Knowable Word - Bible study help

5 False Authorities in Small Group Bible Study

August 19, 2019 By Ryan Higginbottom

Who’s in charge here? In government, family, and church, this question has sparked controversy aplenty throughout history.

In small group Bible studies, we have a similar question before us every time we gather. What’s our authority? What quotes do we share? To whom do we appeal? How do we handle disagreements?

For both leaders and small group members, our answers reveal our allegiances. And misplaced allegiances may short-circuit our learning or stunt our growth as Christians.

False Authorities

When small group members differ on a matter of interpretation, how is the question settled? To what authority do you and your friends appeal?

Our conviction here at Knowable Word is that God is the absolute and perfect authority, and he has revealed himself and declared his will through the Bible. The Bible speaks as an authority, and all humanity is called to submit their thoughts, plans, and interpretations of reality to God’s Word.

Despite the absolute authority of God’s word, we often rely on other helpful people and resources more than the Bible. Let’s examine five false authorities that emerge in small group studies.

A Respected Preacher or Pastor

There may be an author or preacher who has well-known thoughts on the topic your group is discussing. (This may be your own pastor!) A member of your small group may invoke this leader’s opinion on the matter when making their appeal.

Like much in life, quotations vary in their helpfulness. As a small group leader, I may share a quote when I find someone has a more powerful or elegant way of making my point. But if a quotation is not rooted in the biblical text, the appeal may be to eloquence or reputation instead of to the Bible.

The Small Group Leader

In an ideal small group Bible study, the leader does not function as an authority or expert. Rather, the small group leader guides the group in understanding and applying the Bible.

Attempting to answer every question is a dangerous approach to small group leadership. Small groups thrive when each member is grappling with the text, sharing observations, discussing interpretations, and praying together about applications.

Church Tradition

The historical tradition of a church or denomination can help us interpret Scripture. But tradition should never replace studying the Bible itself. The best sort of church tradition leads us back to the text, not away from it.

Group Consensus

Healthy small groups leave room for questions, further explanations, and repetition. No one should feel bad for having difficulty understanding the Bible, and no one should feel small for asking questions.

Many of the best discussions in my small groups have occurred when most of the group seemed ready to move on. But one person had a question they couldn’t shake. This forced us to examine a standard or easy interpretation of a passage.

Good leaders welcome questions that point back to the text, no matter when they arise.

Commentaries and Study Bibles

It’s happened more times than I can count. In response to a question in Sunday school or small group, someone notices an entry in their study Bible that addresses the issue head-on.

They read the entry and the discussion is over. After all, who would question a study Bible? Some people feel as though they’re questioning the Bible itself!

Small group leaders can make the same error when appealing to a commentary. It’s a discussion killer, and it often leads to no further insight or skill for those involved.

Again, I’m not against quoting other sources. But quotations which help with interpretations should make their arguments from the text of the Bible.

(As an aside, if you have a problem with study-Bible-answers in your small group, you might consider using ESV Scripture Journals for your next study and banning all other Bibles. Seriously.)

True Authority

God has given us other Christians—past and present—as a gift. As we learn about God from these other saints, we receive God’s gift with thanksgiving.

But we honor God most when we view these gifts in their proper place. Our leaders, resources, and traditions should all be used in service of the authority of God in his word. The more we demonstrate that the Bible has the answers we need, the more we remind each other that God’s word is knowable.

Share or follow:

Who Was Theophilus?

August 16, 2019 By Peter Krol

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

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

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

Nonspecific Address

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

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

Particular Individual

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

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

Most Excellent

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

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

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

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

2. Another court appearance, spoken by the defendant:

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

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

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

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

Additional Evidence

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

Share or follow:

OT Narratives: Pointers to Christ or Moral Examples?

August 14, 2019 By Peter Krol

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

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

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

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

Check it out!

Share or follow:

Robert Alter’s Hebrew Bible: Conflicting Extremities

August 9, 2019 By Peter Krol

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

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

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

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

Components

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

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

All three components deserve comment.

Translation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary

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

Introductory Essays

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share or follow:

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

August 7, 2019 By Peter Krol

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

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

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

Share or follow:

Bible Study Leaders Should Not Have All the Answers

August 5, 2019 By Ryan Higginbottom

Picture it. There’s a pause at your small group Bible study, and one of your friends asks a question. In that moment, all the heads in your group will likely turn in one of two directions.

Do the group members look up, at the leader? Or do they look down, at the Bible?

No Bible study leader can have the answer to every question. After all, leaders are finite and there are a myriad of potential questions, both relevant and—ahem—less relevant.

But even though leaders can’t logistically have all the answers, I don’t think that should even be a goal. As an ambition, that’s harmful for at least two reasons.

Bad for the Leader

When a leader plants the seed that they will have all the answers for their group, it bears bad fruit.

It can make the leader fearful of questions that emerge in their group or resentful of those who ask. After all, the leader might think, questioners are causing more work and giving another opportunity for the leader to fail.

This mentality can also lead to a misplaced trust. If a leader is good at anticipating questions and answering them in the moment, they might start to depend on their preparation, intellect, or persuasiveness instead of on the Lord.

Finally, when a group expects their leader to have all the answers, it can lead to pride. A capable leader who rises to this challenge may enjoy the attention they receive as their reputation grows.

Bad for the Group

There is clear spiritual danger for a small group leader when they are expected to answer every question. But this setup is unhealthy for the group as well.

A group structured in this way may start to trust in their leader instead of their Lord. Their confidence and assurance in the faith may rise and fall with the ability and mood of their small group leader. We must avoid this error and anchor our assurance to the rock-solid work of Jesus.

Members of this sort of group may also flounder when faced with studying the Bible on their own. Because they are not challenged to answer questions from Scripture, they may become content with the cotton candy of light, spiritual aphorisms instead of rich, filling meals from God’s Word.

This type of group may also experience stunted growth. Vibrant, healthy small groups often grow and split, as an apprentice from within the group (ideally) emerges. But if a leader is expected to have all the answers, this puts unreasonable weight on potential apprentices. That expectation also eliminates opportunities for group members to learn and grow into that role.

Guard Against Gurus

To train, lead, and empower small group members, leaders should guard against the urge to be a know-it-all or Bible guru.

There is one easy step to ensure a small group is focused on the Bible and not on its leader. This short response to any question will point people in the right direction.

“Good question. What does the text say?”

This is the simplest way I’ve found to point my friends back to the Bible. When I hear a question, I turn either to the questioner or to the whole group and invite them to look back at the text.

Sometimes the text at hand doesn’t answer the question, but other passages do. (A leader needs to decide whether or not that answer is worth chasing down.) Sometimes the question isn’t addressed in Scripture at all. But as much as possible, I want to point my group members away from my answers and into God’s Word.

The Danger of Being a Pastor

Within small groups, there’s a particular danger in being a pastor or anyone else with a seminary degree. I’ve seen how people defer to these leaders. They are often expected to give answers even when they’re not the leader of the group.

To them I offer the same advice I’m giving to small group leaders (as well as my sympathies). You shouldn’t have all the answers. As much as possible, resist being the crutch for your friends. They won’t learn to ride their bike until you let go and urge them to pedal.

Citing Other Resources

Finally, we should note that in the face of legitimate, difficult questions, it’s okay for small group leaders to admit they don’t know the answer. It’s also okay for leaders to a refer to resources that have helped them understand the Bible.

But even the best commentaries should not be appealed to as authorities themselves; commentaries should make the case for their interpretation from the text. And if a leader is not persuaded from the text by a commentary, “I don’t know” may be the best and most honest answer to give.

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.

Share or follow:

The Genre of Luke’s Gospel

August 2, 2019 By Peter Krol

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

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

Overall Genre

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

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

jean louis mazieres (2018), Creative Commons

Comparing the Four Gospels

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

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

Why does he conclude this?

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

What Difference Does It Make?

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

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

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

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

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

Share or follow:

Basic Observation Skills for Children

July 31, 2019 By Peter Krol

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check it out!

Share or follow:

Summer Bible Camp Teaching Plan in Proverbs

July 26, 2019 By Peter Krol

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

sinisterbluebox (2009), Creative Commons

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share or follow:

Examples of Jesus in the Old Testament

July 24, 2019 By Peter Krol

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

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

Johnson’s examples are: