Interpretation | Knowable Word

How to Go Deep Without Getting Lost

January 20, 2021 By Peter Krol

Ryan Martin makes an important point about Bible study. Though we love to “go deep,” doing so often causes us to get lost and miss the point. He explains three dangers of Bible study that gets too focused on provocative details or word studies without retaining the author’s train of thought:

Words are flexible and contextual. A word doesn’t always mean the same thing every time it’s used.
Details can distract from the flow of a text. Following our biggest questions may obscure the author’s biggest intentions.
An individual text doesn’t need to carry the whole weight of Christian theology. It’s okay if a particular passage causes you to focus on a single attribute of God or a particular aspect of the gospel; don’t ‘overharmonize’ the diversity of Scripture.

These are important considerations for those who seek to know God through his word.

Check it out!

Acts 4 and 5: Similar Narratives with Distinct Emphases

January 15, 2021 By Peter Krol

“If your observation is poor, your interpretation won’t be any better.” Acts 4 and Acts 5 provide a good case study to illustrate this mantra of mine.

These two chapters of Acts (or, to be specific, Acts 4:5-31 and Acts 5:17-42) appear quite similar on the surface. In both episodes:

Jesus’ apostles draw crowds for doing miraculous signs and wonders (Acts 3:11-12, 5:14-16).
The high priest and his associates imprison Jesus’ apostles for preaching and healing (Acts 4:1-3, 5:17-18).
There is a hearing with testimony from the “offenders” (Acts 4:5-7, 5:27-28).
The apostles are compelled to bear witness to the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus (Acts 4:10-12, 5:30-32).
The priests warn the apostles to speak no longer in this name (Acts 4:18, 5:40).
The apostles contrast obedience to the priests with obedience to God (Acts 4:19-20, 5:29).
The apostles end up more motivated and more courageous to continue their proclamation (Acts 4:31, 5:41-42).

Because of these similarities, teachers and small group leaders may feel stuck when studying Acts. Should we skip over the second episode? Should we repeat the same lesson and applications? How do we prevent the study from feeling like deja vu for participants? What more can we cover the second time ’round that we didn’t address the first time?

When a biblical narrator repeats similar ideas in this way, especially in such quick succession, he may have numerous reasons for doing so. One reason could be simply to establish a matter on the testimony of two witnesses (Deut 19:15). But in almost every case, the narrator also gives clues that he has a different point to make with each episode. We can use the same skills we employ to avoid unhelpful harmonization to grasp Luke’s points in these two chapters of Acts. Let’s hear each episode and observe them doggedly.

Plot Structure to the Rescue in Acts 4

Since we’re dealing with narratives, one of the most useful tools is that of plot structure. Let’s go back over each of the two scenes with the concepts of conflict, climax, and resolution in mind. To keep things somewhat focused, I’ll be looking only at the arrest/hearing scenes and not the healing scenes that provoked them.

In chapter 4, Acts 4:5-6 describe the setting. The conflict (tangible narrative tension) enters in Acts 4:7, when the priests ask, “By what power or by what name did you do this [heal the man lame since birth and proclaim resurrection from the dead]?” The chief conflict here is the conflict between names, which represent both delegated authority and factual power. What is the name that gives you either the ability (power) or the right (authority) to do these things?

Luke masterfully foreshadows this conflict of authoritative names even as he establishes the setting: “…with Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family” (Acts 4:6). Do you see what he did there? Do you see how sneaky he was in getting you to consider all those powerful and authoritative names?

The tension only increases as Peter tackles the question head-on:

“by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth…” (Acts 4:10)
“there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)

The wannabe Names, however, can’t have any of this. Luke narrates twice their resolve to prohibit proclamation in this unapproved name of Jesus (Acts 4:17, 18). They then release Peter, John, and the formerly lame man, but the narrative hasn’t climaxed yet. The question remains unresolved: Which name will prove to be the true power here?

It is only after the disciples return to their friends (Acts 4:23), pray together to the Sovereign Lord who made heaven, earth, and sea (Acts 4:24), and ask him to embolden them even while continuing his signs and wonders through the name of his holy servant Jesus (Acts 4:29-30)—only then does the conflict finally resolve. At this profession of complete trust in the name of Jesus, the place where they had gathered was shaken, and the Holy Spirit fills hem afresh with a new measure of boldness (Acts 4:31). The shaking and the Spirit are narrative evidences that they’ve been clinging to the right name. That the power of this name to preach the resurrection cannot be stopped by a few pretenders to the Jewish priesthood. What were their names again?

Luke’s emphasis in this first scene, evident through the nature of the narrative conflict and climax, is on the vindication and authority of the name of Jesus over that of the Jewish priests.

Plot Structure in Acts 5

The conflict, climax, and resolution of Acts 5 take us in quite a different direction.

Acts 5:17-18 provide the setting, where a jealous High Priest & Co. (unnamed!) locks up the apostles. And not only Peter and John this time, but, presumably, all of them. Yes, there is implicit conflict in both the jealousy and the arrest itself. But the actual narrative conflict arises in Acts 5:19-20, when an angel shows up to bust his boys out of the slammer. The priests want them in prison; the angel (and, in light of what follows, we can add: God) wants them in the temple. The conflict: Where do you want these guys to be?

The tension increases (hilariously) the next day as the priests send for their prisoners for interrogation, and they can’t find them (Acts 5:21b-25)! Nobody remembers seeing them leave, and the cells remain locked. They were so careful to place these troublemakers just so, but then they went and lost their prisoners!

They hear of the apostles’ presence in the temple (incidentally, isn’t it the priests’ job to be there?), and resolve to bring them back in. But they must do so with much sensitivity and caution, lest they get themselves killed by the crowd (Acts 5:26). Luke strongly suggests that the apostles could have resisted this re-arrest, had they chosen to stay put in the temple, and the temple officers could have done nothing to physically apprehend them. The priests are clearly losing their ability to contain these unruly preachers.

I’ll simplify my analysis by suggesting that the conflict is finally reversed (i.e. reaches its climax) in Acts 5:39, where Gamaliel’s advice is simply to trust God to decide which movements he wants to grow or demolish. The priests take his advice (Acts 5:39b), but not really (Acts 5:40). They still want to have some control over deciding when and where this Christian movement can operate. And their intimidation has the opposite effect to what they intend (Acts 5:41-42).

Conclusion

All you need to do is set aside your familiarity and take a closer look. Observe, observe, observe. Take note, especially in narrative, of the details of conflict, rising action, climax, and resolution. As you do, the distinct emphases of similar episodes will surface themselves.

Then you can teach or lead discussions on Acts 4 and Acts 5 without covering exactly the same ground. First (Acts 4), you talk about the only name that has the authority to forgive and the power to heal. Then (Acts 5), you explore the fact that opposition to this name will want to contain it but never succeed.

But if your observation is poor, your interpretation won’t be any better.

You Already Know How to Read the Bible

December 30, 2020 By Peter Krol

Alan Shlemon makes a great point in this article: Reading the Bible requires rules we already know. Though the OIA method, for example, may seem like something new to learn, with a whole set of rules to follow—it is actually something you already do instinctively with many things you read on a daily basis.

Shlemon highlights three fundamental principles:

What is the author talking about in the surrounding text (context)?
What is the historical occasion for why the author wrote (history)?
What literary style is the passage written in (genre)?

He gives examples of how we do these things already, instinctively, such as:

If a sports headline reads, “Cowboys Shoot Down Eagles,” everyone knows that men with revolvers didn’t shoot any birds. We all recognize that sports news is written in a particular literary style, where teams are often named after people (e.g. Cowboys, 49ers, etc.) and animals (e.g. eagles, dolphins etc.). No one is confused. For some reason, however, the same people who understand that news headlines are written in different literary styles, ignore the different literary styles of Scripture.

Check it out!

Our Experience Fills in a Context Vacuum

December 16, 2020 By Peter Krol

Alan Shlemon writes about “How Creating a Context Vacuum Sucks Us into Overwriting God’s Word.”

What happens, then, when you read a Bible verse but don’t read the context? Two unfortunate consequences occur. First, you ignore the words the Holy Spirit provided to help you understand the meaning of the verse. You may miss out on what God is trying to communicate. Second, you create what I call a context vacuum. When there’s no context, your mind instantly fills the void with something from your experience. It’s an automatic process.

Shlemon gives a number of examples to illustrate the process. And he’s exactly right. We ignore the context to our peril. When we read or memorize isolated verses, our personal experience will become the filter through which we view and interpret those verses. Thus we fail to hear God’s voice in the Scripture.

I’m especially struck by the example of the woman who heard the command to “put on the new man” (Eph 4:24) as God’s guidance to divorce her husband and run off with another lover. Let us help others to avoid such tragic and reckless abuse of God’s word.

Check it out!

How Structure Communicates Meaning in Acts 2

December 11, 2020 By Peter Krol

I’ve written before about how to observe structure and how structure conveys meaning. In this post, I’d like to give a practical example, in Acts 2.

Resist Familiarity

Familiarity is the greatest enemy of observation. When we presume to already know a text, we tend to stop listening to it. In the case of Acts 2, our familiarity may perhaps blind us with the dramatic theological import of what takes place. The Day of Pentecost. The coming of the Holy Spirit. The new creation, heaven on earth, God dwelling with men. Absolutely, these matters are weighty and earth-shattering, and they deserve intense reflection.

But the student of Scripture who wishes to observe the text and hear God’s voice clearly in it will ask: What is the narrator’s chief message here? And a cursory look reveals only four verses dedicated to describing the phenomenon of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). Most of the narrative takes us elsewhere. In narrative terms, the coming of the Spirit in Acts 2:1-4 basically provides the setting for the discussion that follows. (I do not intend to minimize the theological importance of what happens in Acts 2:1-4; I’m only observing the literary shape of the text.)

Basic Structure

After the narrative introduction of Acts 2:1-4, the rest of the chapter describes the fallout. And the narrator structures that fallout around two main questions:

Men from “every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5-11) ask: What does this mean (Acts 2:12-13)?
- Peter answers this question at length (Acts 2:14-36).
The foreigners follow up with a second question (Acts 2:37): What shall we do?
- Peter answers this question briefly, at least as far as the narrative is concerned (Acts 2:38-40). At the time, this answer was also lengthy (Acts 2:40).

After this two-part Q&A, there is a narrative conclusion (Acts 2:41-47).

So a broad outline of the chapter would look like this:

A The descending Spirit
B What does this mean?
B’ What shall we do?
A’ The resulting community

A Closer Look

A closer look at these sections shows the first Q&A getting the most space, by far (32 verses). The narrator has done us a service by breaking this section down into subunits for us.

Verses 5-13 list the nations in attendance and lead to the big question itself: What does this mean (Acts 2:12)?

Peter’s speech divides into three units, each marked by a direct address: “Men of Judea” (Acts 2:14), “Men of Israel” (Acts 2:22), and “Brothers” (Acts 2:29). In each of the three sections, following the direct address, Peter makes a clear point and then supports that point with an Old Testament quotation.

Men of Judea – Acts 2:14
- This is what Joel predicted – Acts 2:14-16
  - Quote from Joel 2 – Acts 2:17-21
Men of Israel – Acts 2:22
- The crucified Jesus has been raised – Acts 2:22-24
  - Quote from Psalm 16 – Acts 2:25-28
Brothers – Acts 2:29
- The risen Jesus is on his throne – Acts 2:29-34
  - Quote from Psalm 110 – Acts 2:34-35

The only part of the speech that falls outside the pattern is the last verse, which highlights this sentence as perhaps the most prominent part of the speech. Here is the conclusion Peter’s three points are driving toward:

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.
Acts 2:36

Because this concluding sentence stands outside the threefold pattern of the rest of the speech, it is given such prominence as to almost be a distinct unit itself. And in light of the entire chapter, we see the author’s main idea right here, at the center of the structure:

A The descending Spirit
B What does this mean?
C God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ
B’ What shall we do?
A’ The resulting community

Peter’s Argument

Follow Peter’s argument in his first, lengthy speech. You have heard us speaking in your native tongues, right? That means God’s Spirit has been poured out on us, like Joel said. That means the Messiah has poured the Spirit out on us. That means the Messiah was given the Spirit by the Father. That means the Messiah is seated at the Father’s right hand. That means he ascended into heaven. That means he’s not dead, but was raised by God. That is the same JESUS you killed by enlisting pagans who don’t care about the law of Moses. We saw him ourselves and testify to these things. Stop doing what you’re doing (repent) and publicly pledge allegiance to him as Lord and Christ (be baptized).

Conclusion

The structure of this chapter suggests a few things about Luke’s intentions in this narrative:

His intention for Theophilus is not as much to teach about the coming of the Spirit, in itself, but to communicate the meaning of his coming and the response of individuals and communities.
The meaning of the Spirit’s coming is not primarily about the ability of a believing individual to commune directly with God (though that is certainly a result of the Spirit’s coming, unpacked in other passages), but more so about the testimony to Jesus as both Lord and Christ.
The proper response to the Spirit’s coming is not primarily to seek particular ecstatic manifestations of his presence, but to call on Jesus to be saved (Acts 2:21), to repent and be baptized to pledge allegiance to his new kingdom community (Acts 2:38), and to submit every aspect of the Christian community to Jesus’ true lordship (Acts 2:41-47).

There is much theology we can develop from Acts 2, but let’s allow the narrator’s own structure and argument to guide our interpretation of the text, showing us where he wants us to focus our interpretive efforts.

Saints Resurrected at Jesus’ Death

December 2, 2020 By Peter Krol

Greg Lanier has a helpful piece on “Resurrected Saints and Matthew’s Weirdest Passage,” where he addresses some common questions on Matthew 27:52-53:

The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Lanier asks:

Did this really happen?
What exactly happened?
What does it mean?

He looks closely at the text in its context to provide reasonable answers.

Check it out!

Why You Can Trust the Bible

October 23, 2020 By Peter Krol

Perhaps you’ve heard reference to a “Bible-believing” church, or perhaps you’ve been told the Bible is the “Word of God” and can be trusted. But why is it that we can trust this book? And why would churches stake their reputation on believing it?

While I could give many reasons to support the essential trustworthiness of the Bible, perhaps the most important reason is simply that Jesus trusted it.

The Bible Speaks; Jesus Speaks

Luke concludes his narrative of Jesus’ life with a brief discussion between the risen Christ and his disciples (Luke 24:44-49). And in this narrative, Jesus’ parting words are words of trust in the Bible’s reliability.

Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
Luke 24:44

Jesus believes not only that the Bible speaks, but that it speaks about him. He refers specifically to the three divisions of the Hebrew Bible (what we call the Old Testament): the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (the Psalms were the most identifiable part of the poetic books, or “Writings”). And the things written in these three sections are about him.

In addition, those are the very words Jesus himself spoke to them while he was ministering among them. So the Hebrew Bible speaks about Jesus, and Jesus has spoken those same things about himself.

Speaks about What, Exactly?

But what exactly do the Hebrew Scriptures say about Jesus, which he underscored in his own teaching?

Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Luke 24:45-47

The message of the Old Testament can be summarized in four points:

The Christ should suffer.
The Christ should rise from the dead.
The Christ’s suffering and rising make forgiveness possible for those who repent.
This message should be proclaimed to all nations everywhere.

This is what the Bible says. This is what Jesus himself says.

Jesus Speaks; the Apostles Speak

But that’s not all. This message must go out, but how?

You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
Luke 24:48-49

Now that Jesus has affirmed the message of the Old Testament—which lines up with his own message about himself—he calls his disciples to do something new. He wants them to bear witness of these things as well. He will send the promise and power of the Father to help with this task (Luke’s next volume, the book of Acts, will tell us that the Father’s promise and power is the indwelling Holy Spirit).

So what is Jesus (and Luke) referring to when he speaks of the apostolic witness to these things? Certainly this includes the marvelous preaching that will take place over the next generation, some of which is recorded in Acts. But it has particular reference not only to the preaching but especially to the writings of these witnesses. Matthew, John, and Peter were almost certainly present when Jesus spoke these words. Perhaps James and Jude were as well. Paul would later receive a similar commission (Acts 26:16)

So Jesus relies on the witness they will speak and write, a witness which will be empowered and directed by nothing short of the Spirit of the Father. A witness that we call the New Testament.

Conclusion

Jesus came with a message to proclaim about himself—who he was and what he came to do. This message was enshrined in the Old Testament, and it would be reinforced by the New Testament.

So why can we trust the Bible? Because Jesus did. He trusted the Old Testament, for it spoke about him. And he trusted the New Testament, because it would speak about him. “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you” (Luke 24:44).

Though Jesus has ascended to heaven and no longer walks the earth in the flesh (at least, for a time), he still speaks to us through the words of the Old and New Testaments. He trusted them, and therefore so can we.

Thanks for visiting Knowable Word! If you like this article, you might be interested in receiving regular updates from us. You can sign up for our email list (enter your address in the box on the upper right of this page), follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or subscribe to our RSS feed.

On the Road to Emmaus

October 16, 2020 By Peter Krol

Luke ends his gospel with a masterpiece of a story that has captured our imaginations for millennia. And the story is so vivid and well-told that, if we’re not careful, its artistry can easily distract us from its chief message. I imagine you’ve heard speculation about whether the “other disciple” is Cleopas’s wife. And perhaps you’ve wished to be part of the greatest Bible study of all time on that 6-mile walk. Or maybe you’ve wondered how Jesus could simply vanish into thin air. And maybe you’ve been inspired by the eagerness of the two disciples to return to Jerusalem “that same hour,” after their long walk home on that long day.

These matters are all worth considering, and they are rightly in the corporate consciousness of those who read this story today. But allow me to model how a few key principles will help us to penetrate the outer edges of the story to better grasp its main point. (In what follows, I seek to apply the principles of narrative plot structure explained in this post.)

Plot Structure

With even an elementary grasp on how plot structure works, you know to look for the introduction of conflict. Everything before that conflict is simply setting the scene.

So we read, beginning at Luke 24:13, and we’re told of “two of them” going to Emmaus, about 7 miles from Jerusalem. They were talking about everything that had happened. While they were talking, Jesus himself draws near and goes with them. None of this is tense. There is no conflict yet, so all these details provide the setting for what is about to transpire.

Then Luke goes out of his way to tell us, “But their eyes were kept from recognizing him” (Luke 24:16). Now the story finally feels tense. Now there is a sense of uncertainty, of conflict between what is happening and what they perceive is happening.

In particular, we see a conflict between the disciples and their perceptions (your English teacher may have called this “man vs. himself”). The issue this story wants to address is: Can they recognize Jesus? And if so, how?

Now don’t get distracted. I can observe as well as you can that the passive voice is used: “their eyes were kept…” But don’t let that distract you into speculation on divine sovereignty vs. free will, nor into questions about why God would prevent them from recognizing Jesus. Much of the purpose of the passive voice is to avoid such matters entirely. Narrators typically use passive voice when they wish to direct your attention away from the person doing the action. They want you to gaze instead simply at what is happening to the object(s) of the action.

Skimming through the story for now, we should look for the climax. Where is the conflict (they can’t recognize Jesus) reversed? Luke does all the heavy lifting for us here, making it as clear as possible: “And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him” (Luke 24:31).

So everything between verses 16 and 31 serves as “rising action.” The events recounted here are heightening the tension and magnifying the conflict. And the material in verses 32-35 provide the resolution (32-34) and new setting (35). Remember, our opening setting involved two of them walking away from Jerusalem discussing the events surrounding Jesus’ resurrection. On account of the conflict, rising action, and climax, we have reached a new state of affairs where these two folks are no longer asking and wondering, but telling of what happened. And more particularly, they can proclaim “how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread” (Luke 24:35).

Approaching the Main Point

So our simple identification of conflict and climax strongly suggests that Luke’s main point in this episode has something to do with recognizing the risen Jesus. Of course, that’s not quite enough to go on just yet (it’s only a short phrase and not a truth proposition that ought to be believed or obeyed). But it sets us in the right direction.

We can look within the story’s action to discover that the testimony of the Hebrew Scripture plays a major role in such recognition. And there is something more going on than simply identifying Jesus by name in a lineup (bare “recognition” of Jesus’ name or face). Luke is communicating quite profoundly that they failed to recognize resurrection as being fundamental to the person and work of the Messiah. And this was not a problem of education but a problem of faith and of biblical interpretation (Luke 24:25-26).

That’s as far as I’ll go for now. I don’t want to simply tell you what I think the main point is. That would defeat the purpose of trying to help you figure it out for yourself.

But I trust my reflections here have done enough to show you that their eyes, while on the text, had been focused in all the wrong places. Perhaps we ought to avoid the same error when we study these Scriptures ourselves.

Two Kinds of Proof Texts

September 28, 2020 By Ryan Higginbottom

Any Christian article or book worth our attention will be faithful to God’s word. And one way that writers strive for that faithfulness is to quote and refer to the Bible.

These quotes and references are often called “proof texts.” For any reader of persuasive Christian writing, these are crucial elements of an argument. Proof texts are not mere sprinkles on the cupcake.

Two Different Flavors

Because the Observation-Interpretation-Application (OIA) framework offers a grid for all communication, it’s no surprise that it lends us a hand in this matter. Just as there are two ways to outline a Bible passage, proof texts also come in two varieties.

In observation proof texts, a writer refers to a verse or passage and the reader needs only to observe the Bible to verify that the text supports the point. For example, a writer might cite John 5:18 to help establish the claim that Jesus refers to God as his father.

When a writer uses interpretation proof texts, their reader must do some interpretive work with the verse or passage cited. In this category, a writer might refer to the parable of the prodigal son to support a statement about Jesus correcting the Pharisees’ notion of loving God.

Examples

These different kinds of proof texts show up in many varieties of Christian writing. Here are two examples.

The Heidelberg Catechism

Take a look at the sixth question and answer from the historic Heidelberg Catechism. (I have not included all of the catechism’s proof texts here.)

Q. Did God, then, create man so wicked and perverse?
A. No, on the contrary, God created man good[1] and in His image, that is, in true righteousness and holiness,[3] so that he might rightly know God His Creator, heartily love Him, and live with Him in eternal blessedness to praise and glorify Him.

The reference [1] points to Gen 1:31; this is an observation proof text, because that verse says that God called all that he created (including man) “good.” The reference [3] points to Eph 4:24; this is an interpretation proof text, because Paul is writing about repentance and putting on the new self, not (explicitly) the original creation of man. It takes some interpretive work to agree that the phrase “true righteousness and holiness” as used in Eph 4:24 is being used accurately and legitimately in the catechism.

The Meaning of Marriage

Here are additional examples from Tim Keller’s book The Meaning of Marriage.

Keller writes this when discussing the permanence of marriage.

The problem is not with marriage itself. According to Genesis 1 and 2, we were made for marriage, and marriage was made for us. Genesis 3 tells us that marriage, along with every other aspect of human life, has been broken because of sin. (Keller, page 44)

The references to the first three chapters of Genesis are interpretation proof texts. We cannot pluck the conclusions Keller asserts from the surface of those texts.

On the next page, however, when describing Jesus’s sacrifice, Keller writes this.

Jesus the Son, though equal with the Father, gave up his glory and took on our human nature (Philippians 2:5ff). (Keller, page 45)

This reference to the second chapter of Philippians is an observation proof text, because the words Keller writes come almost verbatim from those verses.

Associated Dangers

Knowing there are two different kinds of proof texts can help us discuss the dangers associated with each. The lines here are not always sharp and the categories are not always disjointed, but some distinctions can be helpful.

A common error when using an observation proof text is to miss the passage’s context. Most errors associated with context involve a quick, surface reading of the passage. But the obvious reading of a verse may not be the intended or accurate reading. (See this page for a multitude of examples.)

Interpretation proof texts are, unsurprisingly, prone to bad or incomplete interpretation. Sometimes writers assume too much of their readers; sometimes they simply misinterpret the Bible.

Neither type of proof text is inherently good or bad. And while neither type is better than the other, interpretation proof texts are the less stable of the two. They require more work and more care.

Conclusion

As we read Christian writing which attempts to persuade, let’s be aware of these two kinds of proof texts. We can often identify which type a writer is using by context clues.

When a writer uses an observation proof text, their claim should be easy to verify. Look up the reference, nod your head (hopefully), and move on. When the writer uses an interpretation proof text, we will need to do some interpretive work to see if their claim is supported by the text.

Knowing the distinction between these two kinds of proof texts won’t solve all our problems. This will help us to be better readers, able to know when (or if) a writer’s ideas square with God’s written revelation.

Disclosure: The Amazon links above are affiliate links, meaning that this website receives a small amount of money if you make a purchase after clicking one such link.

The Difference Between Meaning and Application

September 23, 2020 By Peter Krol

Here is a helpful devotional showcasing the difference between meaning and application. The author looks at Elisha’s “death in the pot” story in 2 Kings 4:38-41 to show how to both interpret (arriving at the author’s main point) and apply (connecting that truth to our own lives).

How many meanings does a passage of Scripture have? Sometimes we read a text and our minds race all over the Scripture with seemingly related texts and many possible meanings. Two of the challenges we can sometimes bring to our reading, interpretation, and subsequent understanding of Scripture are: 1) forgetting what Scripture principally teaches; and 2) confusing a text’s meaning with its application.

Check it out!

« Previous Page