Helping ordinary people learn to study the Bible
L.T. Greer has a brief piece to help us when we come up against a difficult passage. Instead of yielding to the temptation to skip or ignore it, he encourages us to see how God might use it. He offers the following list of “Three Good Things About Difficult Bible Passages”:
See his article for an explanation of these points, which I find rather compelling and motivating.
Perhaps you’ve heard of the Man of Lawlessness, otherwise known as the lawless one, who “opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God” (2 Thess 2:4). Sometimes connected with the Beast of Revelation and the Antichrist of John’s letters, this mysterious figure appears in a rather difficult passage, which is certainly to be numbered among those writings of Paul which are hard to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16). Yet the figure has become something of a staple in Christian fiction and end-times theology. What are we to make of him?
We always need to pay attention to the context of our favorite verses and phrases. When we learn to read the Bible for what it is—and not just as a code to crack—we may find it has a deeper or different meaning than we’ve assumed.
Notice how Paul explicitly introduces this character to his readers:
Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself…
2 Thessalonians 2:1-4
Please take a close look once again: “Now concerning the coming of … Jesus … and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed…”
So we may have great confidence that Paul is writing about the coming of Jesus and our being gathered together to him. There is much disagreement over what exactly those things mean, along with when and how they take place. But there ought to be no disagreement whatsoever regarding why Paul is writing about these events. That is, he wants to prevent his readers from being shaken or alarmed. He wants to correct the deception that abounds in Christian teaching and writing regarding these events. He wants to make sure his audience, the church at Thessalonica, knows what to look for before the coming of Jesus or gathering of the saints can take place. And this foreknowledge, when truthfully presented, will neither shake them up nor alarm them.
Therefore we can confidently conclude that, sadly, this passage has been used for centuries, contrary to its stated purpose, to create alarm among those who love the Lord Jesus. Whatever conclusions we may draw about the identity or timing of this Man of Lawlessness and his rebellion, any use of this text that provokes shaken minds or alarmed spirits among Christian brothers and sisters is a deception and a misuse of the text in direct violation of its context.
Let us ensure that the sensational but unclear parts of this text do not overshadow the abundantly clear comfort being offered to believers in Christ through it.
And the broader context points in precisely the same direction.
Paul’s first letter begins with thanks to God for the people’s “work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess 1:2-3). This triple theme of faith, love, and hope can be traced through the letter as Paul’s chief focus. You are doing well in these three areas; now excel still more. (See my upcoming interpretive overview of 1 Thessalonians for more detail.)
But by the time he writes his second letter, only a few months later, something is missing. The object of his thanks is now that their “faith is growing abundantly, and the love of every one” of them for one another is increasing (2 Thess 1:3). Some commentators have tried to identify the presence of hope in the following sentence (“Therefore we ourselves boast … about your steadfastness and faith in all your persecutions” – 2 Thess 1:4), but it is telling that Paul now links their steadfastness not with hope—which was so prominent in the first letter—but with faith. Instead, Paul seems to remind them of the hope which was once theirs and could be yet again:
Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.
2 Thessalonians 2:16-17
In many ways, the brief letter of 2 Thessalonians is about regaining hope, receiving its comfort through grace. The church was once characterized by faith, love, and hope. They have continued abounding in the first two; they now need to regain the comfort of the third.
And Paul’s teaching on the Man of Lawlessness is delivered with this purpose in mind. Not to shake them up or alarm them, but to deliver to them eternal comfort and good hope through grace that they might be established in every good work and word.
We ought to be careful not to be seduced by sensational topics, lest we miss the express purpose for which the Lord has revealed such things to us. As Paul had said while he was with them (2 Thess 2:5): Yes, the man of lawlessness and his rebellion must come before the day of the Lord. This is not to alarm you but to comfort you, so you know you haven’t missed it.
Context matters.
For more examples of why context matters, click here.
I have benefitted much from the scholarship of Vern Poythress over the years. And in this article, he provides an excellent overview of the key issues that shape the way we ought to read the Bible’s opening chapters.
In my Wednesday posts, I usually link to articles much shorter than this one. But despite its length, Poythress’s article is effectively aimed at non-scholars in plain language. He addresses matters such as who God is, who wrote the book of Genesis, what genre Genesis 1-3 is, and how Genesis 1-3 compares with other ancient literature. Here is the abstract, summarizing the entire piece.
ABSTRACT: The beginning of the book of Genesis is not, as some claim, a mythical or poetic account of creation. It is historical narrative, telling the same story that unfolds in the patriarchs, the exodus, and the establishment of Israel. And, being from God, it speaks truly. Modern readers may not learn everything they would like to know about creation from Genesis 1–3, but they will find everything they most need to know. They also will find an account of creation unlike anything outside the Bible. Compared to the creation myths of Israel’s neighbors, Genesis stands majestically alone.
If that piques your interest, this piece is well worth a good look. Check it out!
Pierce Taylor Hibbs has a really helpful piece entitled “Christian, Here’s When You’re Allowed to Apply Scripture.” In it, he laments the way too many of us too often use the Scripture.
Much of the time, we’re pigeons grabbing bread crumbs of information and entertainment. And that crumb-picking habit carries over into our understanding and application of Scripture. We’re not asking questions of a text, working through context in widening circles, or even using our God-given reason to reach understanding. Instead, we’re crumb-picking. We grab a friend’s complaint here, a Facebook comment there, and a Scripture passage we found through a Google search, and boom: we’ve got an “argument,” an arrow to shoot in conversation. And because we’re quoting Scripture, it appears to be biblical. But let’s be clear: Quoting a Bible verse doesn’t mean you’ve made a biblical argument.
He then proposes that what authorizes someone to make use of the Scripture in application is that they have first done the hard work of observing it in its original context and interpreting it in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. He then walks through a 3-step process, showing how to do this difficult work, with the example of an easy-to-misuse verse: “God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control” (2 Tim 1:7).
This article is well worth your time. Check it out!
Hebrews appears to have been a sermon that was transcribed and then circulated in letter form. This theory explains not only the strange opening—with no greeting or identification of the sender—but also the regular alternation between exposition and application, and the label “word of exhortation” used in the appended postscript (Heb 13:22, phrase also occurs in Acts 13:15). Depending on your pace, you can read the whole book out loud in 45 to 60 minutes, which is a reasonable duration for a sermon. Reading the book with a view toward its live, public delivery helps us to grasp its organization and intentions.
While it’s not difficult to recognize large cohesive blocks within Hebrews, it is notoriously difficult to nail down the precise beginnings and endings of the sections. I believe this is because of the nature of spoken communication. When a discourse is meant more for the ear than the eye, the transitions will naturally be more audible than visible. They won’t appear in sharp pronouncements, but will normally sound quite transitional. That makes it difficult to know whether those transitional statements belong with the previous section or the following section, as they serve as bridges between both.*
To give a few examples:
I’ll explain the sermon’s flow of thought further in the walkthrough below, but the remaining transitional statements are found in Heb 10:36-39 and Heb 12:12-13. When the book is read out loud, it is easier to hear how those transitional statements are woven right into the conclusion of the previous section, while also introducing new ideas that get explained further in the following section.
Heb 13:20-21 then concludes the sermon, and Heb 13:22-25 serves as a written note to accompany the transcription.
Like any good public lecture, the main thesis comes right at the beginning (Heb 1:1-4). Stripping all the dependent clauses away yields the following as the sentence’s essential grammar: “…God has spoken to us by his Son…who…sat down.” There have been many ways God has spoken before now. But now he has spoken by his radiant, appointed, powerful, and purifying Son. And that Son has now sat down at God’s right hand to rule, as the rest of his work is done. God has spoken. Through this Son. Whose first phase of work is now complete.
That is the big idea of this sermon. There are many reasons to listen to this Son. There are many competing voices that may tempt you to listen to them. But his work is finished in a way that the work of the other voices can never be. Implicitly: Do not reject him who is speaking to you.
The argument of this sermon is both extraordinary and extraordinarily complex, so I wish to do it justice but will only have the space to use the broadest of strokes. The main thing we ought to see (or hear, if you can read it aloud) is how the transitional statements introduce the main topics. The following exposition then takes up those topics, nearly every time, in reverse order.
Having stated the thesis (that God has spoken to us by his Son who sat down), the preacher’s first explanatory point is that Jesus has become superior to the angels because he’s inherited a more excellent name. In this first point, he does us the kindness of taking his two matters in order. First, Jesus is superior to the angels (Heb 1:5-14). Second, his name is more excellent than theirs (Heb 2:5-18). Between those two expositions is the first point of application: Pay closer attention (Heb 2:1-4)!
The next transitional statement (Heb 2:17-18) takes things in a new direction: Jesus had to become a merciful and faithful high priest. Now the preacher begins his pattern of addressing the subpoints in reverse order. First, Jesus is a faithful high priest, greater than Moses and Joshua (Heb 3:1-4:14). Second, Jesus is a merciful high priest, very much like the Aaronic high priests (Heb 4:15-5:10).
Next transition (Heb 5:9-10): Being made perfect, he became a source of eternal salvation, being designated a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. Before he can really tackle this material, though, he must offer the second application: You have stopped hearing and doing (Heb 5:11-6:20). But then he explains his ideas in reverse order. First, Jesus’ priesthood is in the order of Melchizedek (Heb 7:1-28); he is a better priest. Second, Jesus’ priesthood brings eternal savation (Heb 8:1-9:28); he offers a better covenant in a better tabernacle. Third, Jesus’ priesthood is perfect (Heb 10:1-18); he offers a better sacrifice. This section closes with the third application: Keep helping one another to both hear and do (Heb 10:19-39, this application was previewed in Heb 3:12-13).
Next transition (Heb 10:36-39): You have need of endurance, and we are of those who have faith. He now goes into great detail showing us what faith looks like (Heb 11:1-40) and calling us to run with endurance as we consider the one who endured on our behalf (Heb 12:1-13).
Transition to sermon’s last main section (Heb 12:12-13), which is all application: Straighten that which has grown crooked or lame. Do this first in your walk with God (Heb 12:14-29). Understand how your vertical perspective affects your horizontal relationships (Heb 13:1-6). Then you can straighten out your walk with other people (Heb 13:7-19).
In the sermon’s conclusion (Heb 13:20-21), the preacher return’s to his opening thesis to drive it home. God has spoken in his Son by raising him from the dead. Because the first phase of his work is finished, he may now equip you with everything good that you may do his will. Those who listen to him will be pleasing in God’s sight.
Finally, a personal note has been appended to the sermon, giving a brief update on Timothy’s status and sending greetings from and for the brethren.
Though the argument of Hebrews may appear to meander at times according to the preacher’s stream of consciousness, the transitional statements, and the repetition of key words from those statements in the following section, do illuminate the path he wishes us to follow. Amid the exquisite detail and theology of this masterpiece, let us pay much closer attention to the one who is speaking, that we might keep helping one another to believe and do his word. For the long haul. Forever.
Thesis: God spoke in a Son who sat down – Heb 1:1-4
Conclusion: May the one who spoke through his Son now equip you to please him – Heb 13:20-21
Postscript: Bear with this word of exhortation! – Heb 13:22-25
*This insight, and therefore much of my outline of Hebrews, is indebted to the keen observations of Albert Vanhoye in his Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews (affiliate link).
This post is part of a series of interpretive overviews of the books of the Bible.
I haven’t read Reading the New Testament as Christian Scripture, but I appreciated this interview with its authors. In it, they speak of some of the differences between how we read the Bible today and how the ancients used to read it. We’ve certainly made many great gains in our understanding. But there remain some strengths of yesteryear we ought to be careful not to lose.
Every culture and age has particular insights and blind spots. This applies to biblical interpretation as well. In the West we’re a few hundred years into particular modes and habits of reading the Bible, what we can call modernist hermeneutics. Modernist hermeneutics serve us well in providing a depth of historical background, insights from literary analysis, and a focus on hearing the human author’s intent. But modern approaches to interpreting the Bible often fail to read theologically, canonically, and tropologically (for moral formation). Believing interpreters will also seek to interpret the Bible in these latter ways, but the modern hermeneutical commitments are ironically contrary to these good reading habits.
Premodern interpreters operated with different priorities and sensibilities when reading Scripture. Theological, moral formative, intra-canonical, devotional, and homiletical interpretations were seen as primary and ultimate because this is why God has given Scripture to his people—to shape us to be like him, to be holy as he is holy.
Disclaimer: Amazon link is an affiliate link. Clicking it and buying stuff will help to support this blog’s moral formation, at no extra cost to yourself.
Jim Davis has a brief but wonderful piece on this crucial question: “Does the Book of Proverbs Over-Promise?” Proverbs appears to offer extensive assurance of health and wealth, which some have taken almost as an assurance that we can manipulate God. In response, many others make the error of claiming that proverbs offer not promises but only probabilities.
Davis navigates this unfortunate state of affairs with a level-headed approach to the text.
To say the Proverbs are probabilities (rather than promises) is not false. It’s partially true. The sober, the cool-tempered, and the diligent will usually experience health and wealth more than the drunkard, the hot-tempered, and the lazy.
But only seeing the Proverbs as probabilities for wise decision-making minimizes what God wants for his people. He’s calling us closer to him. The conditions to these statements are that we trust in the Lord (3:5), fear the Lord (3:7), and honor the Lord (3:9). If they were merely probabilities for right living, why link them in any way to our relationship with God?
I’ve reflected on this very question myself on a few occasions. And Davis’s piece is worth your time as you consider it further.
In Romans 11:26, Paul makes a statement that has baffled interpreters for generations: “And in this way all Israel will be saved.” New Testament professor Jared Compton has attempted to explain the key phrase, “all Israel will be saved,” in this brief piece.
Compton approaches the topic through a series of four interpretive questions:
To be frank, I would probably disagree with Compton’s answers to a few of these questions. But I’m eager to link to his article anyway because he models some excellent Bible study skills in the process of seeking to answer his (insightful) questions. He engages with the text. He observes carefully. He reckons with the context of Paul’s argument in the chapter and this section of Romans.
Even if I might disagree with a few of the answers, based on further observation and investigation of the same text, I have much trust that Compton would be a fellow with whom one could have a productive debate on such things. One who isn’t committed to a particular theology despite the text, but one who may arrive at a set of theological conclusions precisely because of the text. I am happy to send you his way to consider his careful handling of this challenging topic.
Perhaps you’ve heard it as a greeting or call to worship: “The blessing of the Lord be upon you! We bless you in the name of the Lord!” (Ps 129:8). Or if you haven’t heard it in such a setting, I suspect it is not difficult to imagine hearing it in such a setting. A simple internet search takes me quickly to a slide with this verse superimposed over a pastoral background image.
Now while it is fully consistent with scripture to pronounce God’s blessing on God’s people, this particular blessing comes in a rather unexpected setting. If we read the Bible’s poetry as we read other poetry and not as a fishing hole for motivational sentiment, we’ll see that some familiar expressions take on a deeper meaning than we originally thought.
Of course, the Bible often tells us of God blessing his people, even from the very beginning (Gen 1:28). He commands the high priest of Israel to pronounce his blessing (Num 6:22-27). In their lowest moments, the people long for this very blessing (Ps 80:3, 7, 19). The apostles often conclude their letters with such words of blessing (e.g. 2 Cor 13:14).
So the pronouncement of a blessing, either in greeting or as a call to worship, is a right and proper thing to do. But let’s not allow that fact to prevent us from reading Scripture as coherent literary texts. Let’s not ignore the context.
Psalms 120-134 are a collection of “songs of ascents,” which pilgrims to religious feasts may have sung on their climb to Jerusalem for national feasts. As one of those poems, Psalm 129 meditates on the lives on those pilgrims who have suffered under deep affliction. This affliction seems incongruent with the life of blessing promised in Yahweh’s covenant. “Greatly have they afflicted me from my youth, yet they have not prevailed against me” (Ps 129:2).
Ps 129:4 is the turning point, where the poet remembers Yahweh’s righteousness, which requires him to fight back against wicked oppressors. The rest of the poem pronounces not blessings, but curses on those who would dare oppress Yahweh’s people. “May all who hate Zion be put to shame and turned backward!” (Ps 129:5).
And observe the entirety of Ps 129:8: The final curse is that, regarding these oppressors, nobody will ever look upon them and pronounce Yahweh’s blessing on them.
Nor do those who pass by say,
‘The blessing of Yahweh be upon you!
We bless you in the name of Yahweh!’
The irony of the greeting-card use of Ps 129:8 is that the statement “We bless you in the name of the Lord” is the very thing the poet does not want people to say. He wants those who hate God’s people to go without hearing such words or receiving such a blessing. And when we ignore the context, perhaps we fail to grasp the profound point that there is a time and a place not to bless. Instead, we can set our hope in the Lord Jesus to show up once again and set right everything that has gone wrong.
For more examples of why context matters, click here.
I appreciate Mike Leake’s reflection on Hebrews 3:1-6, where he walks through the passage’s argument in plain language. Take a gander.
When I read Hebrews 3:1-6 I tend to get that glazed over look on my face. It’s not that I don’t understand the words or even the structure of the sentences. The overall point is pretty simple; namely, Jesus is greater than Moses. But when I’ve read it I’ve always felt like I was missing something.
Why is the author of Hebrews telling us this? How does this serve his argument? I know that Jesus is better than Moses, but what is all this talk about building a house?
