Knowable Word - Bible study help

Paul’s Personality and Writing Assistants

June 26, 2019 By Peter Krol

Talbot Davis makes a helpful point about the process of divine inspiration with respect to the letters of Paul:

Muslims contend that the Koran is straight dictation — all Allah, with no Mohammed filter at all.
The Christian conception of the bible is quite different. We
believe the God-breathed message of the Word gets delivered most
compellingly through the passions and personalities of the various
authors.
Because if God can take a curmudgeon like Paul and turn him
into a composer of inspired texts, imagine what he can do with you and
me.

Davis explains Paul’s use of a scribe, to whom he dictated his letters. Along the way, Davis shows us that this in no way undermines the doctrine of inspiration, but rather upholds it and makes it uniquely Christian.

Check it out!

Share or follow:

Did Jesus’ Ministry Last 3 Years?

June 21, 2019 By Peter Krol

Protestants sometimes accuse Roman Catholics of holding to traditions not found in the Bible (e.g. Mary’s immaculate conception and perpetual virginity, etc.). But even Protestants must be careful with their judgment, as they will certainly be measured by the same measure with which they measure others (Matt 7:1-2). Certainly they don’t irrationally hold on to traditions unsupported by Scripture, do they?

We could explore a number of such traditions that Protestants ought to be willing to reconsider in light of the biblical data. In this post, I’ll tackle the typically unexamined maxim that Jesus’ ministry lasted for 3 years. A related assertion is that Jesus was 33 years old when he was crucified. Careful observation of the scriptural data will show us that these assertions could be true, but they are far from certain.

Reasons for the Tradition

If you research an article or book that examines the question, and doesn’t merely assert the 3-year timeframe, you’ll find the answer typically hinges on a few pieces of biblical evidence:

Luke says Jesus began his ministry at “about 30 years of age” (Luke 3:23).
John records three Passover events during Jesus’ ministry (John 2:13, 6:4, 11:55). That third Passover is drawn out also in John 12:1, 13:1, and John 19:14.

From this evidence, the conclusion is drawn: He began at age 30, he ministered for 3 years (through 3 annual Passover feasts), and therefore he died at age 33.

St. Paul’s Timeline, Heidi Blanton (2010), Creative Commons

Familiarity vs. Observation

But please don’t allow your familiarity with the tradition to blind you from careful observation of the text!

Luke clearly says that Jesus was “about” 30, not “exactly” 30. Perhaps Luke wants us to think of the beginning of Jesus’ ministry as analogous to the “coming of age” of priests (Num 4:1-3) and rulers (Gen 41:46, 2 Sam 5:4) at age 30. Or perhaps he has other reasons for rounding the number.
Though John records three Passover events, we have no proof that he intends his narrative to be literally chronological. Some scholars argue that the first Passover (chapter 2) was the same Passover as the one during which he was crucified, and that John bumps it early in his narrative to make a theological point. Others argue that the Passover of John 6:4 refers to same Passover of the year Jesus was crucified (and therefore, that John 6:4 and John 11:55 are referring to the same event).
But regardless of whether John tells us about three Passovers, two Passovers, or even one—he never says that these were the only Passovers Jesus attended during his ministry. To assert or assume these 3 Passover references mean Jesus’ ministry lasted 3 years is to argue from silence.

Conclusion

Now I hope this analysis doesn’t generate seismic repercussions in anyone’s faith. My guess is that most people reading this explanation are not shaken to their core by it. If your reaction is along the lines of, “Who cares whether Jesus’ ministry was 3 years, or 2 years, or even 6 years long?”—I would like to buy you a drink and bless you in the name of Christ.

So why do I care enough to point it out?

Because these things snowball across generations. It’s not difficult for an angel’s legitimate blessing of Mary (Luke 1:28) to evolve over time into sacred legends about her moral perfection, perpetual chastity, or extraordinary origin. In the same way, who knows when or how the mistakenly assumed “three-year ministry of Jesus” might evolve into a three-year master plan for discipleship, or a three-year sacred tradition for church planting, or a set of uncompromisable three-year expectations for how God must work to build his kingdom?

Most spurious traditions have their origin in something true and good. But we cannot add to that truth without, in the end, compromising the very truth we sought to uphold. For example, it is a good and right thing to love God more than your parents (Luke 14:26). But it’s an altogether wicked thing to add traditions to that truth which end up undermining the obligation to care for your aging forebears (Mark 7:9-13).

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.

Share or follow:

More on the Meaning of Vanity

June 19, 2019 By Peter Krol

Kevin Carson wrote a piece in response to my recent posts on Ecclesiastes, offering further explanation of the meaning of “vanity.” Carson believes the Preacher uses the term not so much to refer to the “unsatisfying, endless repetition of old things…” (as I defined in my second post), but to refer to the frustratingly enigmatic nature of life in a fallen world. That is, that though we try to understand why life happens the way it does, we simply can never know.

Carson is on to something here, and he does a great job exploring the argument of the entire book (while I was limiting myself in my post only to the explanation of vanity in chapter 1). Carson proposes his definition in stark contrast to mine, though I’m inclined to see us as exploring the topic from different angles. I focused on the day-to-day experience of vanity, while Carson gets at the ideological underpinnings of the concept.

His insights are well communicated and worth considering. Check it out!

Share or follow:

Recommended Commentaries that Model Good Bible Study

June 14, 2019 By Peter Krol

A good commentary is like gasoline. If you possess a working engine, it will get you where you want to go. But if you’re prone to drinking it straight, you’re better off labeling it as poison.

Alin S (2013), Creative Commons

This is why I and others warn against common but dangerous mistakes when using commentaries. We urge you not to awaken or arouse your study Bibles until the time is right. We’re committed to helping you break the addiction. We’d like to see our generation less dependent on so many Bible curricula and discipleship materials. We’re delighted when others promote the same cause.

However, please don’t think I’m against commentaries. Sure, I occasionally use strong language, but it’s because I care about you. I blog to help you build a good Bible study engine, and I want to help you see the connection between your unquenchable thirst and your choice of beverage. Don’t drink the gasoline!

I devour commentaries. I read them for the same reason I attend Bible studies: I can’t do this by myself, and I need the Christian community to help me know God better. The right commentaries stimulate me, provoking a fanatical compulsion to investigate the text.

The wrong commentaries make me feel like my 6-year-old daughter, who, on a 3-mile bike ride around town, despaired at every uphill stretch. Before long, she was calling down imprecations on herself and all she held dear: “I wish I didn’t even have a bike!” Substitute “a bike” with “this volume,” and you’ve got my sense when I spend good money on something that offers little more than word histories, cross references, and catalogues of debates between older commentators.

An excellent commentary, who can find? She is far more precious than jewels. And many websites and book lists and blog series exist to help you pluck the gems from the sediment. But it’s still hard to find a good match without consistent criteria to help you decide.

So I’ve created a page on the resources section of this site, recommending commentaries that model good Bible study. By “good Bible study,” I mean the following:

observing the text carefully (not merely telling us what others have said about the text)
taking note of literary devices
making interpretive decisions primarily from the text and not merely by scholarly consensus
showing, not merely telling, their conclusions
spelling out the author’s train of thought (focusing more on logic and meaning than on words, etymology, or cross references)
focusing on the author’s main points (without getting distracted by every possible debate on isolated words or phrases)
showing a conviction that the text will change our lives, both individually and corporately

Not every commentary I recommend will do all 7 things well, but I’ll look for a preponderance of evidence. And I award bonus points when the gospel of Jesus Christ takes center stage.

Now, before you click the button, please promise me you won’t misuse the list. Commit yourself to studying the text yourself. After you have guessed at the author’s main point and attempted to apply it, your engine will be thirsty and ready for a refill. You’ll get far more out of these commentaries if you don’t rely on them to do the work for you.

Are you ready? Do you promise? Take me to the page!

Share or follow:

Why the Bible is Difficult to Understand

June 12, 2019 By Peter Krol

Kevin Halloran lists 9 reasons the Bible is difficult to understand, along with what we can do about it. His reasons:

We live at a different time
We live in a different culture
We speak different languages
We have natural minds that struggle to understand spiritual truths
We are sinners
We don’t know how the Bible storyline fits together
We have weak reading skills
We are lazy
We don’t approach the Bible correctly

After explaining these five hurdles, Halloran continues with reasons to rejoice in the resources God has given us. And he offers suggestions for growing in handling the Word.

This is great, practical instruction, which I highly commend.

Check it out!

Share or follow:

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

June 6, 2019 By Peter Krol

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

Study the Word

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

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

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

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

vanity
breath
idols
vain
worthless
false
nothing
empty
gained hastily
vapor

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

Consider the Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So we can construct a definition for hebel (“vanity”), according to its use in Ecclesiastes, as follows: “Unsatisfying, endless repetition of old things that nobody will remember; nothing you do will last, and at the end you die. And you can’t fix it.”* This is hebel. This is what you have to gain from all the toil at which you toil under the sun.

Return to the Word

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

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

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

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

Share or follow:

Approach Your Bible Desperately

June 5, 2019 By Peter Krol

Matt Smethurst wants you to “Approach Your Bible Desperately,” and I heartily concur.

Have you ever ruined your appetite for an epic dinner by snacking all day? You wish you could work up an appetite, but it’s too late. The steak is on the table, and you’re not hungry.

This is how we often treat God’s Word. Is it any wonder that nibbling long enough from the table of the world would leave us with little appetite left for God?¹ If we’re snacking on cheese puffs, we shouldn’t be surprised when we don’t have room for steak.

The charge:

Shortly before his death, after rehearsing God’s law one final time, Moses looks at the people of Israel and says, “These are not just idle words for you—they are your life” (Deut. 32:47). The stakes could not be higher.

Your soul will wither and die without your Bible. Approach it desperately.

Check it out!

Share or follow:

Three Approaches to Ecclesiastes

May 31, 2019 By Peter Krol

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

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

Approach #1: The Cynic

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

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

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

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

Approach #2: The Hedonist

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

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

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

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

Approach #3: The Apologist

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Charge

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

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

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

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

Share or follow:

Help With Hosea

May 29, 2019 By Peter Krol

Unlocking the Bible has a great introduction to the prophecy of Hosea. If you’ve ever been confused by this book, here is a great place to start.

The article walks through Hosea as a living parable and unpacks what we can learn from the book. In particular, the authors land in three areas:

What does unfaithfulness look like
How does God love us despite our unfaithfulness?
What does God desire from us in return?

May this brief intro to Hosea equip you to read this book well, and to desire your Lord more than ever.

Check it out!

Share or follow:

Context Matters: He Who Began a Good Work in You

May 24, 2019 By Peter Krol

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

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

Personal Sanctification

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

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

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

Communal Partnership

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

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

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

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

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

We Don’t Have to Pick One

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

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

Context matters.

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

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

Share or follow:

« Previous Page