1 Timothy | Knowable Word

In Epistles, Grammar Always Wins

October 28, 2022 By Peter Krol

At a recent Simeon Trust preaching workshop, I was reminded by instructor David Helm that “in epistles, grammar always wins.” By this, he meant that, when we’re studying biblical discourse (as opposed to narrative or poetry), the most important interpretive questions and conclusions must rely heavily on the text’s basic grammar.

A Probing Question

That raises a probing question for students of the Bible: Do you know basic grammar?

For example, perhaps you’re fond of turning to Ephesians 1 when arguing for the doctrine of predestination (since God “chose us” and “predestined us for adoption”). But do you know what Paul’s main point was in Eph 1:3-14? That’s not a difficult question—at least, if you can identify the main clause (the subject and main verb) of that one, lengthy sentence. I encourage you to comment below if you can identify that main clause (and bonus points if you can do it in three words!).

Or perhaps you prefer to argue in favor of the doctrine of universal atonement from 1 Timothy 2:4 (since God “desires all people to be saved”). But what is Paul getting at by divulging God’s salvific desire for all people? A grade-schooler could answer this question, since grammatically, there is nothing obscure about either the main clause of that sentence or the antecedent to which the demonstrative pronoun refers. Gold stars will be given to anyone who comments below with that sentence’s main clause and antecedent.

Parts of Speech

Now maybe my use of technical grammar language (clause? antecedent? huh?) is distracting for you. Do you really have to know all that lingo in order to study the Bible?

No, you don’t have to know the lingo. You can study the Bible just fine without being an expert in the terminology. But you must still understand what the concepts mean. At least, if you would like to study an epistle or speech properly.

In particular, any student of the Bible would be greatly helped by grasping the parts of speech and knowing how they function in sentences. Can you define the following?

noun
pronoun
verb
adjective
adverb
preposition
conjunction

That list doesn’t contain all parts of speech, but they are the ones you frequently bump into. In fact, the previous sentence contains every part of speech on the list; can you find each one?

Syntax

Syntax is the label for how the words in the sentence fit together. And the most important aspects of syntax to master for Bible study are:

Subject and main verb (predicate) = main clause
Distinction between independent clauses and dependent clauses.

Finding and labeling such clauses for what they are, you will grow to interpret the epistles clearly and accurately. In the previous sentence, “finding and labeling such clauses” is dependent; that’s not the sentence’s main idea. The main idea is found in the main (independent) clause: “you will grow.” That’s what I’m after in not only this paragraph but this post!

Where Can I Get Help?

I hope to post a few crash courses in grammar and syntax in future weeks, but I can go only so far. Yet you are not on your own to figure this out. Many resources are available to help English speakers learn basic grammar.

Here is a free, brief online course for those learning English as a second language. Native speakers know these grammar rules intuitively but will profit immensely from learning why the language works the way it does.

The classic Schoolhouse Rock has a series of entertaining shorts, with fantastic music, about grammar and syntax. “The Tale of Mr. Morton”—teaching subjects and predicates—is my family’s favorite.

As for books, here is a list of the best English grammar books on the market. I typically recommend The Elements of Style (#16 on the list), as I’ve read and benefitted from it myself. But #17 (English Grammar to Ace New Testament Greek) also looks promising, even for those who don’t plan to learn Greek. I’m sure anything on the list would be useful, so find whatever looks appealing and give it a try.

In epistles, grammar always wins. So when you study epistles, you won’t want to be on the losing side.

Amazon links are affiliate links. Clicking (verb) them (pronoun, antecedent = “links”) [SUBJECT] will support (verb) [PREDICATE] this (demonstrative pronoun) blog (noun) at (preposition) no (adverb) extra (adjective) cost (noun) to (preposition) yourself (pronoun).

Do What You Wish Your Theological Opponents Would Do

May 20, 2022 By Peter Krol

My sixth commandment for commentary usage is:

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

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

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

The Problem

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

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

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

An Example

To give only one example, consider the following scriptures:

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

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

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

Application to Commentary Usage

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

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

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

How to Use the Law Properly

April 10, 2019 By Peter Krol

Colin Smith has a stimulating piece at Unlocking the Bible about how to use the Old Testament law properly. According to 1 Tim 1:7-8, the Old Testament law is good…if we use it properly. So how do we do that?

Smith first proposes a few negatives:

Don’t use the law for self-justification.
Don’t use the law for self-sanctification.

Then he states his case positively:

Read the Old Testament forward.

In other words, use the law to show you more of Jesus Christ.

I would differ with Smith’s use of Jesus’s “you have heard it said, but I say to you” sayings, but I believe his point can still be substantiated from other Scriptures (Rom 10:4, 2 Cor 1:20, etc.). And I would also mention that the law is useful in showing us the way of love, which is both Paul’s aim (1 Tim 1:5) and Jesus’ greatest commandment (Mark 12:29-31). But Smith’s reflections are still quite useful and worth pondering.

Check it out!

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.

Women in the Church: Great, But Technical

April 22, 2016 By Peter Krol

Sometimes we need to read larger chunks of the Bible more quickly. And sometimes we need to drill down into a single chapter or verse. Either way, our goal is to understand clearly what God has spoken, so we can know him and live for his good pleasure.

Because too much study of verses-in-isolation can give us a mistaken picture of God’s intentions, my interest lies more with the first, broad type of reading. But I’m also committed to regularly studying small portions of text, in context, to gain deeper insight into the big picture. To that end, I was delighted to receive from Crossway a review copy of Women in the Church (3rd Edition): An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 in exchange for an honest review.

And this book goes deep. The subtitle deceives, as this book is really about not the paragraph of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, but the lone controversial verse of 1 Timothy 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” Though parts of the book look at the paragraph – and even the full chapter – to explain the passage’s logic, the book targets verse 12 as the chief subject. Beyond that, one chapter of Women in the Church examines, nearly exhaustively, the lone Greek word behind the English phrase “exercise authority.” So after discussing the cultural context of first-century Ephesus, the contributors move from the word “exercise authority,” to the phrase “teach or exercise authority,” to the sentence, to the paragraph, to the chapter, to contemporary non-Western cultural applications, and finally to a virtual round table discussion about contemporary Western-culture applications.

As I said, this book goes deep. The material is thorough and exhaustive. The controversial verse gets tackled from almost every direction. I benefited greatly from this book, and I’m glad to have read it. I highly recommend the book for pastors, scholars, and academically minded Christians familiar with the Bible’s original languages.

However, I can’t recommend it for the average reader for three reasons:

It is long.
It is technical.
It uses much Greek without ever transliterating it. For example, when discussing the word for “exercise authority,” the book never uses authentein. It uses αὐθεντεῖν. If Greek study will play a role in a work of scholarship I prefer this approach; but I admit it makes it difficult for people who don’t know the difference between v and nu.

The contributors try to make the book more accessible in the last chapter, where they interview a panel of pastors and Christian writers about their own church experiences. And this chapter begins exceptionally well:

“Tried-and-true Bible study moves from observation to interpretation to application. In this volume so far, we’ve done plenty of observing and interpreting…But while the detailed efforts at observation and interpretation have clarified the meaning of the passage, many questions remain on the level of significance, that is, with regard to specific points of application in the myriad of contexts in which many of us find ourselves today.”

I couldn’t agree more with this quotation. But unfortunately, the chapter doesn’t follow through on its promise to offer “specific points of application.” The round table discussion remains vaguely general. And in the end, I found it less than satisfying.

With that said, the rest of the book offers careful scholarship on key questions that arise over this passage. Is Paul addressing a specific cultural situation that no longer holds true today? Does “teach or exercise authority” really mean “teach authoritatively”? Is authentein best translated as “assume authority” (NIV) and not as “exercise authority” (ESV) or “have authority” (NKJV, HCSB)? Is the prohibition time-bound, as is the prohibitions on braided hair and jewelry in 1 Tim 2:9? How do we make sense of the many objections to the “traditional” understanding of this verse?

So my feelings on the book are mixed. If you have these burning questions, and you’re not threatened by a technical approach to them, go for it. There is much here for you. But if you just want plain English, you may want to wait for another book that takes this research and adapts it for ordinary folks.

Disclaimer: The Amazon links in this post are affiliate links. Clicking them and buying stuff will help us continue to maintain this blog, at no extra cost to yourself.

Why Does Paul Mention Muzzling Oxen?

September 7, 2012 By Peter Krol

Justin Taylor at The Gospel Coalition recently posted a great article on the New Testament use of the Old Testament. He examines how Paul quotes Deut 25:4 in both 1 Cor 9:9 and 1 Tim 5:18. Moses commanded Israel not to muzzle their oxen while threshing. Paul wants people to pay their pastor. How does the first support the second?

From Paul’s use of Deut 25:4, Taylor argues two key principles to keep in mind when a New Testament author quotes an Old Testament passage: