Knowable Word - Bible study help

10. Did Jesus’ Ministry Last 3 Years?

This post asks the question posed in the title. And while Jesus’ ministry could have had a duration of 3 years, it is far from certain in light of the biblical data. “The Bible doesn’t tell us exactly how many years Jesus spent with his disciples, going about doing good and healing. So we ought not to casually assert a three-year timeline as though it were self-evident.”

9. Bible Study Leaders Should Not Have All the Answers

Claiming to have (or attempting to have) all the answers is bad for both the group and the leader. Beware the guru. Resist becoming a crutch to your people. Let them learn to ride this bike of Bible study.

8. Context Matters: I Never Knew You; Depart from Me

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. This year, we sought to address many Bible verses that are often used or quoted in isolation from their context. The results of careful, contextual study often astound. See here for many more examples.

7. New and Old Garments

All three synoptic gospels mention Jesus’ parable of the new and old garments. This year was the first time, however, that I noticed that Luke’s version says something quite different than Matthew’s or Mark’s. I wrote this post to give an example of the necessity and difficulty of overcoming ignorant familiarity to really observe what’s there.

6. Three Approaches to Ecclesiastes

Just as you’d expect, this post describes three quite different approaches to the book of Ecclesiastes. Your approach might depend on how you’ve heard others teach the book. But which approach (if any) seems most likely when you observe the text itself?

5. What does “Meaningless / Vanity / Futility” Mean in Ecclesiastes?

This post followed up on #4, and ended up being viewed just a shade more times. The approach you take toward the book of Ecclesiastes is closely connected to how you understand the word translated as “meaningless,” “vanity,” or “futility.”

4. Did Jesus Walk Through Walls?

He certainly could have. But the Scripture nowhere says he did. Why does it matter? “Simply the fact that traditions snowball over time, with the end result of making void the Word of God (Mark 7:13). In this case, the tradition has led many to speculate on the physical properties of either the resurrection body or the new heavens and the new earth. This can lead many to make too sharp a division between the “natural” and the “spiritual”—and then we use those adjectives more like Plato than like Paul, which promotes unbiblical asceticism (Col 2:20-23), among other things.” You can see more on the topic, including what some ancient commentators had to say, here.

3. Why was Baby Jesus Laid in a Manger?

Though published only a week ago, this post skyrocketed to the #3 slot on this list. Maybe for some reason, people are thinking about the Christmas story this time of year? Of course, an a la carte link from Tim Challies really helps as well. Just keep in mind that the way Luke would answer this question might not be the same way you and I would want to answer it.

2. A Sermon Notes Sheet for Young Children

There is a huge jump in traffic from post #3 to this post (from about 5,000 views to 10,000 views). And for good reason. This sermon notes sheet created by my co-blogger Ryan is fantastic. My own children use it every week, to great profit. Perhaps yours would benefit from it as well. And here is Ryan’s sermon notes sheet for older children. Please take them and revise them to make them work for you and your kids! It’s a noble task to train your children to listen to the sermon.

1. Context Matters: God Will Give You the Desires of Your Heart

And just eking past the children’s sermon notes sheet for the #1 slot is our most popular “context matters” post of the year. Yes, God promises to give you the desires of your heart. But only when your heart is delighting in Him. The promise is a promise of more of Himself. The best thing He could possibly offer.

Share or follow:

Like a Thief in the Night

December 18, 2019 By Peter Krol

The Christmas holidays are about to overtake us like a thief in the night. They always sneak up quicker than I expect. Perhaps this will be a good time for you to consider taking up the 90-day Bible reading challenge. It will do for your soul what a detox diet might do for your body.

Try it and see if you don’t have the time of your life.

Share or follow:

Why Was Baby Jesus Laid in a Manger?

December 13, 2019 By Peter Krol

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

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

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

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

Luke’s Purpose

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

“…it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.” (Luke 1:3-4)

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

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

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

The Manger

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

Just follow the manger through the passage:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Gospels are Reliable Documents

December 11, 2019 By Peter Krol

Scholar Craig Keener has a great piece at Influence Magazine on the reliability of the Gospels. With clarity and relative brevity, he covers:

Four reasons we can trust the Gospels:
1. Across the theological spectrum, most scholars today recognize the Gospels are ancient biographies.
2. The Gospels are from within living memory.
3. The overlap shows their dependence on and respect for sources.
4. The Gospels retain elements from Jesus’ time and location.
Responses to four common objections:
1. There are differences among the Synoptics.
2. The Gospels include miracles.
3. The Gospels include demons.
4. Jesus made predictions.

If you have questions about whether we can trust these ancient documents, or if you have a friend with such questions, this article is a great place to start.

Check it out!

Share or follow:

Context Matters: Peace on Earth

December 9, 2019 By Ryan Higginbottom

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

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

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

The Immediate Context

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

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

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

The Broader Context in Luke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Peace that Jesus Came to Bring

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

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

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

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

Context matters.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

Share or follow:

Context Matters: For Everything There is a Season

December 6, 2019 By Peter Krol

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

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

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

The Quest

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

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

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

The Educational Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Theological Ecosystem

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

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

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

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

The Text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Context matters.

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

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

Share or follow:

Unbelief, and Not Busyness, is What Keeps You from the Word

December 4, 2019 By Peter Krol

Please do check out this piece by Rachel Jankovic on “Lies That Keep Women from the Word.” Nobody neglects to take a shower, eat a meal, or put on underwear because they are too busy to do so. Such things never fail, because we assume that we must do them, like it or not. They are part of life.

So why does “busyness” become an excuse for not devouring the words of eternal life?

Imagine if you thought that in order for a green bean to nourish you, you had to eat it in a calm place with nice lighting and no kids. What if a shower cleaned you only when you had a journal on hand to write about it? Or what if toothpaste worked only in Instagrammable moments?

Many Christian women do without the word of God. We have set our standards so unbiblically high for the moments in which we will read the Bible that we have devalued the word itself. The value of the Bible is not in the accessories we bring to it. It is not in study guides and long talks with friends. The nourishment of the word is not found in our organization, or in our self-discipline, or in our achievement of any kind. The word has priceless value without us — and we are invited to partake of it all the time.

At its heart this issue is not an issue of whether we will make time for God’s word. It is an issue of what we believe God’s word to be and do.

If you have recognized yourself in any of this, I would like to invite you to make a change. Not a change of increased intentionality or thoughtfulness. A change to start believing in faith that the Bible really is what it says it is. We call ourselves Christians — and Christ himself said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God’” (Matthew 4:4).

As Ryan has written, you have enough time to study the Bible. We always do what we want to do. And Jankovic will help you to address the underlying beliefs that get in the way.

Check it out!

Share or follow:

Don’t be a Commentary Junkie

November 29, 2019 By Ryan Higginbottom

Darren Larson (2006), Creative Commons License

Let’s be honest: a good Bible commentary is awesome. A scholar spends years studying a book of the Bible, gathering wisdom both from centuries of Christian history and from his own encounters with God in his Word. Then you get a chance to peek over his shoulder! Commentaries can be a great blessing from God.

While they can be terrific as a reference, commentaries are a poor substitute for studying the Bible yourself. I understand the temptation to rely on commentaries. The research! The analysis! The footnotes! But when we become enamored with the work of a Bible scholar, we miss out on the beauty of the Bible’s author.

The Lure of the Instant Fix

In this era of the smart phone, we’re used to getting everything quickly, from weather forecasts to bank transactions to pizza delivery. We think waiting five seconds for our email to load is an eternity. So if we feel stuck or lost when studying the Bible, we naturally want immediate aid. Study Bibles appeal to this desire by printing explanations and commentary on the same page as the Bible text. Just shift your eyes three inches for your answer.

But this need for instant gratification can short-circuit our Bible learning. You’d be troubled if your eight-year-old completed her math homework with the answer guide next to her, right? We’re not that much different from the math cheat if we camp out in a Bible commentary without poring over the Bible itself first.

Answers are not the Ultimate Goal

Part of interpreting the Bible is asking questions of the text. And, as much as the text allows, we should try to answer those questions.

But we need to be careful here. An obsession with answering interpretive questions can reveal a misplaced goal. Why are you studying the Bible? If you want to figure everything out, solve tricky theological puzzles, and generally become a Bible genius, you’re pointed in the wrong direction.

The aim of Bible study is love—love for God through his son Jesus, and love for others made in God’s image. Jesus said that all the Law and Prophets hang on these two commandments. (Matt 22:35–40) If you’re not growing in love as a result of studying the Bible, you’re doing it wrong.

If you skip right to the commentary, you might acquire some temporary knowledge. But if you take a shot at the interpretation first, you are more likely to internalize the author’s main point. This will lead to deeper, Spirit-fueled application.

Five Suggestions

Used in the right way, Bible commentaries can be tremendously valuable. We’ve published two posts which caution against the misuse of commentaries and study Bibles. Let me offer five additional suggestions.

Don’t treat a commentary as an infallible expert. Bible commentaries are written by imperfect sinners like you and me. Always weigh the commentary against the Bible.
Watch out for speculation. A good number of Bible commentators seem prone to this error.
Take advantage of the strengths. Commentaries are usually helpful in developing a book overview and in answering interpretation questions. On the whole, they tend to be less helpful in the realms of observation and application. (Though there are exceptions!)
Recognize the weaknesses. Commentators often have different priorities than you. Don’t be frustrated when a commentary doesn’t address your entire list of unanswered questions.
Choose good commentaries. Though the most trustworthy recommendations come from friends, I’ve found Best Commentaries to be a helpful resource.

Share or follow:

Why 2 Chronicles is the Most Underrated Book in the Bible

November 27, 2019 By Peter Krol

Andrew Wilson has a thought-provoking piece at the Gospel Coalition on “Why 2 Chronicles is the Most Underrated Book in the Bible.”

Second Chronicles is the most underrated book in Scripture.
Partly this is because its prequel gets off to a slow start. The lengthy genealogy of 1 Chronicles 1–9 is extremely boring for most modern readers, even though it plays a crucial role in the author’s overall project. The final chapters of 1 Chronicles also go into extensive detail on priestly and musical responsibilities, which take a fairly committed theologian or animated worship leader to get enthusiastic about. So by the time people reach 2 Chronicles, they are ready to regard the chronicler as a pedantic, laborious bean-counter who cannot seem to get out of the weeds.
And partly it’s because it seems to repeat the content of 1 and 2 Kings, but with Elijah and Elisha taken out. (Elijah does make a brief appearance in 2 Chronicles, but there is no Mount Carmel, no still small voices or miraculous meals or stolen vineyards or fiery chariots ascending into the sky.) The temple building is still there, and the ups and downs of good and bad kings are still there, but the action heroes have been edited out. A dismissive reader could think the chronicler is trying to make life difficult for us.

This setup explains why 2 Chronicles is easy to overlook, but Wilson goes on to explain the glorious themes of redemption through priest, king, and prophet woven masterfully through the book. For example:

Priests lead the people spiritually by leading them in worship, through music, song, praise, and prayer. And they guard the presence of God as gatekeepers, preventing people from unauthorized entry to the sanctuary, whether to offer sacrifice (like Uzziah) or to pilfer the gold to buy off their enemies (like Ahaz). Elders have a lot to learn from the way priests carry out their duties, and from what happens when they don’t.

There is much here worthy of your consideration.

Check it out!

Share or follow:

Keep the Whole Book in Mind

November 25, 2019 By Ryan Higginbottom

Luke 20 begins with a confrontation.

One day, as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes with the elders came up and said to him, “Tell us by what authority you do these things, or who it is that gave you this authority.” He answered them, “I also will ask you a question. Now tell me, was the baptism of John from heaven or from man?” (Luke 20:1–4)

Before digging into this passage, whenever I heard this chapter I thought Jesus was simply countering a question with a question. The chief priests and scribes were trying to serve him a trap, so he volleyed back a puzzle. I didn’t see much connection.

I should have known better.

Authority and Baptism

Since John baptized Jesus, when Jesus referred to John’s baptism he was not pointing toward something abstract. For Jesus, this could not have been more personal and meaningful. Jesus’s ministry began with his baptism.

For Luke, the surrounding context of Jesus’s baptism (Luke 3:21–22) was all about authority. John spent time answering questions from tax collectors and soldiers, two groups of people in authority (Luke 3:12–14). This led to questions about whether John was the Christ, but he pointed to one who was coming who would have so much authority that he could baptize with the Holy Spirit and serve as judge (Luke 3:15–17).

John was then thrown into prison for opposing Herod’s evil ways (Luke 3:18–20). Without an eye toward the topic of authority, this might seem a strange section of the passage. But when we know the theme, we see Herod’s obvious abuse of authority.

Finally, we read of Jesus’s baptism. Luke doesn’t explicitly tell us that John baptized Jesus, but this is a reasonable deduction (see Luke 3:7 and Luke 3:21), confirmed in other Gospels.

The Baptism of God’s Son

When Jesus was praying immediately after his baptism, a special guest arrived.

Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:21–22)

We usually read this voice as divine words of comfort and affirmation; they were this and much more. The title “son of God” was a kingly title, stretching back to the Old Testament and finding its clearest illustration in 2 Samuel 7:8–17. From that point forward, Davidic kings were “sons of God.” The one with ultimate earthly authority toward God’s people was the son of God.

Luke proceeds from the baptism of Jesus to the genealogy of Jesus. Unlike modern Christians, Luke’s first readers would not have nodded off at a list of “begats.” Especially not this list.

The genealogy begins with Jesus and ends with God, with lots of sons in between. Luke is repeating his point in case we didn’t hear it the first time: Jesus is the son of God.

The Confrontation Fizzles

The chief priests, scribes, and elders thought that Jesus’s question in Luke 20 was about John. But Jesus’s question answered theirs. Who gave Jesus the authority to do what he did?

God did. In John’s baptism of Jesus, God declared Jesus to be his son, and Luke wants us to see there is no higher authority.

Context Matters

We write a lot on this blog about how context matters. But we aren’t only concerned with the sentences and paragraphs surrounding your favorite verse.

This example from Luke 20 shows the importance of at least three different Scriptural contexts. The location of the question in Luke 20 and the baptism in Luke 3 reminds us that the immediate context matters. The reference from Luke 20 to Luke 3 reminds us to keep the whole book in mind—the context within the book matters. And the references to the phrase “son of God” remind us that the whole Bible is connected. Old Testament context informs New Testament usage.

This is not just an argument for careful Bible study and for regularly re-reading the book of the Bible you are studying. It’s also a reminder that the whole Bible matters when we interpret the whole Bible.

Share or follow:

« Previous Page