Context | Knowable Word

Context Matters: My Cross to Bear

April 25, 2022 By Ryan Higginbottom

Perhaps you’ve heard people talk about the crosses they bear. They might mention chronic pain, their role as a long-term caregiver, or trauma they’ve suffered at the hand of another. Your friend might carry a heavy burden, but if they believe that God is in control, they may affirm his call to follow Jesus with this weight on their back. “That’s just my cross to bear!”

For Christians, the cross brings to mind specific events and theological realities. Does the Bible speak about followers of Jesus also bearing a cross? Does it describe that cross-bearing in this way we commonly hear it?

Context matters. Many words and phrases may sound religious, but we should take care in our speech. When we learn to read the Bible carefully—and not just as a grab bag of holy words—we’ll find that God’s call on our lives is more comprehensive than we may have assumed.

Not in Scripture

Let’s dispense with one question up front. Referring to an acute challenge as a “cross to bear” is not in the Bible. God tells us a lot about suffering and burdens, but we don’t find this specific phrase in Scripture.

By itself, that doesn’t mean this saying should be discarded. The phrase “in the world but not of the world” is nowhere in Scripture, but it captures some important truths in a helpful way. Perhaps the same could be true of “my cross to bear.”

The closest we come to this phrase in Scripture is a sentence in Luke.

Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, “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. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:25–27)

Let’s consider this passage in its context in Luke.

Discipleship in Luke

As Peter has pointed out, Jesus starts to head toward Jerusalem in Luke 9:51. Until he arrives, Jesus talks about the nature of his kingdom and, by extension, the nature of discipleship.

Jesus teaches about the cost of following him (Luke 9:57–62). The 72 disciples are sent out and they return (Luke 10:1–20). He teaches his disciples how to pray (Luke 11:1–13) and about the folly of anxiety (Luke 12:22–34). He uses parables and metaphors to teach about God’s kingdom (Luke 13:18–30).

In the immediate context of Luke 14:27, Jesus is speaking about the cost of following him. Specifically, he mentions three requirements—anyone who neglects these cannot be his disciple.

Disciples must, having come to him, hate their family and their own life (Luke 14:26).
Disciples must bear their own cross and come after him (Luke 14:27).
Disciples must renounce all that they have (Luke 14:33).

In the midst of these requirements are two stories about the need to count the cost (a landowner building a tower, a king engaging in battle). Disciples of Jesus must know what they are getting into.

Jesus has used the language of the cross before.

And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. (Luke 9:23–24)

The cross was a Roman instrument of torture and execution, so Jesus did not invoke it lightly. Those who heard would have known exactly what Jesus meant when he brought up a cross.

Jesus called his disciples to hand their lives over to him. To save their lives, they were to lose their lives for his sake. They were to renounce everything, including their closest family members.

Both Good and Bad

There may be a good intention behind the phrase “my cross to bear.” A person might be striving to be faithful in the midst of God’s difficult providence. If they know this responsibility is part of God’s calling on their life and they’ve handed their lives over to God, they embrace this burden as a disciple.

And yet, using this phrase could have the effect of compartmentalizing Jesus’s call. Referring to a particular aspect of one’s life as a cross to bear may soften the blow of Jesus’s expectation that in every aspect of our lives we are to bear our cross and follow him. We do not just give up our comfort, time, or opportunities—we are to renounce everything.

This call from Jesus is heavy, but we must not forget it is also joyful. We only need to turn the page in Luke to see the celebration we are welcomed to as repentant sinners following King Jesus (Luke 15:1–32). Jesus calls us to bear our cross, but that is not any one particular duty or condition. Bearing our cross means giving control of everything—family, possessions, vocation, life—over to our wise Master.

Context matters.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

How Nineteenth-Century Americans Used the Bible to Support Both Slavery and Abolition

March 25, 2022 By Peter Krol

You might be aware of the fact that many Christians used the Bible to support southern slavery in early U.S. history. Did you also know that many people used the Bible to support abolition? How is it possible that groups of people can all believe in the basic truth that the Bible is God’s word, communicating truth to us, and yet reach opposite conclusions on such huge issues?

We can see the same thing playing out with respect to many other issues today: customs for worship, preaching, and church life. Doctrines surrounding sacraments, church government, salvation, and the moral law. Political issues such as immigration, financial policy, and foreign intervention. Social issues such as abortion, race relations, homosexuality, and gender ideology. On nearly any issue, it is not difficult to find people who claim to believe the Bible, who also make use of the Bible to support contradictory positions from one another.

Why is that? How can the same book be used for so many contradictory perspectives?

An Answer Worth Considering

While there is a complex range of factors contributing to such a complex situation, there is at least one factor we ought to give more attention to: How are people reading and understanding the Bible? What assumptions do they bring to this ancient book that shape the very methods by which they employ it in support of one position or another?

For example, one person presumes that the most literal, surface reading of a given text ought to be the most persuasive reading. Another person wants to string together a collection of verses that all appear to address a particular topic. Another focuses on their systematic theological system as the governing framework for reading any part of the Bible. Another wants to read the text the same way the heroes of old (or a subset of heroes of old) read it. Yet another wants to read the Bible in tandem with other ancient or modern texts that seem to be saying similar things.

My point is simply that we must not only observe the fact that someone makes use of the Bible to support a position. We must also take note of how they are using the Bible to support a position.

A Conversation Worth Your Time

The thing that spawned these reflections within me was a conversation I just listened to, published by the Mars Hill Audio Journal as one of their Friday Features. The host, Ken Myers, interviewed historian Mark Noll regarding his research on how nineteenth-century Americans went about using the Bible in support of either slavery or abolition in their debates. For now, you can find the interview here. I recommend listening to it as soon as you can, as I cannot promise how long it will remain on their site.

Noll discusses how Christians on both sides of the slavery debate resorted to “proof-texting” to make their case, yet the pro-slavery side tended to be better at it (i.e. more persuasive). Many of the proof-texted arguments in favor of the institution of slavery had no clear rebuttal, and as a result many abolitionists were forced to confess that, while the Bible permits the institution of slavery, they just couldn’t support the American expression of it. This led the pro-slavery camp to instill fear that abolition was simply the beginning of the slippery slope toward denying biblical authority at all.

There were a few shining (abolitionist) stars along the way, however, who were able to demonstrate abolitionist conclusions from biblical texts, through careful contextual study of those texts, tracing the unfolding revelation of God over time. In that day, however, proof-texting was believed to be the best way to arrive at truth, so such careful theological and contextual arguments often went unnoticed or unregarded.

I am confident I am not doing full justice to Noll’s research. So again, I commend to you the recording of his conversation with Myers for more detailed nuance and explanation. I commend it to you highly, as an example of why it is crucial that we not merely quote Bible verses but study them in context so as to grasp the larger arguments of the original authors. How we study the Bible matters.

The Danger of Quoting Verses

March 16, 2022 By Peter Krol

Brandon Smith has a helpful piece on the danger of what he calls “stacking verses,” where we quote verses in isolation for inspiration or to support a particular point.

Some modern examples include Instagram posts and coffee mugs that quote Philippians 4:13 or Jeremiah 29:11. In both cases, these verses appear to promise material, physical, or even eternal blessing from God. However, in both cases, the context of the passage reveals that these verses are a promise of provision amid suffering.
Stacking up these verses might be innocent for some, but this is also the root of the dangerous prosperity gospel that has infiltrated the global church. From as early as Jesus’s ministry to our world today, verse-stacking has plagued the church and brought about countless negative consequences.

The devil quoted a Bible verse to Jesus, attempting to persuade him to test his Father. Ancient heretics had plenty of Bible verses to support their hell-bound doctrines. Sadly, many continue the same practice today.

The problem is not merely in quoting individual verses. It is the danger of quoting verses independent of their context and misaligned with the original author’s intention. Smith provides two interpretive convictions that will help us to avoid much of the danger:

The Bible is a coherent theological book before it is anything else.
The Bible is a canon—a set of 66 books that serve as the rule or measuring rod of our theology.

You should check out his piece to see how he fleshes this all out. I commend his article to you.

Check it out!

Context Matters: The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things

March 14, 2022 By Ryan Higginbottom

Perhaps you’ve heard that our hearts are deceitful, wicked, and sick beyond all cure. You’ve been taught that our desires should always be questioned and our impulses should always be doubted. Anything we want—because that want blooms in our heart—should be suspect.

This is no inspirational teaching, so you won’t spot it on posters or mugs. But I see this verse dashed into arguments like salt in soup. Are we using using this verse properly? When we learn to read the Bible like a book and not as isolated bullet points, we’ll see that some familiar phrases don’t mean all that we’ve always assumed.

The Immediate Context

The verse in question is found in Jeremiah 17:9. Here it is with some surrounding context.

Thus says the Lord:
“Cursed is the man who trusts in man
and makes flesh his strength,
whose heart turns away from the Lord.
He is like a shrub in the desert,
and shall not see any good come.
He shall dwell in the parched places of the wilderness,
in an uninhabited salt land.

Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord,
whose trust is the Lord.
He is like a tree planted by water,
that sends out its roots by the stream,
and does not fear when heat comes,
for its leaves remain green,
and is not anxious in the year of drought,
for it does not cease to bear fruit.”

The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?
“I the Lord search the heart
and test the mind,
to give every man according to his ways,
according to the fruit of his deeds.” (Jeremiah 17:5–10)

We first observe the connection between a man’s heart and his trust. A “man who trusts in man” is one whose “heart turns away from the Lord” (Jer 17:5). This man is cursed. In contrast, the man is blessed who “trusts in the Lord,” and from the structure we infer that his heart does not turn from the Lord.

This connection is essential to a proper understanding of this passage, and it is evident throughout Jeremiah’s prophecy as well. (More on this later.) This is also true in the larger context of the Bible—the heart is not primarily the origin of feelings; it is the control center for trust and worship.

We further see that the question asked in verse 9 (“who can understand it?”) is answered in verse 10 (“I the Lord”). Even if man cannot know his own heart, the Lord understands it well enough to treat everyone “according to the fruit of [their] deeds” (Jer 17:10).

Before moving on, we should examine the paragraph just prior to this passage. God is speaking, and he says that “the sin of Judah” is “written on the tablet of their heart” (Jer 17:1). The children of Judah have altars and Asherim (wooden idol-worship poles) “beside every green tree and on the high hills, on the mountains in the open country” (Jer 17:2–3). Turning away from God involves both turning to other people and turning to idols.

The Broader Context

In Jeremiah 16, the Lord tells Jeremiah what he should say when others ask what sin the people have committed against God.

Because your fathers have forsaken me, declares the Lord, and have gone after other gods and have served and worshiped them, and have forsaken me and have not kept my law, and because you have done worse than your fathers, for behold, every one of you follows his stubborn, evil will, refusing to listen to me. (Jeremiah 16:11–12)

The primary way that God’s people rebelled against him in Jeremiah’s day was to forsake him, turning to and serving other gods. As we can see from earlier in this prophetic book, it is the people’s hearts that lead them astray.

The “people [have] a stubborn and rebellious heart; they have turned aside and gone away.” They do not fear the Lord (Jer 5:23–24).
The people “stubbornly followed their own hearts and have gone after the Baals, as their fathers taught them” (Jer 9:14).
“This evil people, who refuse to hear my words, who stubbornly follow their own heart and have gone after other gods to serve them and worship them” (Jer 13:10).

There are numerous other examples in the first 16 chapters of Jeremiah which mention Israel’s idolatry and turning away from God. (Most of Jeremiah 10:1–16 is a contrast between the Lord and idols, showing just how ridiculous it is to prefer idols over God.)

Conclusion

Modern Christians like to seize upon the word “heart” in Jeremiah 17:9; they point it as an accusing finger and waive it as a grand caution flag. But this verse was written to a particularly idolatrous people in a specific time. Jeremiah had exhorted them repeatedly about the tendency of their hearts to prefer other gods to the Lord.

This does not mean that 21st century Christians are exempt from warning in this passage. God’s people were led by their hearts away from him before, and the same can (and does!) happen to us. We also must watch our desires, our trust, and our security. But this verse does not teach that we must be suspicious of our every thought or emotion.

Context matters.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

Context Matters: O, Death, Where is Your Sting?

February 25, 2022 By Peter Krol

This is a guest post by Clint Watkins. Clint is a missionary with DiscipleMakers in Lancaster, PA. His passion is to help sufferers find hope through honest wrestling. He blogs at frailfather.com, and you can find him on Instagram @clintdwatkins.

Perhaps you’re familiar with these hopeful and defiant questions: “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” You may have sung them on Easter Sunday to revel in Jesus’ triumph and deliver death a lyrical one-two punch. Or maybe you have stood silent as others around you sang victoriously—you believe that Jesus overcame death’s power, but you have felt defeated by death’s pain.

Whatever your experience is with these questions, they reverberate with hope. Jesus conquered the grave. The tomb is empty. We’ve been set free.

But could our taunting of death be premature?

Context matters. When we learn to read the Bible as it is—not merely as an archive of lyrics for happy songs—we may find our most cherished verses to provide even deeper hope than we imagined.

Resurrection Matters

These rhetorical questions come from 1 Corinthians 15, one of the most important chapters in your Bible. Some believers were saying Christ did not rise. So Paul realigns their history and theology.

If there is no resurrection then we have some serious issues: preaching is pointless (1 Cor 15:14), faith is worthless (1 Cor 15:14), we’re still in our sin (1 Cor 15:17), and the dead have perished forever (1 Cor 15:18). If Jesus did not rise then we have no hope beyond the grave and Christians are “of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor 15:19). So we should just party hard until we die (1 Cor 15:32).

Christian faith rests entirely on Jesus’ resurrection. If it did not happen, we are magnificent fools. But Paul establishes the historical fact of the resurrection, verified by hundreds of eyewitness accounts (1 Cor 15:1-11). The empty tomb changes everything.

Jesus’ resurrection reverses the curse of sin. Death is mere sleep for those who are in Christ—just as he rose, so will we (1 Cor 15:20-22). We will exchange our broken frames for glorious bodies (1 Cor 15:35-49). Jesus’ resurrection means life has purpose—what we do matters. Instead of indulging every craving, we ought to live holy lives (1 Cor 15:34) driven by the grace of Jesus’ victory (1 Cor 15:57). Preaching the gospel is not pointless, but is “of first importance” (1 Cor 15:3). So we should “always [be] abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain” (1 Cor 15:58).

Tense Matters

This brings us to our refrain of questions, which occur in Paul’s crescendo at the chapter’s end. Take note of the verb tenses in this passage:

Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
“O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”
1 Cor 15:51-55

Do you notice how much of this is future tense? We shall not all sleep. We shall be changed. The trumpet will sound. The dead will be raised.

Paul gazes down time’s corridor and describes an unimaginable scene: We are alive, and death is dead.

The resurrection accomplishes the unbelievable. But not all of these promises have been fulfilled yet. This includes the defiant questions we sing so often. Quoting Isaiah 25 and Hosea 13, Paul says, “then shall come to pass the saying that is written.” You might expect him to say these promises have been fulfilled because of Jesus’ resurrection. And that’s how we often use these verses—as a present reality. But Paul’s eyes remain on the future.

We will, one day, mock death at its defeat. We will taunt, “Where is your sting? Where is your victory?” But that day has not yet come.

Death Matters

Why is this distinction important?

In a passage like this, we should hesitate to claim future promises as present reality. We don’t, afterall, profess that our bodies have already been transformed or that Jesus has already returned. These things, including death’s final defeat, are our inheritance in Christ—guaranteed, but not yet dispensed.

Specifically, to declare that death’s sting has already vanished can lead to a casual posture toward death. Excessive triumph can promote Christian dismissiveness. This leads some believers to avoid sorrow while others feel guilty for their grief.

But this passage is not about how to grieve. Elsewhere, we see that Paul does not treat death casually. Losing people hurts. He himself spoke of “sorrow upon sorrow” when he considered his friend’s potential death (Phil 2:27). And he encouraged the Thessalonians to grieve—with hope—for those who died (1 Thess 5:13).

This lines up with how Christ encounters the grave in John 11. How does Jesus respond to death, even when he knows resurrection is imminent? He weeps (Jn 11:35).

As Tim Keller says,

Death is not the way it ought to be. It is abnormal, it is not a friend, it isn’t right. This isn’t truly part of the circle of life. Death is the end of it. So grieve. Cry. The Bible tells us not only to weep, but to weep with those who are weeping. We have a lot of crying to do.

You do not have to dismiss the pain of losing someone you love. Wisdom weeps. Godliness grieves.

We need not ponder where death’s sting has gone. It’s still here. For a little while longer.

Hope Matters

Recognizing this does not dampen resurrection hope—it deepens it. Because the gospel holds our pain in tension with God’s promises. It permits honesty in the face of grief yet assurance that God will resolve our sorrow one day. We still wait for death’s final defeat. Until then, its sting runs deep. Yet the empty tomb of our risen king declares that the sting won’t last forever.

Context matters.

Amazon link is an affiliate link. Clicking it and buying stuff will help us continue laboring but not in vain.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

Context Matters: The Letter Kills

February 9, 2022 By Peter Krol

“The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” Some have read 2 Cor 3:6 in a way that opposes “Spirit-filled” ministry to “Bible-focused” ministry. I have not come across this particular perspective very often, but Graham Heslop has, and does a wonderful job explaining how the verse’s context reveals a different argument in the mind of the Apostle Paul.

Oft quoted, and always from the King James Version for effect, is 2 Corinthians 3:6. There Paul writes: “The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.” This verse is usually cited in support of Spirit led ministries, over against those that prioritise theology and study. Because the letter kills, so the logic goes, we should not overemphasise detailed teaching or a focus on the Bible. For many, Paul’s statement liberates Christian believers from lifeless, dull, and bookish expressions of faith into the exciting and novel. Lively and Spirit led ministries have put the “letter” away, embracing the life-giving work of the Spirit. But is this really the distinction Paul is making?

Check it out!

Context Matters: Righteous Deeds Are Like Filthy Rags

January 31, 2022 By Ryan Higginbottom

Adapted from Erich Ferdinand (2010), Creative Commons

Perhaps you’ve heard that all our righteous deeds are like filthy rags before God. You’ve been taught that God looks at our works and sees something unclean, a pitiful offering not worthy of his attention.

This phrase is often used to urge sinners to embrace Jesus’s work instead of their own for salvation. But is this a correct use of Isaiah’s words? When we learn to read the Bible as a book and not a loose collection of verses and phrases, we’ll see that some familiar sayings take on different meanings than we’ve always assumed.

No Salvation by Works

This memorable phrase comes from Isaiah 64.

We have all become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.
We all fade like a leaf,
and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. (Isaiah 64:6)

I often hear this verse cited to emphasize the emptiness of pursuing salvation by works. The speaker usually comments on how the “polluted garment” may be the Old Testament version of a menstrual cloth—a vivid and effective image. (In my memory, this was an ingredient in the first presentation of the gospel to which I responded!)

The problem, as you may have guessed, is that this verse is often pulled out of context. And when that happens with this particular phrase, young disciples may be left questioning their efforts to obey God. If God views our deeds as bloody rags, why should we try to do anything righteous?

The Meaning of “Righteous”

How could God hate righteous deeds? We only need to look at the surrounding verses to answer this question.

You meet him who joyfully works righteousness,
those who remember you in your ways.
Behold, you were angry, and we sinned;
in our sins we have been a long time, and shall we be saved? (Isaiah 64:5)

The first clause in verse 5 shows that God is not against every attempt at righteousness. Further, this helps us understand that the “righteousness” in Isaiah 64:5 cannot be the same as the “righteous deeds” in Isaiah 64:6. God cannot embrace what he calls unclean.

The “righteous deeds” of verse 6 must be ceremonial tasks (or something similar) done by those who have been in their sins a long time (Isaiah 64:5–6). God hates these deeds because they are not righteous at all.

God Our Father

Another key observation about this passage is how the Lord is being addressed. Yes, the people have sinned and turned away, but the prophet (on behalf of the people) is calling on God as “Father.” (This shows up twice in Isaiah 63:16, and also in Isaiah 64:8.)

The rebellion of God’s people can be so great that “righteous deeds” are like polluted garments. This would not be a surprise to Isaiah’s audience, as it formed the spine of his argument in Isaiah 1:10–17. God wanted offerings, incense, and assemblies to stop because the people did them in vain, with their hands full of blood. Going through the motions without love for the Lord is worthless.

God’s people were privileged to call him “Father,” and as their father he wanted their whole-hearted worship. Offering disjointed obedience to the Lord after being seduced by sin is offensive to the One who has been compassionate and merciful (see Isaiah 63:7–14).

In the modern church, the phrase about righteous deeds being like filthy rags is often used to persuade unbelievers. But in the context of Isaiah 64, God’s people are in view. Unlike unbelievers, they knew what righteous deeds were, but they carried them out with cold hearts.

The Dangers of Sin

There are several passages that could be used to instruct unbelievers about salvation by faith alone. That is a glorious truth, and the church should teach it! But we need not resort to pulling this colorful simile out of context to make the point.

The sobering truth of this passage is that God’s people can be deluded. We can chase after sin so much that our attempts to worship and glorify God are offensive to him.

Context matters.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

The Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard

January 12, 2022 By Peter Krol

In Matthew 20:1-16, Jesus tells a famous parable about the owner of a vineyard who hires workers all throughout the day, paying them all the same amount at day’s end. What is the point of this parable?

Jonathan T. Pennington seeks to answer that question, not by digging deep within his own speculations, nor by staring at the sky. He examines historic traditions of interpretation from the context.

In the history of the church, there have been many attempted explanations of this parable. Some suggest the five different hirings represent five stages of world history during which God has called people to Himself, or different stages in life that one may become a Christian. The point, then, is that God is gracious to all and welcomes all into His kingdom, no matter when they were called. Some say the parable is a picture of God’s future kingdom where all saved people receive heaven, no matter how much they have worked for God. The broadest and maybe most popular interpretation is that this parable is simply a picture of God’s incredible and marvelous grace and generosity—the gospel in a nutshell.
Each of these interpretations has some truth in it. But there is something more to be seen. The key is to pay attention to the context that Matthew gives us for this parable.

I encourage you to read his brief piece for another clear example of why context matters.

Check it out!

Context Matters: Have We Not All One Father?

December 1, 2021 By Peter Krol

Malachi 2:10 is a verse that many cults and spiritual gurus use to show that every member of the human race is a child of God, a member of his holy family.

Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?

Bill Muehlenberg simply takes us to the context of this verse to show us that there’s something much different going on in the prophet’s train of thought.

Check it out!

« Previous Page