Knowable Word - Bible study help

The Problem With Bible Reading Plans

June 6, 2018 By Peter Krol

Writing for the blog of Southern Seminary, Joseph C. Harrod describes one common approach to Bible reading plans: reading one chapter at a time from different parts of the Bible. One famous reading plan does one chapter a day from Genesis, one from Ezra, one from Matthew, and one from Acts—then moving on from there each day through the Bible.

I have followed such a reading plan from a lectionary, for many years. I use this in addition to my annual read-through, as well as ongoing voluminous reading of whatever book I’m studying at the time (currently Isaiah). One benefit of the “various chapters” reading plan is that it keeps the whole of Scripture in the forefront.

But I’ve also seen a drawback to such reading plans: They train you to think only in chapter-long chunks, where you can easily miss the context of whole books. And Harrod identifies another drawback I hadn’t thought of: Such plans train you to think it takes a very long time to read through books. So, for example, Genesis takes almost 2 months (50 days) to get through, when, in fact, if you read only Genesis, you could finish it in 3.5 hours.

Harrod shows how even the longest books of the Bible can be read in about the same amount of time we’d take to watch an epic film or a sporting event. It’s worth devouring these books in one or two sittings. Harrod has some helpful insights in this first article on the problem with most Bible reading plans, and in a second article, he shows how you can read half the Bible in 30 minutes!

Check it out!

Share or follow:

Context Matters: Chief of Sinners

June 1, 2018 By Peter Krol

Perhaps you’ve heard Christian leaders refer to themselves as the “chief of sinners.” Perhaps you’ve even said this about yourself. You might know the phrase comes from 1 Tim 1:15 KJV. Modern translations typically use “foremost” (1 Tim 1:15 ESV, 1 Tim 1:15 NASB) or “worst” (1 Tim 1:15 NIV, 1 Tim 1:15 CSB) instead of “chief.” I have no concern with the exact translation, but I often wonder if those using the phrase have taken heed of its context.

Context matters. If we learn to read the Bible for what it is—and not as a collection of independently assembled proverbial sayings—we’ll discover that some of our most familiar passages say something slightly different from what we’ve always assumed.

The Right Track

When people self-apply the label “chief of sinners,” they are not doing gross violence to this verse. Paul introduces the statement with, “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance” (1 Tim 1:15). This suggests that the phrase was a common saying that people had spoken or heard, and it suggests that Paul was endorsing the truth of it.

Now it’s possible that the “trustworthy saying” was just the first part (“Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners”), and that Paul appended his own comment (“of whom I am the foremost”) to it. Or the entire statement could be the “trustworthy saying.” We’re not sure, because ancient Greek manuscripts didn’t have quotation marks to signal which part Paul was quoting, and which part was his own reflection.

But we can still confidently say that when Christians use the “chief of sinners/foremost sinner” language, they are honoring Paul’s wishes that this statement is “deserving of full acceptance.” This could be an appropriate view for children of God to take of themselves, as they become increasingly aware of the depth of their indwelling sin, and as long as it’s not merely false humility.

The Argument

But let’s also notice that Paul is making a rhetorical point.

There is a problem in Ephesus with false teachers, teaching “different doctrine” (1 Tim 1:3), speculating on mysteries in the Torah (1 Tim 1:4), and failing to understand the assertions they make so confidently about the law (1 Tim 1:7). They have missed the point of the law: love issuing from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith (1 Tim 1:5).

The law, you see, is a very good thing when you use it lawfully. It’s not for the good guys but the bad guys. It addresses whatever is contrary to sound doctrine, and it does so in perfect harmony with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God (1 Tim 1:8-11).

Case in point: Paul’s own testimony. He can think of no example more severe. He thought he was a good guy in God’s world, but in truth he was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent (1 Tim 1:12-13a). The law judged him as such, but the grace of our Lord overflowed for him in Christ Jesus (1 Tim 1:13b-14).

Therefore, the saying is trustworthy…Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I [Paul] am the foremost.

But Paul received mercy for one primary reason: so Jesus Christ could display his perfect patience in the chief of sinners. Why would he do this? To make Paul an example to those who were to believe in Jesus for eternal life (1 Tim 1:16). This King of the ages, the only God, deserves all honor and glory forever and ever (1 Tim 1:17).

The Point

Paul never says his readers should think of themselves as the foremost sinners. He clearly says that he himself is the foremost of sinners (“in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example” – 1 Tim 1:16).

The point is that, in context, Paul is saying he occupies a unique place in redemptive history. He’s not using “chief of sinners” language to model self-effacing humility. He’s using it because he is truly hard-pressed to find any worse sinner than he was. Of course it’s a terrible thing to be a tyrannical oppressor and attacker of innocent people. But it’s even more terrible to do so in God’s name, believing yourself to be doing out of obedience to him.

And if King Jesus can rescue a guy like that, applying the law to his sin, and demonstrating perfect patience through the faith and love—he can rescue anybody. Even you. Even me.

By this charge, Timothy, and Christian leaders today, may wage the good warfare (1 Tim 1:18).

Context matters.

Share or follow:

Rethinking Our Proof Texts

May 30, 2018 By Peter Krol

Mike Leake has some important thoughts about how and when to reconsider the way we use our proof texts. As a young believer, Leake often used Phil 1:6 (“he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion”) to support the doctrine of eternal security. While he hasn’t rejected that doctrine, he has reconsidered his use of Phil 1:6 to support it.

Why? Simply because the context of Philippians 1 strongly suggests this verse is not speaking to that topic.

And why ought we to be willing to do this: to back down from using some of our favorite verses to support our favorite teaching?

First, it matters because truth matters. We cannot be loose with the truth. If we teach a right doctrine but do it the wrong way with the wrong text we are training ourselves and our people that truth is fluid and that the end justifies the means. That will not only have an impact on the way we do theology, it’ll even have an impact on the way we live our lives.

Second, it builds trust. If people know I believe a certain doctrine but see that I’m willing to concede a particular point for the sake of the truth, then it ought to build trust for the places where I’m not willing to concede a point.

The point I’ve been making for weeks now, that context matters, is not about looking superior to other people, being argumentative, or splitting hairs. This is about hearing God’s voice and not confusing it with our own. This is a matter not only of what the Scriptures say, but also of how we know what the Scriptures say.

Leake’s post gives a great example of how to think (and re-think) through these things with a particular text. Check it out!

Share or follow:

What the Dictionary Taught Me About Bible Study

May 25, 2018 By Peter Krol

I don’t watch many videos online. I almost always skip them when people link to them. But when blogger Mark Ward says, “This video is fantastic,” I pay attention. Mark shares my love for linguistics and for careful, contextual Bible study, so I respect his recommendations on such things.

So I now share with you Anne Curzan’s TED talk entitled, “What Makes a Word ‘Real’?” And I echo Mark’s evaluation. This video is fantastic. Watching it may be your best-invested 17 minutes all week. I believe you’ll find the video to be quite impactful, and I wish I had some way to incentivize your watching of it.

Curzan explains how language changes over time, and she peels back the curtain on the editing of dictionaries. I appreciate her comment that the dictionary is probably the only book we’re trained never to think critically about. But we should. Below the video, I’ll trace some implications for Bible study.

What does Curzan’s presentation tell us about Bible study?

Because languages can change drastically every hundred years, word studies are far less important than book studies when we come to the Scripture. Our chief goal should be to understand how each author uses his language; our goal should not be to tap into the history of the Bible’s vocabulary.
“No dictionary is the final arbiter of what words ‘mean.'” This is no less true of Bible dictionaries and lexicons than it is of modern English ones. The difference, of course, is that biblical languages are now dead and no longer changing. But those languages (particularly Hebrew) changed so much over the time the Bible was written that it’s irrational to think we can look back over their millennia of use and identify the single “true meaning” of any biblical word. Just think of the American Heritage Dictionary’s contradictory entries for the word peruse.
Just like in contemporary word usage, biblical authors felt free to make up new words to suit their purposes (I think of “more than conquerors” in Romans 8:37 as an example). In such cases, they likely were aiming more at emotional impact than technical precision.
We must be careful not to read current theological categories back into the words of Scripture. The Scriptures must stand on their own, in their own context. For example, when the New Testament uses the word “church,” the authors do not always have in mind what we think of as “church” (a local congregation, meeting at least weekly for worship services, with a pastor, a budget, a building, a set of by-laws, and an annual meeting). “Preach” is not always referring to the sermons presented by the ordained minister on Sunday morning.

Words are beautiful things, as long as we notice how they’re used and don’t expect them to carry loads they simply can’t bear. Consider this video your invite to a fruitful understanding of basic linguistics. And please don’t defriend me over it.

Check it out!

Share or follow:

Why Context Matters

May 23, 2018 By Peter Krol

At Stand to Reason, Alan Shlemon explains why it matters so much to consider the context of a Bible verse. After giving an example, where a Christian uses Matthew 18:20 to encourage their small group that Jesus is with them, Shlemon draws the following conclusion:

This might seem benign, but it’s dangerous. In this case, the Christian has concluded that the verse tells him Jesus is with them. You might think, What’s the harm in believing that? In this case, the belief is not incorrect—Jesus is with them—but that verse doesn’t support that belief. The believer has ignored the Holy Spirit’s inspired context and then created his own context, thus changing the meaning of Jesus’ teaching. Now Matthew 18:20 isn’t about church discipline but rather about believing Jesus is with you. That’s not Bible reading. That’s not allowing the Holy Spirit to transform you. That’s not listening to God but listening to yourself and baptizing your faulty interpretation with the authority of God’s Word. If a Christian wants a verse that supports the fact that Jesus is present with him, he can always turn to Matthew 28:20.

So we can arrive at true teaching in the wrong way. But that’s not far from using the same methods of Bible reading to reach entirely false teaching. Let’s not ignore the wishes of Holy Spirit, who inspired these sacred writings.

Shlemon is right. Context matters. Let’s continue retraining ourselves and our people to read the Bible for what it is: not a collection of memory verses, but a collection of books.

Check it out!

Share or follow:

Context Matters: Rejoice in the Lord, Don’t be Anxious, the Peace of God, Whatever is True

May 18, 2018 By Peter Krol

Perhaps you’ve been told to rejoice in the Lord. And again I will say, rejoice! And maybe you know you shouldn’t be anxious about anything, but should let your requests be made known to God. And you know that the peace of God, which surpasses understanding, will guard your heart and mind in Christ Jesus. And finally, you know that you should think about whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, and about any excellence or anything worthy of praise.

I’m willing to wager you’ve heard each of these statements, and that each of them is meaningful to you on its own. But could there be anything more to these inspirational statements than that they just happen to exist side-by-side near the end of Paul’s letter to the Philippians?

Some Vulnerable Honesty

I’m about to propose a way of reading Philippians 4 that I have never heard anywhere else. I’ve never heard a sermon like this. I’ve never seen it in a commentary. I have yet to experience people outside my circles who put these ideas into practice in quite this way.

So perhaps I’m truly on to something, and we all need to remove our blinders on this passage. Or perhaps I’m being foolhardy.

While I believe OIA Bible study is the best method we can use to read the Scriptures, I also firmly believe that outrageously innovative Bible interpretation is not something to aim for. If nobody’s ever seen what I see, I should proceed with great caution. That doesn’t mean I’m wrong (any more than my innovation proves I’m right). But it means I need to tread softly and ensure I’m firmly grounded in studious observation and interpretation of the text, and not in my preconceived notions.

If I fail to do that, please feel free to call it out. And if you can point me to anyone else who has explained Phil 4 in this way, I would be delighted to hear of it.

That Said…

Paul nears the end of his letter to the Philippians. He’s worked through the glorious truths of when and how to build unity, and when not to build unity. He’s painted a compelling picture of the humility and exaltation of Christ, and of how our Christ compels us to follow him in humiliation so we can share in his exaltation.

But at the end, Paul hits on some highly practical matters.

First, there is an explosive conflict between two prominent women in the church (Phil 4:2). It’s so big that Paul’s gotten wind of it and he recruits a friend, his “true companion” to help resolve it (Phil 4:3).

Then we get a set of seemingly random but beautifully memorable memory verses (Phil 4:4-9).

Then Paul moves on to his closing thanksgiving for their financial support of his ministry (Phil 4:10-20).

Finally, he concludes his letter in his usual way (Phil 4:21-23).

So what are we to make of the instructions in Phil 4:4-9?

The Usual Approach

Normally, people read these verses as a series of scattershot principles to keep in mind about the Christian life. And this could be the case. Paul does this very thing in other epistles (Rom 16:16-20, 1 Cor 16:1-18, etc.). And other letter writers appear to do a similar thing (Hebrews 13, portions of James).

Also, one foundation of this approach is the assumption that “peace” in Phil 4:7 and Phil 4:9 is a psychological state. The “peace of God” which guards your heart and mind is something similar to contentment or security in one’s faith. This certainly fits with where Paul goes in Phil 4:10-20. And the word “peace” demonstrably has this meaning in other letters of Paul’s (Rom 14:17, Rom 15:13, possibly 1 Cor 1:3, 2 Cor 1:2, Gal 6:16, etc.).

And frankly, each verse in Phil 4:4-9 stands very well on its own. Each one makes perfect sense as a discrete instruction, listed in a series of reminders.

But What If…?

But what if that conflict between Euodia and Syntyche was so explosive that nobody knew what to do about it? I’m sure Paul was not the first person to try to help them. Neither of them are accused of selfish self-interest in preaching the gospel (Phil 1:15). Neither of them is named an evildoer, a mutilator of the flesh (Phil 3:2), an enemy of the cross of Christ (Phil 3:18), or one who ought to be looked out for, avoided, or destroyed by God.

No, they are “fellow workers.” Their names are in the book of life. They have labored side by side with Paul in the ministry of the gospel. They’ve been a part of the team. Perhaps they’ve even been leaders of teams themselves. They just have so completely misunderstood and miscommunicated with one another that they can no longer agree in the Lord (Phil 4:2-3).

Perhaps you’ve seen conflict this explosive. So strong and confusing that nobody knows what to do. There is no clear right side or wrong side, and yet the church is still being ripped apart. Both sides have a true perspective, but the perspectives just keep missing each other. And everybody suffers as a result.

Martin Pettitt (2008), Creative Commons

Now imagine that you are Paul’s “true companion,” whom he asks to help resolve this thing. How would you feel about that? Perhaps you’d be glad he didn’t name you so you could slink under the pew and pretend to be home sick that day! What would you do?

You could start by rejoicing in the Lord (Phil 4:4). Conflict always presents an opportunity to grow more like Christ. It will be better at the end than it was before the conflict broke out.
Again, you need to be reminded a second time, so you can remind everyone else: Rejoice in the Lord (Phil 4:4).
Then perhaps you could encourage each disputant to let the other side see how reasonable they can be. They should each show a willingness to listen and consider. They should both be open to understanding the other before trying to make themselves understood. They should be able to clearly distinguish the facts of the matter from their interpretations of those facts (Phil 4:5). “You hate me” is not a reasonable thing to tell someone. But, “When you said XYZ, I felt like you hated me. Is that what you meant?” is a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
All should be reminded often that the Lord is at hand (Phil 4:5). There is no excuse for caricaturing the other perspective or resorting to personal attacks. God sees, he is present, and he is aware. And he will not allow you to go undefended forever.
Explosive conflict tends to make us anxious. We don’t know what to do about it. But we can always pray. And when we pray, we are free as God’s children to ask him for deep resolution. We must make these requests with a spirit of thankfulness for the opportunities provided by the conflict (Phil 4:6).
And wonder of wonders: From a worldly point of view, we should have no reason ever to expect that warring factions could agree and come back together. But God’s peace—perhaps not a psychological state of well-being, but simply the absence of infighting—surpasses all such understanding. But that doesn’t matter, because we have every reason to believe God’s peace can and will guard hearts and minds so we can speak and act in measured, kind, and sacrificial ways (Phil 4:7).
And finally: Everyone who’s ever been in a conflict knows how the conflict shades your attitude toward your opponent. When I have concluded that someone is my enemy, they can no longer do anything right. Everything they do gets interpreted as hostile, selfish, ungodly, insincere, or aggressive. We must not do this. Instead, we are obligated to go out of our way to find something—anything!—about them that is good and praiseworthy. We must think about these things, and not about our hurt or offended feelings (Phil 4:8). It’s amazing how much this simple practice can do to lower the temperature in a heated conflict.

We can have hope that these things will work because Paul has modeled these very principles all throughout the letter (Phil 4:9). Just go back to his description of his opponents in chapter 1. How kind and gracious he is, refusing to attack or label them as hostiles! He is willing to focus on their godly motives, even while they’re causing him tremendous pain through their rivalry. At least “Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice” (Phil 1:18). Such is the attitude of one who has been brought under the reign of the God of peace (Phil 4:9).

Perhaps these verses are independently composed proverbial sayings. Perhaps.

But should it surprise us that we have such a hard time resolving conflicts between Christians if, perhaps, we have failed to recognize when the Lord provides for us a manual for peace?

Context matters.

For further explanation of this contextual flow of thought in Phil 4:2-9, see this post I wrote for the Gospel Coalition.

Share or follow:

4 Simple Language Principles

May 16, 2018 By Peter Krol

Mark Ward writes about “4 Simple Language Principles That Will Improve Your Bible Study.” He’s writing to the Bible student who wants to learn Greek or Hebrew. Or possibly to the person who wants to use original language tools well. You know, the sort of person who can be heard saying things like, “What the Greek word here really means is…”

Ward offers some excellent advice for these folks, and for the rest of us, when he encourages us to learn first how all languages work. Then we’ll be in a better place to understand how Greek and Hebrew work.

His principles are as follows:

Usage determines meaning.
Usage determines meaning—no, I mean it.
Look at every level of meaning, not just the word level
Learn linguistic and literary labels

These principles are so important, especially the first two. Many people tend to think words have specific meaning built into them inherently, like a code. But words only have meaning according to how real people use those words in real communication. Another way to put it is that we assume words get their meaning from the dictionary. But we fail to realize that dictionaries get their word meanings by listening to people use words in conversation (for real: see this TED talk). And therefore, word meanings are constantly changing over time.

Ward’s musings on this topic are worth reflecting on.

Check it out!

Share or follow:

Context Matters: Quick to Listen, Slow to Speak

May 11, 2018 By Peter Krol

Perhaps you’ve heard it’s a good idea to listen more and speak less. And that, while anger is not always sinful, we ought always be slow to it. Certainly, such virtues are to be commended. But have we really understood James’s intentions when he speaks of these things?

The Verse

You may have already figured out which verse I have in mind:

Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger. (James 1:19)

The verse seems clear enough, right? It’s a perfect memory verse for the angry person or jabbering child. But have you considered what it is James wants you to hear more quickly? And what does he want you to be slower to speak about? And what does he expect you’ll be angry about?

Melissa Wiese (2007), Creative Commons

The Problem

James’s writing style differs from other New Testament authors, especially those who wrote letters. Where other authors make liberal use of logical connectors (for, therefore, because, so that, etc.), James relies more on his content to move his argument forward.

Commentators often compare James’s letter with Old Testament wisdom literature, because James draws on similar techniques (poetic metaphor, pithy wording, practical application) in his writing. But we must not forget that wisdom literature—be it Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job, or James—always tries to make us think. The message is not always in your face or vibrantly presented. The message is something you’re supposed to ponder.

So the “problem” with James is that he doesn’t spell out how he gets from one idea to the next. He expects us to think about it and notice his careful verbal connections. His thought is less like a train and more like a gently flowing river; sometimes we need to paddle a bit, but we can always drift along behind James’s lead raft. He’ll drop clues into the water for us pick up so we don’t lose him at the next fork.

The Argument

James begins his letter with his main idea: “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds” (James 1:2). James wants to help us. He doesn’t want us to be surprised when trials come. We ought not be discouraged or depressed. We need eyes to see what God is doing in those trials. This perspective is one of “all joy.”

As we work through James’s argument from here, we should observe how each new paragraph (and sometimes each sentence) takes a key word or idea from the previous paragraph to expand on.

Trials make us steadfast (James 1:3), and the effect of this steadfastness is to make us perfect and complete, lacking in nothing (James 1:4).
One thing we lack is wisdom, but we can ask for it (James 1:5).
When we ask (James 1:6), we can expect to receive something—wisdom, and joy in trials—from the Lord (James 1:7-8).
But when we think of receiving something from the Lord, we typically think of material wealth. We must remember that both poverty (James 1:9) and riches (James 1:10-11) are trials in themselves. We must view them rightly to count them all joy.
The greatest wealth is not found in riches (or poverty) but in the blessing that God promises to those who remain steadfast (James 1:12).
Another trial is related to how we understand our trials! When undergoing trial, we tend to doubt God’s promises and charge him with doing wrong by us (James 1:13).
But God never does wrong by us; any wrong comes from the evil desire that sprouts within (James 1:14-15).
In other words, what we say about our trials really matters. Let us never say God is responsible for the evil that comes from within us.
- For example: While it may be appropriate for someone to say that God is the cause of their season of singleness (he put me here in what feels like a trial), it is never appropriate to say that God is the cause of their lust problem (if he hadn’t put me in this season, I wouldn’t have this temptation).
We must not be deceived, failing to see God as our unchanging Father who gives us good and perfect gifts (James 1:16-17).
One of those good and perfect gifts is to make us good and perfect through steadfastness in trial (back up to James 1:4). This could also be described as a new birth, which he grants us through his word of truth (James 1:18).

Back to the Verse

So when we finally reach James 1:19, having walked through the chapter to that point, we see a few things:

We must be “quick to hear” the word of truth (James 1:18) that declares who God is (James 1:17), who we are (James 1:14-15), and what God is doing in us through trials (James 1:3-4).
We must be “slow to speak” words of criticism about the God (James 1:13) who brings us trials (James 1:2) to make us steadfast (James 1:12), perfect and complete (James 1:4).
We must be “slow to anger” toward the Father of lights (James 1:17), who gives generously (James 1:5), promises assuredly (James 1:12), and transforms us personally (James 1:18).

The Argument Moves On

Your anger toward God will never produce the righteousness in you God desires (James 1:20). Put away your stubborn and rebelliously self-centered interpretations of your trials—which are filthy and rampantly wicked—and receive the word of God which speaks to your trials (James 1:21). And don’t just listen, but actually do it; let God’s word change your perspective and make you truly steadfast in trial (James 1:22-25). When you’re ready to bridle your tongue, and speak of your trials (even your religion) the same way God does in his word (James 1:26), you’ll be transformed to move out beyond yourself to serve the weakest among you (James 1:27).

Conclusion

So while James 1:19 remains a marvelous memory verse, it might be helpful to know James especially has in mind our listening to God, our speaking about God, and our anger toward God. We must deal with this before we’ll be equipped to love our neighbor (James 1:27, and on into chapter 2).

Context matters.

Many thanks to my colleagues Dave Royes and Mark Fodale for showing me the way, just this week, through James’s river of thought here in chapter 1.

Share or follow:

Does the New Testament Misquote the Old Testament?

May 9, 2018 By Peter Krol

When you look up Old Testament passages quoted in the New Testament, you may notice that they don’t always line up exactly. For example, look at Isaiah 61:1-2, and then look at Luke’s quote of those verses in Luke 4:18-19:

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor. (Is 61:1-2)

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. (Luke 4:18-19)

Michael S. Heiser explains the cause for discrepancy in this brief article. In short, the New Testament authors were typically working off a Greek translation of the Hebrew original. So our Old Testaments are translating the Hebrew directly into English. But when the NT quotes the OT, our English New Testaments are translating a Greek translation of the original Hebrew. The more languages involved in the conversion, the more adjustment gets made at each step.

For a helpful example, try the following experiment. Go to Google translate, and translate a normal English phrase (such as, “My shoulder hurts from throwing too much at baseball practice yesterday”) into any other language. Copy the result. Now paste that text and translate it back into English. After just those two steps, going into Danish and back, I got: “My shoulder hurts to throw too much of baseball practice yesterday.” The discrepancies from the original should not surprise us.

(I understand that going from English to Danish to English—two total languages—is not identical to going from Hebrew to Greek to English—three total languages. My point is just to show, to an audience that is likely unilingual, what happens when you have two steps in translation.)

This doesn’t mean we can’t trust translations. It just means we have to be reasonable and sensible about how language works. Remember: The original languages don’t function like a code to be cracked. They were real documents written by real people in ordinary languages. There’s no need for concern when languages function linguistically.

Heiser’s article helpfully explains this example. Check it out!

Share or follow:

Context Matters: the Faith Hall of Fame

May 4, 2018 By Peter Krol

Perhaps you’ve heard about “The Faith Hall of Fame” (Hebrews 11:1-40). It’s a lengthy list of Old Testament heroes and the mighty deeds our great God accomplished through them. Children’s Bibles could derive their tables of contents from this chapter, and many believers come here for inspiration and encouragement. And for good reason. But how many, like Abraham, wander into this text, not knowing where they are going? And how many of our good intentions fall like the walls of Jericho by the author’s encircling, and clearly stated, intentions? And how many come away with assurance of things hoped for, and conviction of things not seen in the text?

Context matters. If we learn to read the Bible for what it is—and not as a collection of independently assembled inspirational stories—we’ll discover that some of our most familiar passages don’t actually mean what we’ve always assumed.

psmckiernan (2011), Creative Commons

The Big Idea

You don’t have to dig far into articles or commentaries on Hebrews to get the letter’s* main idea. Few would dispute it: Jesus Christ is superior. He is:

superior to angels (chapters 1-2)
superior to Moses (chapter 3)
superior to Joshua’s rest (chapter 4)
superior to the Levitical priesthood (chapters 5-7)
superior to the old covenant (chapter 8)
superior to the tabernacle (chapter 9)
superior to animal sacrifices (chapter 10)

The Main Application

As the text concludes a whirlwind review of the Old Testament legal and sacrificial system, it pulls everything together. “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places” (Heb 10:19) by superior blood, through a superior way, with a superior priest, “let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith” (Heb 10:22). “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope” (Heb 10:23) and stir one another up to love and good works.

Remember, there is no sacrifice for deliberate sin. This was the case under Moses’ law, and it remains the case under the Son of God and the Spirit of grace (Heb 10:26-30).

Wow! Sound harsh? Sound unchristian?

Perhaps. Unless you pay attention to which deliberate sin it is that cannot be covered by any sacrifice, including Christ’s. It was mentioned in Heb 10:19-25, but he brings it up again:

But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings… Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward… We are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls. (Heb 10:32-39)

The sin that cannot be covered by sacrifice is the sin of throwing away one’s confidence in Christ. The sin of shrinking back from enlightenment regarding Jesus’ superiority. The sin of not holding fast the confession of hope in Jesus. The sin, that is, of lacking faith.

In other words, the only people who will be in hell are those who refuse to believe in Jesus Christ as their true rest, true tabernacle, true priest, and true sacrifice. No sacrifice or religious duty could ever rescue such people. But those who maintain their believing loyalty to Christ will receive the promised reward. Don’t ever let this go; it’s not worth it. With such loyalty, you can endure any suffering.

The Hall of Fame

And on this note, the discourse launches into a litany of Old Testament examples of people whose primary hope and assurance came not from their own performance of religious duty (temple, priest, sacrifice), but from the promise of God to preserve and reward them through hardship. But the text doesn’t want us to look at these examples. No, their eyes are on us (Heb 11:39-12:1), so that our eyes can be on him (Heb 12:2-3).

The litany nearly becomes a mantra that you can’t miss: “By faith… By faith… By faith… By faith,” eighteen times. Then a “through faith” (Heb 11:33) and a “through their faith” (Heb 11:39) are thrown in for a little variety at the end.

When reading through the faith hall of fame, we sometimes miss the fact that it’s a faith hall of fame. It’s not a works hall of fame. It’s not a list of strong people who did great things for God. It’s a list of weak people who trusted that God could do great things for them. We don’t have to try to imitate the heroes of old. They’re cheering us on, encouraging us to fix our eyes on Jesus. He endured hostility so he could win us as a prize. Can we endure a bit of ridicule to win others to him as well?

Context matters.

*While it’s obvious that Hebrews comes in the section of “letters” in the New Testament, there is good reason to believe that this “letter” is really a transcribed sermon with an appended P.S. (Heb 13:22-25). But that’s another post for another day.

Share or follow:

« Previous Page