. It is simply part of being a creature with limited knowledge that “the one who states his case first seems right.”

Nobody chooses to write a commentary—or gets a contract to write a commentary—because they believe they have all the wrong ideas about their subject matter. No, they write it because they believe they are right, and that they have something to add to the historic conversation that ought to be considered by others! So they are going to write with as much clarity and confidence as they can muster regarding their interpretive conclusions.

But if you read at least two commentaries, it will help you to recognize that there could be a variety of perspectives out there. And each of them could be argued cogently. And each of them is worth considering and discussing. In the process, it will help you to demystify the priesthood of experts that is so easy to presume.

Demystifying the Presumed Priesthood of Experts

I am deeply grateful for those God has raised up in the church, who are experts in various topics. I’ve been in churches that had medical and legal experts, who counseled church members or leaders on particular medical or legal matters. I’ve been in churches with construction experts, who can take care of building and property maintenance and improvement with tremendous skill. My church sent an agricultural expert overseas to assist the preaching of the gospel with strong agricultural education in a third world country.

So I have no philosophical concern with the existence or use of experts. However, sometimes we can get ourselves stuck in a presumption that the experts are always right. In our Bible study, that means we confer upon Bible experts a mystical status of priestly knowledge unavailable to the masses. If the expert says something, it must be true. And reading only one commentary may reinforce that presumption, since what you read will most likely sound credible and persuasive (see Prov 18:17 again).

But there is a reason medical patients are often encouraged to get a second opinion. There is a reason businesses often have not a single lawyer but a legal team. There is a reason a corporation or government launching a major project invites multiple bids from a plurality of contractors. And there is a reason why nearly any group of experts in the same field will find many matters within their field about which to violently disagree (just peruse a scholastic journal from any field to witness a wealth of in-house debate). That reason is the self-evident fact that a variety of experts will have a variety of perspectives which lead them to a variety of conclusions and suggest a variety of methods or applications.

We ought to take this thinking with us into our personal Bible study and commentary reading. A second opinion is usually more valuable than the first opinion, regardless of which opinion you end up agreeing with. Either you will be rescued from hastily jumping on the first commentator’s train, or you will find even greater confidence and grounds for sticking with that first one. And the variety of strengths and weaknesses of the various commentators will result in your final conclusions being wiser, more nuanced, and more robust.

Test Everything

In conclusion, this sort of sifting, evaluating, and refusing to believe the first opinion (automatically), is what the Apostle Paul wants the Thessalonian churches to do.

Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil. (1 Thess 5:20-22)

There is a sense in which commentaries are one form of New Testament prophecy, in that they proclaim the word of God. We ought to test them, every one. Hang on to whatever is good, helpful, and true in them. Reject whatever is false, misleading, or evil in them.

But you’ll limit your ability to do that unless you consult a second, third, or fourth opinion on a matter. And, as commentator Tremper Longman III says: “Sometimes the reader will be right and the commentaries will be wrong.”

The Glories of Grammar

April 22, 2022 By Peter Krol

Eight years ago, I attended the Together for the Gospel (T4G) conference for the first time. Afterward, I shared my reflections on the best and worst parts of it, which mostly had to do with how imitable the various speakers were in their presentations. This past week, I attended the final T4G and wanted to share with you my favorite moment of the event.

This pastor’s conference has had many highlights over the years of its existence. One of the most talked-about benefits of attending is all the free books attendees receive (this year I got more than 20). But free books are not enough to justify the cost of traveling to Louisville, Kentucky, renting a hotel room, and being apart from family for a few days. No, the primary draw for me, as for many others, is the extravagant time spent in God’s Word under the the instruction of world-class teachers and preachers.

And my favorite moment of the event came during John Piper’s talk on the connection between Christ’s grace to forgive our sin and Christ’s grace to help us kill our sin. Piper’s talk was masterful, and I commend to you the entire thing. He set out to explain why it is a failure to understand and preach grace if we understand or preach only the forgiveness of sins and not also the holiness that results in the Christian’s life. This is like reminding people constantly of what they have been saved from without giving them something else to live for. It neglects the fact that Christ’s precious blood paid not only for our sins but also for our holiness. Piper demonstrates the idea from the text of 1 Peter 1 and 2.

At the end of the talk, Piper gave five reasons why preachers often fail to preach this message today. Why so many tend to stop at the grace of forgiveness without the accompanying grace of transformation. And his first reason is simply that we might not even be aware of the connection between these two aspects of grace. We may have failed to see it in the scripture because we haven’t yet paid close enough attention to it.

Then my favorite line comes around 38:30 in the video: “Nobody ever showed you how to read the Bible by looking for in-order-thats and becauses and therefores and participles, and you missed GLORIES because you missed grammar!”

And Piper is spot on. There is unbelievable glory here, if we would only have someone to teach us how to look for it.

I am deeply grateful to Dr. Piper for helping me to see this particular point, which was my highlight of the conference. May it encourage you to continue seeking Christ’s glory through observing even the fundamentals of grammar.

How Should We Handle the Unnamed in Scripture?

April 11, 2022 By Ryan Higginbottom

Names and titles are important in the Bible. Paying attention to these details is a key step during the observation stage of Bible study.

Adam named his wife “Eve” because “she was the mother of all the living” (Genesis 3:20). As God made his covenant with Abram, he changed his name to Abraham, “for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations” (Genesis 17:5). The angel told Joseph in a dream that his son should be named Jesus, “for he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). In these examples we have an explanation for each name, but there are scores of other named figures in the Bible where the name sheds light on some part of their story.

But, as you may have noticed, not every character in the Bible has a name.

If names are so important, why does it seem like some names in the Bible are missing? And, practically, how should we approach passages in which unnamed characters play a key role?

Let’s take a look at two examples.

The Redeemer in Ruth

My pastor just finished preaching through the book of Ruth, so we were confronted by the unnamed redeemer in chapters 3 and 4. Ruth and Naomi are aware that Boaz is a redeemer for Elimelech, Naomi’s deceased husband. However, there is a closer redeemer—a closer relative—who should receive the option to redeem Elimelech’s land and family name before Boaz is given the opportunity. (See Ruth 3:9–13; 4:1–6.)

For a character that spends so much time on the page, it seems strange that this redeemer isn’t named. And yet, this seems like an intentional choice by the author. Boaz tells this relative that when he serves as a redeemer for Elimelech, he will acquire Ruth, and any children he has with Ruth will bear Elimelech’s name (Ruth 4:5). This man refuses, saying he does not want to “impair [his] own inheritance” (Ruth 4:6).

This closer redeemer refused to lay down his concerns for another. He wanted to preserve his own name and inheritance. So, the author of Ruth serves up some poetic justice by omitting his name from the Biblical record. (This same reasoning may lie behind the fact that we know so few of the names of those building a tower in Babel in Genesis 11.)

The Believing Criminal

While not occupying as much of the biblical story as the reluctant redeemer in Ruth, some of the people who played important roles at the crucifixion are also unnamed.

Jesus was crucified between two criminals. One criminal mocked Jesus, but the other showed evidence of faith in Jesus as the king who could save. Jesus responded, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Wouldn’t it be nice to have the name of this believing criminal?

However, Luke gives us all the information we need about this man: He is a convicted criminal who confesses Jesus. Luke’s Gospel is full of Jesus extending invitations to the poor and the forgotten, to those outside the boundaries of polite Jewish society. The religious leaders put Jesus to death, and the last person to trust Jesus before he dies is a condemned criminal. We don’t need his name, because Luke has made his point: Jesus is the king and savior of the world, welcoming all who believe.

Why Are Some Unnamed?

When a character in the Bible is unnamed, one of two things is true. That name is either unknown by the biblical author or withheld from us. But since God is sovereign over the writing and preservation of his word, we can be confident that we are not lacking anything we need.

Those who are named in the Bible, are named for a reason. And those who are unnamed in the Bible, are unnamed for a reason. Though we may be missing their names, we often still know the most important things about them—their actions, their characteristics, or their roles. The biblical authors use these details instead of names to contribute to their main point in writing.

When we lack a name in Scripture, we shouldn’t react with frustration, grumbling, or speculation. It’s a good excuse to sharpen our observation skills as we try to understand how the biblical author is using this character in the story.

What People Thought About Reading the Bible in 90 Days

April 8, 2022 By Peter Krol

One of the things I love about our annual Bible reading challenge is hearing what the participants thought of the experience. Here are some quotes from those who entered the drawing, introduced by the length of time it took them to read the entire Bible:

54 days: Kind of like an all-you-can-eat buffet where you can’t eat too much; you keep going because you always have room for more.

85 days: It was a sweet way to start my day, and again I discovered a flow of thoughts and themes that I miss when reading smaller sections.

66 days: I loved it! I have read through the Bible many times over the last 20 years, using various translations, but I have never tried to read the entire Bible so quickly… Reading the whole Bible through in this way was more like reading an historical novel or biography – I could hardly stop reading! Reading swiftly helped me see more clearly than ever before how the thread of redemption runs through the whole story of God’s relationship with mankind. As I read, my faith in Jesus as my Lord, Redeemer and Messiah has grown stronger, my understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in my life became clearer, and I gained courage to follow Him more intimately. Telling others about the Kingdom of God becomes easier when you understand God’s story more fully. What a joy!

68 days: I really enjoyed reading it quickly like this. It allowed me to see the 50,000 foot view. I did get confused with all the characters reading this quickly (Kings and Chronicles-I’m looking at you), but it was a great was to see the big picture.

83 days: This is my second year reading (third listening), which gave me the confidence that I’d be able to do it again. I liked the challenge this year as well. I feel like every year I do this I’m able to make more and more connections between the Old Testament and the New (without a study bible or notes telling me references), which feels really cool! I think it just generally makes me realize this is a BOOK and God’s story (and ours!), as opposed to “let’s read a Gospel, or let’s read a certain book of the bible and talk about missions, or friendship, or discipleship or some other topic…). Overall a good experience that I hope to do again next year.

81 days: Overall it was a great experience. it started out well, then about a month in got hard and overwhelming with the amount of reading (I wanted to quit at one point). As I got to the New Testament it got easier. Reading larger portions of a books or even finishing books in one sitting was helpful to see the overall picture/theme of each book. However, there were many times I wanted to think through the text or had questions, but due to time was not able to.

78 days: One advantage of rapid reading is that you get to see the theme of the book clearly rather than the specific details. Makes it easier to identify Jesus’ role in each book. Unlike bite sized bible reading, reading in volume changes the way I retain lessons/values. Sometimes, “less significant” things get bumped by “more significant” ones until only a handful of lessons can be recalled after reading. It is easier for me to see the timeline of events in a book if I read large chunks of the Scriptures daily. You get to appreciate the bigger picture. I’d definitely do this again and again. Reading the Bible in volume saturates the mind and relieves the soul. Why did I not do this while I was young?

77 days: Amazing! I was dreading the O.T., but actually found so much depth there and saw things I would never have seen otherwise. I noticed curious themes emerging between prophets that I would not have noticed without this fast reading. Also, because I did that audio version, I have noticed that I have more of the Bible on command in my mind. I was talking with a friend about an issue and was able to seamlessly draw together an OT and NT source because they were fresh in my mind.

90 days: This is my 4th year, and each year I choose a different translation. Each year, different things jump out at me.

Do Your Best

March 18, 2022 By Peter Krol

My third commandment for commentary usage is:

You shall make every effort to form interpretive conclusions or questions about interpretations before consulting a commentary.

Is this because I think you won’t need any help?

The Short Answer

No.

A More Nuanced Answer

I’m not suggesting that you utterly bar yourself from the insights of commentaries early in your Bible study process. Last week, I suggested that different kinds of questions need different methods for finding the answers. That’s why this third commandment says that you shall make every effort to form interpretive conclusions or questions about interpretations before consulting a commentary.

In other words, if your question is more observational in nature, then go ahead and consult a commentary. Find quickly those answers ye seek. Do you just need a map? Do you need a historical tidbit? Do you not remember a proper name? Is a particular term unfamiliar to you? Just do it. Take a look; get some help.

This third commandment focuses on the process of interpretation, after observation (or in light of it). And my exhortation to you is to learn how to do the work for yourself. Paul told Timothy to “do your best” in his handling of Scripture (2 Tim 2:15). The standard for evaluation is not getting everything perfect, but for personal progress to be visible (1 Tim 4:15).

So to make progress, you need to learn how to wrestle with the text. You need foster your curiosity and learn how to investigate. You need to gain more confidence from the text than from the experts.

So I encourage you to do your own work first. Observe and interpret, all the way up to the point where you have a guess at the author’s main point. Once there, you’re in the best position to read and consider what others have said about your text. You’ll have firm footing from which to evaluate what they say, testing everything, that you may hold fast to what is good and reject what is bad (1 Thess 5:20-22).

Six Reasons You Should Have Your Own Interpretive Ideas Before Consulting a Commentary

“The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” (Prov 18:17). The first commentary you read will likely seem to be right. Unless it’s not your first time reflecting that deeply on the text.
Commentators often disagree with one another. Why shouldn’t you be able to disagree with them when necessary?
Commentators often change their minds from their earlier writings to their later writings. They are constantly re-evaluating and re-thinking their conclusions based on new insights into the text. So why shouldn’t you do the same with their conclusions?
It is more important for you to make progress in your ability to handle the word than for you to have perfect answers for any given text. If you can get answers only by reading a commentary, what happens if you lose access to your commentaries? Or can’t find a decent one for the next book you study?
If you teach, people will ask you questions the commentary may not have answered. If you haven’t learned to answer your own questions from the text, how will you help others learn how to do that?
Over-reliance or premature reliance on commentaries comes dangerously close to establishing those commentators as a high priestly class through whom your relationship with God is mediated. Jesus died to tear the veil and give you access to the very mind and heart of God through his word.

For the Record

And less you misunderstand my perspective, let me repeat: Once you have a guess at the author’s main point, consult some commentaries! You should welcome the help. It would not be wise to cut yourself off from the trained insights of others to guide you toward even further progress. Do your best.

Commentaries are Not for When Bible Study is Hard

March 11, 2022 By Peter Krol

A few weeks back, I proposed ten commandments for commentary usage. Those commandments arose from further reflection on the maxim “not whether but when.” I would now like to take a few weeks to expand on each of the “commandments.”

Commandment #1 (“You shall not avoid or ignore commentaries from belief in self-sufficiency to study the Scriptures”) was thoroughly addressed in the “not whether but when” post, so I will not delve into it any further. Let’s now pick up with commandment #2:

You shall not pick up a commentary as soon as Bible study is “hard.”

The Problem

I’m not embarrassed to admit it: Bible study is hard. If we have ever communicated otherwise on this blog, I repent in dust and ashes.

The Bible was written long ago, to people in cultures very different than ours. It was written in languages no longer spoken to address situations no longer extant. The worldviews and assumptions of the Bible’s authors were radically distinct from those held by most today. Even the Bible’s “easier” terminology consists of concepts that prompt very different images today than they would have prompted to the original authors and audiences (for example: church, faith, preach, law, gospel, righteousness, wisdom, salvation, etc.). The Bible’s poetry uses metaphors in a very different way than we use metaphors today. The Bible’s narratives refer to places most of us have never been to. The Bible’s discourses refute arguments people often aren’t arguing about any more.

I’m trying not to overstate the differences, because it is certainly the case that very little has changed in terms of the general human plight and human experience from ancient to postmodern times. But the fact remains that we need a lot of help to understand the people, cultures, situations, concerns, and arguments of the Bible.

A Multi-Faceted Solution

Before running immediately to commentaries when Bible study is hard, I find it critical to distinguish between the different kinds of interpretive questions that can arise.

What? questions define the terms. (“What did he mean?”)
Why? questions uncover the author’s purpose. (“Why did he say that?”)
So What? questions draw out the implications. (“So what does he want me to do about it?”)

In general, the first category of questions often complete your observation. This category involves questions such as:

What is Passover?
Where is Ephesus?
Who was Abraham?
What OT passage is this NT text quoting from?
What is propitiation?

And for such “what” questions—where you simply need to get something defined, clarified, referenced, or mapped out—a commentary or study Bible may be your best ally. Go right ahead and work to close that knowledge gap between the original audience and yourself, by checking out a helpful resource that can quickly put you in their shoes. There is not much reason to hold back from using commentaries on such questions.

But the other categories of questions warrant a different approach. When you have a “why” question (such as “why does the author say such and such?” or “why does he tell this story in this way?”), you are better off not running to commentaries too quickly. The “why” questions are the heart of interpretation, and their main purpose is to help you figure out the author’s main point or primary argument. If that is hard for you to do, you are in good company. But the solution is not to find “the answers” in a commentary or study Bible. If you do that, how will you be able to evaluate whether that commentator’s answers are true (strong, reasonable, probable, wise) or not? Your best help is to learn how to follow the argument of the text itself. That will give you the best measuring rod against which to evaluate competing interpretations given by others.

And when you have a “so what” question, working toward the implications and applications for you or the people you want to teach, no commentator will know your situation better than you do. Sure, commentaries can help suggest broad ideas or topics for potential application. But they won’t be able to connect the text to your life, today. When your “so what” questions are hard to answer, the best solution is further reflection on the main point, along with prayerful reflection on how to correlate it with the rest of Scripture, and especially with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Bible study is hard. And using commentaries just because Bible study is hard might not be the solution you’re looking for. In fact, it has the potential for grounding you deeper and deeper in a web of presumption from which you struggle to get untangled.

Ten Commandments for Commentary Usage

February 18, 2022 By Peter Krol

The OIA Bible study method ought not be incompatible with rigorous usage of commentaries. But there is an everpresent danger of relying on commentaries more than the text, or of allowing commentaries to prevent you from wrestling with the text as you ought. Therefore the main question for commentary usage is not whether but when.

In the interest of helping you make best use of commentaries in your Bible study, here are ten commandments for your consideration.

You shall not avoid or ignore commentaries from belief in self-sufficiency to study the Scriptures.
You shall not pick up a commentary as soon as Bible study is “hard.”
You shall make every effort to form interpretive conclusions or questions about interpretations before consulting a commentary.
You shall not read only one commentary, but shall invite a plurality of voices into the conversation.
You shall not spend more time reading commentaries than reading and listening to the Bible.
You shall hold your conclusions (and your theological tradition) loosely enough to allow commentaries to compel you back into the text to discover the biblical author’s intentions for his original audience.
You shall not hold all commentaries equal, but shall give greatest weight to those that stimulate greatest interest in the biblical text and its argument. Corollary: You shall resist speculations made by commentators and shall demand the same text-driven arguments from them that you would demand of your friends or that they would demand of you.
You shall distinguish, in the commentaries, between evidence-based observations of the text (such as Hebrew or Greek syntax or wordplay, historical context, or comparative ancient near eastern literature) and reasoned interpretations of the text. You shall remain aware that the first category is more likely to contain factual data that must be accounted for, and the second category is more likely to contain opinions to be weighed and considered alongside alternatives.
You shall not quote a commentator as the final word on an interpretive matter, but must demonstrate your conclusions from the scriptural text itself.
You shall give credit to commentators where appropriate and not try to appear smarter than you are.

Commentaries: Not Whether But When

February 11, 2022 By Peter Krol

Against Commentaries?

One common objection to the OIA method of Bible study is that it trains people to think they can interpret the Bible on their own, in a vacuum, apart from history, tradition, or scholarship. Just me and my Bible; that’s all I need. And the more exciting and novel my interpretation, the better.

I can understand when folks feel they must register this objection. On this blog, we’ve certainly gone out of our way to advise against becoming a commentary junkie. We’ve labeled them “false authorities.” We’ve likened them to gasoline, which is poisonous if you drink it straight instead of sloshing it into a working engine.

And sadly, some folks have heard us advising them to avoid commentaries altogether. Despite recommending them, listing them among our main tools, and labeling avoidance of them as the #1 mistake with respect to them.

By No Means!

So let me affirm with frank directness: I’m not sure I could study the Bible well without commentaries. I commend, with utmost fervency, the practice of utilizing them. And I believe that the person who has access to quality commentaries but refuses to make use of them is playing the fool.

So I agree that rejection of commentaries is an error to avoid. However, my experience has bellowed at me that a far more frequent commentary error is not their disuse but their misuse. In the name of staying connected with Christian tradition and avoiding me-and-Jesus-ism, masses of otherwise thoughtful followers of Jesus engage repeatedly in the unexamined and unreflective commentary binge. All rise! The expert has entered the room and is about to divulge The Truth.

Therefore, the flag we’ve chosen to wave on this blog—more than its sibling flag which likewise deserves to waltz with the wind—is the flag of suspicious caution toward commentary usage. The flag of “but what does the text say?” The flag of “observe and interpret the text and don’t merely observe and interpret the commentary.”

Not Whether But When

In short, my recommendation regarding commentaries boils down to the maxim: not whether but when.

I do not dispute whether we ought to make use of commentaries. By all means, yes, yes, yes! In fact, find a few commentators you have especially benefitted from, and buy everything they’ve written. John Stott is one of those for me. As is Douglas Sean O’Donnell, David Helm, and James B. Jordan. I’ve been recently persuaded that Dale Ralph Davis could potentially join this little club of mine, so I’ve begun snapping up his wares whenever I find them on sale, though I have yet to actually read him. Just take note: Whether you would agree 100% with any commentator’s conclusions is utterly beside the point. But more on that in a moment.

The main issue, as I see it, is not whether but when. When do you read your commentaries? When do you shift your gaze away from the text to attend to what others have said about the text? When do you go rooting for help with thorny issues, or looking for answers to your sincere questions?

And that “when” question is intimately connected to its why. Why do you read your commentaries? If it is to figure out what the proper interpretation of the passage is, we need to do some more work. If it’s because you feel stuck and you still need some good material to lead your next small group, you’ll be better off going back to basics. If it’s because you’re just not sure you can be trusted to understand or teach the text, and you need more expert affirmation to instill confidence, then we need to talk further about whose approval matters most to the student or teacher of the Bible (2 Tim 2:15).

The Implications of Interaction

Here is a simple suggestion: We ought to read commentaries for the same reason we ought to have small groups: Interaction. We need community to study the Bible. And that community can come through the written works of scholars just as much as through the spoken conversation of a small group of people.

And if commentaries are most helpful in getting us to interact with others over the text, commentaries are therefore most beneficial when they are treated as conversation partners and not as the definitive word on a passage. For this reason, I’m not terribly concerned with identifying “good” or “bad” commentaries, in the sense of “which ones line up with my denomination or interpretive tradition?” And I don’t have to buy into everything a commentator says or stands by. If the role of a successful commentary is to further the conversation by driving me into closer examination of the text, I can benefit just as much from a commentator I agree with as from a commentator I disagree with. Sometimes, I’ve even learned more from liberal commentators (who can be shockingly honest about what they observe in a text and about what questions they have about it) than from conservative ones (who sometimes don’t observe as closely when a dearly held theological tradition may be at stake).

As a result, my personal definition of what makes a commentary good or bad is: How much that commentary stimulates me to examine the text more closely and understand the author’s argument more clearly. Whenever I find commentaries that do this to a high degree, I add them to my list of recommendations.

Watch Your Timing

So when is the best time to read a commentary? Not first thing, and not in the first nanosecond a question or roadblock occurs to you, but after you have studied the passage for yourself. How far should you have gone in your study before you read a commentary? I speak for myself and not as a command from the Lord, but I have attempted to discipline myself to refrain from employing commentaries until I have a concrete guess as to the author’s main point in the passage.

Crafting a main point is a major milestone in the OIA process, as it represents the climax of the interpretation phase. From there, we want to connect that main point to the person and work of Jesus Christ before we move into application to head, heart, and hands, inward and outward. But before I start landing strong gospel connections or getting into application, I want to invite skilled conversation partners into the discussion to help me shape and hone what I’ve come up with.

And I devour commentaries that will improve my own observation and interpretation of the text, by showing me how to observe and interpret that text more effectively than I have done myself.

Conclusion

Please understand that the OIA method of Bible study is not about getting away from 2,000 years of history and coming up with novel interpretations all by oneself. Commentaries are crucial, as long as we use them the right way and at the right time.

« Previous Page