Application | Knowable Word

How Not to Apply the Bible

March 20, 2024 By Peter Krol

Kenneth Berding describes a sort of Bible study that is not too difficult to find.

Last week we learned that the Philistines brought the prisoner Samson into a celebration dedicated to their god Dagon so that he could “entertain” them. Lindsay, would you mind reading our passage for this week, Judges 16:28-30?”

“Yes, I’d be glad to.” [Reads the text]
“Thank you for reading, Lindsay. Alright, let’s discuss this passage together. How do you think this passage applies to your life?”

“Well, this passage really spoke to me while Lindsay was reading it.”

Berding’s parable describes an application discussion that completely bypasses observation and interpretation. Then he goes to show how it could be managed far more usefully.

Check it out!

A Word to Those who Wish to Help Others Apply the Bible

March 15, 2024 By Peter Krol

Lately, I’ve been unpacking the process of Bible application. I’ve presented tools and exercises to help you exercise your application muscles. Your application should not sound the same for every passage. And application ought never to be boring or lifeless. Robust Bible application is precisely the sort of fruit Jesus is looking for when he comes to inspect his vineyard (Matt 12:33-37, 21:33-46).

The tools I’ve presented are especially useful to those aiming to apply the Bible for themselves. But I expect and hope that many will pass those tools along to those they lead. When God grants gifts of insight, learning, and resources, he doesn’t do it for the sake of the recipient alone. He does it so the recipient can benefit the larger body of which he or she is a member (Romans 12:4-8).

So, please do try this at home. And please also teach others how to apply the Bible.

But whether you are a preacher, Sunday school teacher, small group leader, instructor, coach, parent, discipler, or friend, you must never forget one crucial principle:

Do not try to help others to apply a Bible passage without first applying it to yourself.

I’m not saying that you must put into practice the exact same applications as the people you’re trying to lead. I’m only saying that the passage must have been applied to yourself in some way before you seek to apply it others in some way. The text must impact you before you use it to impact others.

If you fail to do this, you are a hypocrite. Not according to me, but according to Jesus.

Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye.
Luke 6:39-42

If the text has not yet opened your eyes and given you sight, anyone you lead will fall right into a pit with you. Those you teach will be like you. So if you have not applied the text, your disciple will not, either. You are not qualified to remove another’s eye-speck until you have cleared out your own eye-beam.

Only after you have applied the text will you see clearly enough to help others apply the text. How can you ask others to do something you haven’t done or won’t do yourself?

One of the most common sins of preachers and teachers is our sanitized hypocrisy that makes excuses for failing either to apply a text personally or to share vulnerably (when appropriate) how we have applied it. As believers in Jesus Christ, we must open ourselves not only to God’s word but also to one another. For a biblical defense of this idea, and an exceptionally thorough explanation of how to put it into practice, see Transparency: A Cure for Hypocrisy in the Modern Church by Joseph W. Smith III.

We require the preachers at our church to submit a worksheet to the team of preachers, detailing their study of the text they are preaching two weeks out. One of the questions on that worksheet says:

How will you personally apply this passage’s main point to your life? (You may or may not share these particular applications in your sermon, but if the text hasn’t moved you, you’re not yet ready to try to move others by preaching it.)

May practices like this become common among all who teach the Word of God to others.

Disclaimer: As my application of Paul’s command in Romans to be subject to the governing authorities, I must notify you that clicking the Amazon link above and buying stuff will provide a small commission to this blog at no extra cost to yourself. Thank you for your support.

Why We Apply the Bible

March 8, 2024 By Peter Krol

Answering this question—why should we apply the Bible?—is almost like explaining why lovers should kiss or why children should open birthday presents. Good things delight the soul, and true delight can’t be captured in a numbered list. There’s something magical and beautiful here, and I wish I could simply say, “It’s more fun than a prepaid Amazon shopping spree,” and be done with it.

But this important question warrants at least a few concrete answers. Too much rides on it.

1. Apply the Bible because you know God.

Your allegiance to the lover of your soul prevents you from continuing in old habits, values, or patterns of thinking. “Now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more” (Gal 4:9)?

2. Apply the Bible because God knows you.

He knew you before you ever knew him, and he vowed to make you more like Jesus. “Those whom [God] foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom 8:29).

3. Apply the Bible because you are free from sin.

Jesus Solana (2012), Creative Commons

You’re not stuck in the old way of doing things. You don’t have to keep hurting yourself and the people you love. You’re free to do what God wants you to do, which is always the best thing you could do. “But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness” (Rom 6:17-18).

4. Apply the Bible because you are a Christian.

A static life is inconsistent with true faith. According to 1 John, you’ll know you have eternal life by three pieces of evidence: confessing Christ, loving others, and keeping God’s commandments. These pieces of evidence don’t mandate sinlessness—John expects us to repent often and be forgiven (1 John 1:8-2:2)—but they mean that our lives should change over time to reflect what God wants for us.

“By this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says ‘I know him’ but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.” (1 John 2:3-6)

Many people know these four truths, but still struggle to apply the Bible to their lives. For those who simply don’t know how, there’s a way to get started. For those who can’t find the motivation, something more is needed.

I saw that “something” illustrated a few years ago when I attended a marriage conference taught by Paul Tripp, author of What Did You Expect? Tripp spoke the word of God powerfully, and he paved the road of application with dozens of vivid personal stories. Few stories made him look good; most were about his epic failures as a husband. During a break, I overheard an attendee ask Tripp how he could be so frank and vulnerable in public, and his answer captured the essence of good Bible application: “Jesus died for me, so I have nothing left to prove.” Here was a man living and leading others as though he really believed Romans 8:1: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

Here’s the magic. Here’s the beauty. God offers you your freedom. He knows you better than you know yourself, and he’ll make you more useful than you dreamed possible. He wants what’s best for you, and he makes his best available to you. You have nothing left to prove, so you’re free to admit you were wrong and try something else.

Jesus often answered a question with a question, and I want to be like him, so ask me why you should apply the Bible, and I’ll ask you why on earth you would want to stay the same.

Question: What motivates you to apply the Bible to your life?

_______________________

Disclosure: The link above is an affiliate link, so if you click it and buy stuff from Amazon, you’ll support the site at no extra cost to yourself.

Examples of Wrestling through the Prescriptive/Descriptive Debate

March 1, 2024 By Peter Krol

Last week, I brought up the debate that inevitably arises in a discussion of a narrative text: Is this passage prescribing something we should imitate (or avoid), or is it simply describing what the characters did in their setting? I proposed that we can often eliminate the need for such a debate if we focus on applying the passage’s main point. Commonly, the passage’s main point is clear enough to direct us in how to change; we don’t even need to decide whether a given detail or behavior in the text ought to be imitated or not.

Let me give two examples where the main point eliminates the debate (by rendering it irrelevant), and one example where it doesn’t.

Acts 15:36-16:5

In Acts 15:36-41, Paul and Barnabas have a sharp disagreement over whether to take John Mark with them on their second missionary journey. They cannot agree, so they split up and part ways. I’ve heard people use this passage to argue that parting ways is an unhealthy way to deal with conflict. And I’ve heard other people use this passage as an example of when parting ways is inevitable and perhaps even healthier than remaining together in constant strife.

So which is it? And it begs the question: Is this text even meant to prescribe a certain way of dealing with conflict (through either good or bad example), or is it simply describing what happened in the lives of those three men?

Notice that the narrative of this split comes immediately after the resolution of a major debate in the early church (whether Gentile converts to Christianity need to follow the law of Moses) and the delivery of the council’s verdict (Acts 15:1-35). And the very next scene (Acts 16:1-5) shows Paul circumcising a new protege on account of local Jewish sensibilities and the knowledge of Timothy’s Greek lineage on his father’s side (Acts 16:3). The narrator connects Timothy’s circumcision quite closely with the delivery of the Jerusalem council’s decision in that region (Acts 16:4).

That literary flow and context is a major factor leading me to conclude that the main point of Acts 15:36-16:5 is that the growth of Christ’s kingdom cannot be stopped, even when leaders must make trade offs in partners (Acts 15:36-41) and practices (Acts 16:1-5). In other words, partners and practices can change, but the grace of Jesus Christ remains the same.

So is the Paul/Barnabas split prescriptive or descriptive? In light of the main point, it’s both. And neither. The point of the text is not to provide direction on whether you ought to leave your church or split up a partnership (perhaps by demonstrating what sort of circumstances would warrant a split). The point of the text is to provide larger assurance that many things will change (and should change!) in service of the unchanging gospel of Jesus Christ.

So maybe you should leave your situation and maybe you shouldn’t. But maybe an even more important question this text wants you to ask is whether you (and not your environment) should change. Or your methods should change. Or your expectations or objectives. We don’t need to answer the prescriptive/descriptive question in order to apply this text in personal and profound ways.

Jonah 3

The prophet Jonah, fresh off his three-night stay inside a 5-star seaside resort, finally makes his way to Nineveh to preach what God commanded him to preach. His message is direct and to the point: “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” (Jonah 3:4). Is that the sort of message God’s preachers ought to be preaching to the church’s enemies?

Maybe. And maybe not. But perhaps that’s not the question this text pushes us to ask.

Jonah 3 tells the story of a salvation too strange for satire. It could not be more extreme. Jonah gets spit up by the fish. He walks only a third of the way into the bad guys’ HQ, preaching a single sentence of judgment (with neither an offer of mercy nor a demand for repentance). The response is immediate and ridiculously unlikely: All people repent. Word gets ahead of Jonah to the palace. The king immediately halts all civil operations and declares a national mourning. Even the livestock must wear itchy clothes and join the public prayer meetings.

The plot builds to the climax of verse 9: “Who knows? Maybe, just maybe God will relent.”

As the plot conflict finally resolves, God sees what the Ninevites have done, and he does, in fact, relent. He doesn’t do what he said he would do.

The main idea is that God saves the wrong kind of people. It has nothing to do with the merits of the people, the message itself, or the preacher who delivered it. It has everything to do with the God who loads his gun with mercy and keeps it on a hair-trigger setting.

So is Jonah’s preaching style and message prescriptive or descriptive? It really doesn’t matter, because the point is not to instruct God’s people in how to preach to their enemies. The point is to paint a dramatic and outrageous picture of God’s proclivity to show mercy. When we apply that main point, we might draw implications for preaching or evangelism. But it is not crucial that we figure out how to do (or avoid) what Jonah did.

Acts 2

And now for a closing example where the main point does not sideline the prescriptive/descriptive question. Should churches speak in tongues like the apostles on the Day of Pentecost, or not? Is the text prescribing such behavior, or is it simply describing a unique thing that happened that day?

In Acts 2:1-4, the proclamation of God’s works in different languages provides a sign that the Holy Spirit has come upon the disciples. The body of the chapter is organized by the answers to two questions:

What does this mean? – Acts 2:5-13
- Peter’s answer – Acts 2:14-36
What shall we do? – Acts 2:37
- Peter’s answer – Acts 2:38-40

Then a narrative conclusion exhibits the new creation community launched that day (Acts 2:41-47).

This structure emphasizes the Q&A that makes up the body of the chapter, where Peter explains what all the stuff happening in the narrative frame means. And the main point of that explanation is that the arrival of God’s Spirit is proof that Jesus is the King who has made salvation possible.

So, is the disciples’ speaking in tongues prescriptive or descriptive? This time, I can’t say that the question is beside the point. One person could argue that speaking in tongues is prescribed as a way of proving to people today that Jesus is the King who has made salvation possible. Another person could argue that speaking in tongues is no longer necessary; that unique event provided the proof that Jesus is the King who has made salvation possible. But both of those perspectives are trying their best to faithfully apply the main point.

Please note: I am not saying (and I wasn’t saying in the previous examples) that the main point answers the prescriptive/descriptive question. In the first two examples, I was saying only that the author’s main point makes the question irrelevant and unnecessary. In this third example, the main point actually makes the prescriptive/descriptive question highly relevant.

Much more work needs to be done in context, correlation, systematic and biblical theology to answer the question of speaking in tongues in Acts 2. But the main point confirms that the question itself is well worth asking.

Conclusion

Much of the time, it is not necessary for us to figure out whether particular behaviors in a text are prescriptive or descriptive. The text’s main point reveals an agenda to produce change in some other area, and we should focus on that area instead of our prescriptive/descriptive question. In these situations, when someone asks whether a narrative detail is prescriptive or descriptive, we can sidestep the question by asking instead: What’s the author’s main point?

But in a few cases, a text’s main point confirms the crucial importance of the prescriptive/descriptive question, and our time seeking to answer the question is well spent.

One Way to Settle the Prescriptive/Descriptive Debate

February 23, 2024 By Peter Krol

When I study a biblical narrative with a group of people, I find it inevitable that someone will eventually ask: “Is this prescriptive or descriptive?” In other words, is this passage prescribing particular behavior, which we ought to imitate? Or is it simply describing what the characters themselves did, but we ought not to do it ourselves?

It’s a great and important question.

medication pills isolated on yellow background — Photo by Anna Shvets on Pexels.com

Not Always Clear

Sometimes the answer is clear: A narrative’s villains are not being held up as models to emulate. So don’t betray your Lord like Judas (Matt 26:47-49), and don’t blame everyone else for your sin like Saul (1 Sam 15:12-16). And when the narrator includes explicit instruction to emulate a character, then we are on strong ground to do so: Avoid idolatry and immorality, unlike the people of Israel (1 Cor 10:6-11), and serve others like Jesus (John 13:12-17).

But sometimes the answer is not clear: Should we delegate authority and establish middle management like Moses (Ex 18:24-26)? Should we test our abusers to determine the sincerity of their confession, like Joseph (Gen 42-44)? Should we try to walk on water like Peter (Matt 14:28-30)? Should we follow Jesus’ instructions to the 70 he sent out to minister in his name (Luke 10:2-12)?

The prescriptive/descriptive question especially comes up when a person’s near-and-dear theology is at stake, either in affirmation or suspicion. Should we speak in tongues and heal people, like the apostles in Acts? Should we set out the fleece to discern God’s will like Gideon? Should we include the children of believers in covenant membership like Abraham?

General Guidance

The prescriptive/descriptive debate on any given passage is closely related to two healthy instincts. We must hold these instincts in tension and not choose one over the other.

The primary purpose of biblical narratives is to proclaim Jesus Christ (Luke 24:44-47; John 1:45, 5:39-40; 1 Peter 1:10-12; etc.).
Biblical narratives present characters as examples to either imitate or avoid (1 Cor 10:1-14; Hebrews 11; Hebrews 12:15-17; 1 John 3:11-13; etc.).

Those with deep commitment to axiom #1 will lean toward viewing biblical narratives as descriptive. Those committed to axiom #2 will lean toward viewing biblical narratives as prescriptive.

Throughout church history, debates have raged over whether to adhere to axiom 1 or axiom 2. But to affirm either one and deny the other is to make a sucker’s choice. We must adhere to both.

A Way Forward

But that only leaves us where we started. How are we to decide whether a passage is prescriptive or descriptive? Whether a character ought to be imitated or not? When should my church start casting lots to fill open leadership positions (Acts 1:26)? And when will our Christian generation learn that “grace” is not implicit permission for rampant divorce, abuse, or sexual immorality (1 Kings 9:1-9)?

I don’t have the final answer that will solve every instance of the question. But I do have a suggestion that—for most passages we study—might just eliminate the need for even asking the question.

Here it is: Focus on applying the passage’s main point and not incidental details.

Now I’ll immediately qualify that guidance by acknowledging that it is possible to apply sub-points, secondary points, or minor details in the text. However, when we do so, we are usually on shakier ground. It’s easier to get the application wrong, since not every detail in a text is equally applicable or even intended by the author to be applied.

In fact, seeking to apply minor details in the text undermines all the work we’ve done up to this point in our study. Why bother doing all that observing and interpreting, if not to understand the author’s main point? Why bother getting to the main point, if we’re just going to apply the passage any which way that seems right in our own eyes?

If the main point is—by definition—the main thing God wants his people to understand from the text, why wouldn’t we focus our application on putting that main point into practice? We could spend all our time applying secondary things and miss the most important thing.

In the next post, I plan to give some examples of how this approach often settles the debate. But in the meantime, I urge you to try it on your own. Study a narrative passage sometime in the next week. Do your best to determine the author’s main point. Then seek to apply that main point and see what happens. Does it make the prescriptive/descriptive question disappear?

I guarantee it won’t answer all your questions about whether particular characters or parts of the text are prescriptive or descriptive. But it will enable you to land on solid ground in your application, in a way that may be highly motivating and might just change lives for God’s glory. Try it and let me know what happens!

Why “What Does it Mean to Me?” is a Bad Question

February 16, 2024 By Peter Krol

Our method for Bible study can be summarized with just three letters—OIA—which represent three skills that govern all human communication: observe, interpret, and apply. Those three skills provide the answers to three basic questions:

What does it say?
What does it mean?
How should I change?

Over the years, I’ve regularly heard well-meaning folks ask that third question—the question of application—in this way: What doest it mean to me?

That question has the benefits of rhythm and resonance. It flows right off the tongue to recite: “What does it say, what does it mean, what does it mean to me.” And that rhythm can certainly aid with memory.

However, the costs we pay in clarity and accuracy are not worth the gains of memorability, for at least four reasons.

a bearded man pointing at his plain white shirt — Photo by MART PRODUCTION on Pexels.com

It confuses application with interpretation.

By asking “what does it mean?” we are doing the work of interpretation. We are figuring out why the original author says what he says, and what that meant to the original audience. By using the same verbiage of “what does it mean,” despite the qualifier “to me,” we communicate that we are doing the same thing, only with a different audience in view.

Why does that matter? Who cares if we do (or communicate that we are doing) the same thing for different audiences? That leads me to the second reason that “what does it mean to me?” is a bad question.

It relativizes truth.

The question presumes that meaning is a matter of indifference. That a text’s meaning depends on who reads it. On how they perceive it. And so a text can mean one thing to one person or community, and another thing to a different group.

When we relativize the truth in this way, we ought not be surprised when the realities of Scripture are brought into question whenever they grow too inconvenient. For example, many who once stood for the Bible’s definition of marriage have come to interpret those pesky passages to have a different meaning, now that severe cultural pressure has been exerted.

And while I’m a fan of relativizing application, we must not do the same with interpretation. A passage doesn’t mean what any reader believes it means. A passage means what the author meant by it. For this reason, the concept of meaning carries much weight and is not something with which to tamper.

Wi to the intent to apply, it makes sense to ask “what does the text mean for me?” That question prods for implications and applications. But to ask what the text means to me is to tamper with its meaning.

You can choose to agree with the text or disagree with it. You can like it or dislike it. But you can’t change what it means. Do you see what I mean?

It makes application an exercise in self-fulfillment.

I recently wrote a thank-you note to a generous person who did something extraordinary for my family. In that note, I said, “it means so much to me that you…” That phrase, “what it means to me,” has a particular force and use in modern English, which has more to do with inspiration and delight than with truth or understanding.

The average person in today’s Western world, hearing the question “what does that mean to you?” doesn’t naturally hear a challenge or stimulation toward life change. That person hears an expression of self-fulfillment.

And self-fulfillment is not always a bad thing (as long as it’s not a godless or ultimate thing). I hope many people find great satisfaction and delight in their study of God’s word. But such satisfaction and delight is not the same thing as robust application.

It predisposes application to only one direction.

By asking “what does it mean to me,” we communicate momentum from the text to the individual reading it. Perhaps unintentionally, this frames what is happening as something that terminates on the reader. Therefore, even if the question itself is understood as one of application and not interpretation, it sets the reader up for inward application alone. The reader is not likely to consider outward application as well.

And since many of us are already naturally inclined to forget application’s second direction, we don’t need to reinforce the inclination with the way we frame the question.

Conclusion

For these reasons, we have never recommended “what does it mean to me” as a way to summarize the application step. We prefer to ask “How should I change?”

That doesn’t mean I’ll start flipping tables if I’m in your Bible study and you ask “What does this text mean to you?” I promise I’ll do my best to be polite. But I’ll also do my best to reframe the resulting discussion in a more useful way.

Bible Study Leaders Must Be Flexible

February 12, 2024 By Ryan Higginbottom

As a college professor, I’ve taught the same material dozens of times. And while the main ideas of calculus don’t change drastically from one semester to the next, those classes are not the same.

Each iteration of the course is different because each class roster is different. If I ignored the particular students in my classes and focused only on the material, I wouldn’t be doing my job as a teacher.

Leadership is Always Local

This same truth holds when leading a Bible study: the audience matters. What is appropriate and powerful in one setting may fail spectacularly in another. This isn’t an original insight, but it does highlight a principle many ignore.

Leadership never exists in a vacuum. Leaders are leaders because they lead people. Even “organizational leaders” are leaders of people, because what do we suppose organizations are made of, heads of lettuce?

This doesn’t mean that good principles for leading are a fiction—they aren’t. However, good principles still need to be worked out locally; they are incarnated face-to-face in relationships with real people.

Flexibility in Study Meetings

When a Bible study leader prepares for a meeting, he should do the hard work of observation and interpretation, letting the text dig into his flesh and change him before he attempts to bring change to others. Nailing down a main point for the passage is a vital step before a Bible study meeting.

However, that same leader needs to be prepared for the actual people that walk through the door. They will arrive with different moods, experiences, and histories, and those differences may dramatically affect the discussion. This is especially true when it comes to application.

Examples

I’ll illustrate this point with two examples. While these examples are fictitious, I’ve led Bible study meetings in the past where similar issues came up and affected the mood and direction of the conversation. (It’s also worth mentioning that we call the small groups at my church Home Fellowship Groups. Bible study is an important component of our meetings, but we also share times of prayer and fellowship.)

Scenario 1 — Dwayne is a faithful member of your group. His work situation is consistently the most difficult part of his life, and he speaks openly about his troubles with his boss. His direct supervisor consistently belittles him and ignores his good performance. At the Bible study meeting in question, Dwayne has had an especially hard week, as he has been passed over for a promotion for the third straight time. If the application of the Bible study is focused on loving one’s neighbors, Dwayne’s background will have a huge effect on his participation, and if he participates, it will color the rest of the discussion.

Scenario 2 — Nicole is a single woman attending your Bible study, and her sister has asked her to move back home to help care for their aging father. Nicole does not have a good relationship with any of her family members, as they have distanced themselves from her since she has become a Christian. This move would take her hours away, and there is no good church in the town where her family lives. If the Bible study is about honoring one’s parents or the importance of a local church congregation, Nicole’s situation may change the conversation in big ways.

People Are Not an Interruption

For a new or inexperienced Bible study leader, these examples could seem frustrating, as though the life situations of these group members might derail a perfectly-planned study. But this Platonic ideal of a Bible study does not exist.

Leading real Bible studies means that the Bible comes into contact with real people, and the lives of real people are often messy and difficult. But these difficulties are not interruptions to our plans—this is what it means to lead people and help them apply the Bible in their lives.

Let’s go one step further. God never puts people together by accident, so these “challenging” cases that crop up in Bible study are not just opportunities for leaders to help their friends apply the Bible. We are meant to apply the Bible in community, so leaders may have a lot to learn personally (and not just as leaders) from these hard situations.

3 Implications of the Fact that Bible Application is for Everybody

February 9, 2024 By Peter Krol

In the “longer ending” of Mark’s gospel, Jesus says, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15). Though some dispute the authenticity of Mark’s longer ending, I’m not aware of anyone disputing this fundamental instruction for the Christian Church (Matt 28:18-20, Col 1:23, Rev 14:6).

From this command, we can deduce that the Bible (which preserves and explains the gospel) has relevance to all people in all the world. That, in turn, means that anybody, anywhere, at any time in history can apply the Bible.

Perhaps that fact seems obvious. But what are some of its implications?

flowers and fruits on a table — Photo by Jill Wellington on Pexels.com

1. The same application will land differently in different cultures

Jesus warns that “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). Practical applications of this warning are generally not terribly controversial in western dignity cultures, but they are far more difficult and excruciating for those in eastern honor cultures.

By contrast, Jesus said that “everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matt 5:32). Eastern honor cultures may tend to follow this command more closely, while those in western dignity cultures sometimes tend to focus more on the exceptions than the rule itself.

2. Different people may legitimately adopt opposite applications

Jesus told one person that following him meant leaving his family behind (Luke 9:59-60). He told another person that following him meant returning to his family (Mark 5:19-20).

He told one guy to sell everything and give it to the poor (Mark 10:21-22). He told others to make different use of their money (Luke 16:9).

The point is that many applications that fit your situation will not fit other people’s situations. The same principle (e.g. investing in eternity) may take different expression for different people. Let each be fully convinced in their own mind (Rom 14:5).

3. Particular applications may mature along with the person

A child-like faith is to be commended (Mark 10:15). A childish approach to human relationship is not (1 Cor 13:11, 16:13).

For one person, simply saying “hello” to a stranger might be an act of selfless obedience to Christ. But as that person matures, that “hello” ought to grow into more mature expressions of evangelism and love for neighbor.

Bible application is for everybody. What other implications of that fact can you think of?

Application Positive and Negative

January 26, 2024 By Peter Krol

I’ve been trying to help you stretch your capacity for Bible application. Application is like a muscle; the more you overwork it, the greater your strength for it.

So I’ve highlighted the fact that application involves not only doing but also thinking and loving. I’ve encouraged you to press into all three spheres, especially heart application. We’ve looked at the chief opponents of legalism and license. And most recently, I urged you to consider not only yourself but also how you can better disciple other people.

The next exercise for stretching your application muscles is to consider both positive and negative applications.

Image by Rudy and Peter Skitterians from Pixabay

Paul’s Formula for Change

When you seek to apply the Bible, the key question is: How should I change? And wouldn’t it be great if the Bible described for us a clear process for change?

In the letter of Ephesians, Paul encourages his readers to change. He wants them to stop thinking and acting like unbelievers (Eph 4:17-19) and to live in light of their calling in Christ instead (Eph 4:1). To help them do this, he reminds them of how they first “learned Christ”—i.e. how they became Christians in the first place (Eph 4:20).

That process of change—regardless of whether the change is from non-Christian to Christian, or from less mature Christian to more mature Christian—is as follows:

Put off your old self (Eph 4:22)
Renew your mind (Eph 4:23)
Put on the new self (Eph 4:24)

We can restate these steps as:

Stop disobeying
Adopt God’s perspective of the world
Start obeying

Theologically, this process involves a continual transformation from being like Adam (the old man) and becoming like Jesus (the new man). But in practical terms, it involves simple disobedience and obedience, with a worldview adjustment in between.

Examples of the Process

Paul then provides four specific examples of the process (Eph 4:25-29) followed by a concluding summary (Eph 4:30-32). In each of the four examples he explicitly follows the three-step process, though he sometimes mixes up the order.

Example #1: Lies (Eph 4:25)

Put off: “put away falsehood”
Put on: “let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor”
Renew the mind: “we are members of one another”

It’s not enough for the compulsive liar to simply stop telling lies. He must replace lying behaviors with truthful ones, searching for opportunities to speak the truth to help others. The only way to do this from the heart is to change your view of other people: Don’t see them as adversaries you must defend yourself against, but as members of your body whom you are compelled to help succeed.

Example #2: Sinful anger (Eph 4:26-27)

Put on: “be angry without sinning”
Put off: “do not let the sun go down on your anger”
Renew the mind: “give no opportunity to the devil”

Have you ever tried to deal with your anger by just telling yourself “Don’t be angry!” Yeah, it doesn’t work. That’s because anger is a legitimate response to that which is wrong in the world. The problem most people have is not that they are angry, but that they allow their anger to justify sinful treatment of others. One effect of anger is that it just makes us feel so right.

Paul’s solution is to be angry without sinning. There is such a thing as patient anger. Gentle anger. Kind anger. Loving anger. Anger that doesn’t demand to be the last word (the sun going down on it). How does one cultivate such anger? Only by adopting the Lord’s perspective that sinful, demanding anger gives the devil a swift opportunity to rip relationships apart. You don’t really want him to do that, do you? Then direct your anger toward him instead of toward your fellow members of Christ’s body (cf. Eph 6:12).

I encourage you to work through the examples of theft (Eph 4:28) and rotten speech (Eph 4:29) on your own. How does Paul model the same three steps to produce change with respect to each of those sins?

Application Applications

How does Paul’s process apply to the process of applying the Bible?

First off: His step of renewing the mind is very much what I mean by head application. Paul shows us that application is more than doing; it must also impact our thinking, our faith, and our worldview.

Second, even when he speaks about doing, Paul provides application that is both negative and positive. He describes behaviors that must stop, and other behaviors that ought to replace the first ones.

The Bible’s chief word for negative, “put off” application is repentance. The Bible’s chief word for positive, “put on” application is obedience. Both repentance and obedience could properly be called “application.”

So you’ve now got a bunch of tools to help you get out of your application rut. If you find yourself frequently coming up with nothing but the big three—read the Bible more; pray more; share the gospel more—stretch your application muscles with some of the following exercises:

Consider not only the hands (doing) but also the head (believing) and heart (loving or valuing).
Consider not only inward application (for yourself) but also outward application (how God would have you influence or disciple others).
Consider both negative (repentance) and positive (obedience) applications.

More tools are still to come!

Don’t Forget Application’s Second Direction

January 19, 2024 By Peter Krol

When people feel stuck in a rut of application—where their application of every passage sounds the same—my first bit of advice is to remember that application involves more than doing. But then my second instruction is to reflect on application’s second direction.

The Two Directions

Application can go in two directions: inward and outward.

Commonly, when people think about application, they think only about inward application: How will this text impact me? (And specifically, people tend to think of application as “according to this text, what must I do?”) Such inward application is good and proper. We ought to be personally impacted by the Scripture on a regular basis. The two greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbor (Matt 22:36-40). Everything hangs on this, and our study of the Bible ought to sharpen and improve our own love for both God and neighbor.

So I would never argue against personal (what I call “inward”) application. But when your application loses steam and rehashes all the same things over time, you’ll be greatly helped by considering application’s second direction as well.

Outward application is all about how I can help others to change. How I can be an agent of influence. How I can obey Jesus’ Great Commission to make disciples (Matt 28:18-20).

What Outward Application is Not

Outward application is not about sticking your nose into other people’s business. It’s not about being the sin police. It’s not about correcting everyone and everything around you.

The purpose of outward application is not to ask others to do things you won’t do yourself. Outward application without inward application is hypocrisy.

And by all means, outward application is not about picking fights, hunting for problems, or criticizing with gusto. Outward application is not about taking over responsibility for other people’s choices; “If you are wise, you are wise for yourself; if you scoff, you alone will bear it” (Prov 9:12).

What Outward Application is

Outward application is about honoring God in the various positions of authority he has given you. Outward application is about growing as a person of influence. Outward application is about considering others more highly than yourself, and helping others to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Outward application can take the form of effective evangelism, sensible apologetics, or wise mentorship.

Paul applies the Scriptures outwardly when he commands fathers to “not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph 6:4). An overbearing father and an absent dad are both failing to apply the Scripture in an outward direction—regardless of whether that man has attained a high degree of personal godliness or church office.

In addition to such instruction for parenting, potential outward applications include winning a husband (1 Peter 3:1-2), beautifying a wife (Eph 5:25-28), training younger women (Titus 2:4-5), leaving someone to God’s vengeance (Rom 12:18-21), inspiring others to glorify God (1 Peter 2:11-12, Matt 5:16), and entrusting faithful servants with the gospel (2 Tim 2:1-2).

Even missional prayers (Eph 6:18-20) and vibrant singing (Col 3:16) could be ways to apply the Bible in an outward direction.

This does not exhaust the options, but gives only a sampling of directly outward commands in the Scriptures. Many passages could be applied in similar ways.

Conclusion

In western societies that value personal freedoms, we can easily get into a rut when it comes to applying the Bible. We have abundant concern for individual holiness and godliness and want to make sure we are walking in personal relationship with our God.

The challenge is to not forget application’s second direction, and move beyond ourselves to help others. We’ve been saved into a new kingdom, a new community. And King Jesus gives every one of us opportunities to influence others and minister his grace to them. And make no mistake: He will hold us accountable for how effectively we have served and discipled the people he’s entrusted to us. There’s a whole parable to that effect.

« Previous Page