Interpretation | Knowable Word

Discourse Analysis of the New Testament Writings: Profitably Intense

July 9, 2021 By Peter Krol

Discourse Anaylsis of the New Testament Writings, edited by Todd A. Scacewater, is an ambitious text that seeks to explain the structure and chief arguments of every book of the New Testament. I am grateful to Fontes Press for a complimentary copy given in exchange for an honest review.

Each book of the New Testament gets a chapter, where the contributor seeks to map out that book’s structure and chief arguments. Before doing so, however, each contributor takes a few pages to describe their methodology for “discourse analysis” (which is essentially the process of mapping out a book’s structure and chief arguments). A variety of contributors employ a variety of analytical methods, though many of them overlap, sharing the same theoretical influences.

But will this book help the ordinary believer in their Bible study?

Assessment

For many years, I have enthusiastically commended David Dorsey’s Literary Structure of the Old Testament as providing much help with the literary structures of every book of the Old Testament. I have long hoped for a companion volume to recommend that does a similar thing for the New Testament. Does Scacewater’s edition fulfill that role?

Yes and no.

Yes, it does complement Dorsey’s work — in that I can and will regularly reference this book when I seek to get a broad overview of an NT book. There is much insight here worth gleaning, and this book is well crafted to encourage us readers to dive back into the Scripture ourselves and continue to observe, observe, observe.

But sadly, no, it doesn’t complement Dorsey’s work — in that this book is clearly written with a strongly academic audience in mind. Dorsey is academically robust, yet still comprehensible to average Bible students. But the contributors to Scacewater’s work use a very high degree of technical terminology, both theological and grammatical, without defining terms. Many of them quote the Greek NT text without translating it. And they presume a high degree of background knowledge in the field of discourse analysis.

Therefore, I am happy to recommend this book as worthy of your time if you’re wishing to work hard and be stretched far. For a sample, see this reflection on the state of structural studies stimulated for me by the chapter on John’s gospel. But for most folks seeking to study the Scriptures, I will not be recommending this book as a matter of routine.

Finally, I’ll mention that one of the book’s endorsers, Stephen E. Runge, wrote of the varied approaches to discourse analysis demonstrated from chapter to chapter: “Some succeed more than others.” I heartily agree. Some of the contributions are not as clear as they could be in presenting a clear argument or distinct structure for some of the NT books. I found some others not especially helpful. But I find the chapters on the following NT books particularly strong and insightful: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, Hebrews, James, and 1 Peter. I would more quickly recommend Discourse Analysis to someone seeking help with one of those particular books. (And in the interest of full disclosure: I have not yet finished reading the book. I’ve made it through 1 Peter and believe that has given me enough exposure to write an accurate review. As I finish the remaining chapters, I may add to the list in this paragraph.)

You can find Discourse Analysis of the New Testament Writings on Amazon or directly through Fontes Press.

Amazon links are affiliate links. If you click them and buy stuff, this blog will receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. Thank you for your support.

Identifying Behemoth and Leviathan in the Book of Job

June 18, 2021 By Peter Krol

Kevin (2007), Creative Commons

In Job 40-41, God introduces Job to two new characters. Behemoth is a powerful beast with strong legs (Job 40:16), a stiff tail (Job 40:17), and a carefree riverside existence (Job 40:20-23). Leviathan dwells in the sea (Job 41:1, 7), breathes fire (Job 41:18-21), and crushes hunters (Job 41:25-29). Who are these two creatures?

I grew up hearing that these chapters prove both 1) the existence of dinosaurs, and 2) the co-habitation of humans with them. The Bible shows that archaeology and paleontology are worthwhile pursuits. Hurrah!
Later I discovered that many interpreters in church history have considered Behemoth and Leviathan to be poetic exaggerations of the hippopotamus and the crocodile. Some translations even footnote the titles as such (for example, NASB, NRSV).

Both identifications miss the point of the text. Take note of God’s train of thought over both of his speeches:

Job, you’ll never understand the behavior of mountain goats or ostriches. And you will never domesticate the lion, the wild ox, or the war-horse. Stop justifying yourself…And by the way, you can’t control the hippo or crocodile, either. But I can.

That one certainly doesn’t work. The dinosaur interpretation does a little better:

Job, you’ll never understand the behavior of mountain goats or ostriches. And you will never domesticate the lion, the wild ox, or the war-horse. Stop justifying yourself…And by the way, you can’t control these two dinosaurs, either. But I can.

Both interpretations, however, miss a few key facts:

God’s first speech covers the entire natural creation (Job 38:4). Reading from the beginning, you’ll notice a remarkable similarity to the order of things in Genesis 1. The resemblance is complete enough not to warrant revisiting the created order in the second speech.
The main question in God’s second speech is whether Job can not merely be angry at his suffering but actually bring it to an end (Job 40:9-13). If so, that would justify Job’s putting God in the wrong and saving himself from his own situation (Job 40:8, 14). Of course, Behemoth and Leviathan show this idea to be ludicrous.
Job’s final response comes from a completely blown mind. “You can do all things…No purpose of yours can be thwarted…I have uttered what I did not understand…Now my eye sees you…I despise myself…” (Job 42:1-6).

The second speech advances the first, giving Job (and us) a picture of God’s supreme control, not only over the natural creation, but even over supernatural suffering and evil. Behemoth and Leviathan represent these things in Job’s life. Unlike Job, God can, in fact, bring suffering and evil to an end. Satan could not snap a thread of Job’s garment without God’s explicit permission (Job 1:12, 2:6). And Satan cannot resist the snapping of his own neck if God wills it.

Let him who made [Behemoth] bring near his sword! (Job 40:19)

Who then is he who can stand before me? Who has first given to me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine. (Job 41:10-11)

God gives Job a taste of this power when he brings Job’s earthly suffering to an end (Job 42:12-17). And when God gives Job exactly twice what he lost (compare with Job 1:2-3), he plays the part of a thief who must repay double (Ex 22:7-9). Not that God is a thief, mind you; but he takes the place of a thief along with his blame.

Sort of like another divine warrior who had power to bind Satan (Mark 3:27) and triumph over the rulers and authorities through the cross (Col 2:13-15). And he did it, playing the part of a thief (Mark 15:27). He will one day destroy every ferocious beast (Rev 19:20-21), Satan (Rev 20:9-10), and death itself (Rev 20:14).

When Paul runs out of words to describe God’s unsearchable justice and unfathomable wisdom, he turns to the speech about Leviathan in Job 41 (Romans 11:33-36). Paul must have realized that speech was getting at something bigger than hippos and crocodiles.

Job, you’ll never understand the behavior of mountain goats or ostriches. And you will never domesticate the lion, the wild ox, or the war-horse. Stop justifying yourself…And by the way, you can’t ever bring your suffering to an end. But I can.

Why God Speaks to Job Twice

June 11, 2021 By Peter Krol

Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but I will proceed no further. (Job 40:4-5)

With these famous words and a pregnant hand-to-mouth gesture, Job begins backing away from the God of all creation. In severe suffering, Job has accused God of doing wrong and of remaining silent. But God arrives, speaking out of the whirlwind, to put Job in his place. Job 38:1-39:30 records God’s first speech, recounting the wildness, inscrutability, and uncontrollable power of God’s creation. Duly humbled, Job tries to slink away like an amateur diver whose loosely tied trunks slipped off at surface impact.

But God will have nothing of the sort. “Oh no, you don’t. I’m not done with you yet”:

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: “Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me.” (Job 40:6-7)

Thus begins a second tirade from the LORD against his servant Job (Job 40:6-41:34), whom God will coerce into speaking one last time (Job 42:1-6).

Why? Why the second speech from God? Why isn’t God willing to let it go when Job humbles himself?

Comparing Job’s Responses

Undoubtedly, Job’s first response (Job 40:3-5) is one of humility and self-degradation. “I am small…I’m shutting up now…” But Christopher Ash observes that Job says nothing about God. While God’s first speech properly demotes Job’s self-esteem, it does not yet promote God’s gargantuan superiority.

In other words, Job has justified himself (Job 31:1-40) and not God (Job 16:7-17); this is Elihu’s chief critique (Job 32:2). And God must get Job not only to stop justifying himself but also to begin justifying God.

So Job releases his self-justification after God’s first speech. But it’s not until after the second speech that he confesses God “can do all things” (Job 42:2a), no purpose of his “can be thwarted” (Job 42:2b), and that “I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you” (Job 42:5).

How does God get him there?

Comparing God’s Speeches

God’s first speech focuses on the natural creation. It begins with an obvious question: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?” (Job 38:4). It continues with a tour of the heavens and the earth (Job 38:5-38). And it ends with a litany of wild creatures beyond Job’s capacity either to understand or to domesticate: lion, raven, mountain goat, wild donkey, wild ox, ostrich, war-horse, hawk (Job 38:39-39:30). In conclusion, God identifies Job as a faultfinder and dares him to justify himself any further (Job 40:1-2).

Seeing his minuscule role in the natural creation, Job properly humbles himself and shuts up (Job 40:3-5).

But God’s second speech must blow Job’s mind even further, and to do so it focuses on the supernatural creation. If Job is to begin justifying God, he must clearly see that he’ll never see clearly. Though he knows how much it hurts to suffer, he’ll never know why God would appoint such suffering in the lives of his beloved people. In short, God must appear bigger, more powerful, and more mysterious than ever before.

So God’s second speech targets the heart of the matter:

Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his? Adorn yourself with majesty…Pour out the overflowings of your anger…Look on everyone who is proud and bring him low and tread down the wicked where they stand. Hide them all in the dust together; bind their faces in the world below. Then will I acknowledge to you that your own right hand can save you.” (Job 40:9-14)

In other words: “Can you do more than get angry at suffering and evil, Job? Can you actually bring them to an end?”

jaci XIII (2010), Creative Commons

He follows up with two case studies, Behemoth (Job 40:15-24) and Leviathan (Job 41:1-34). These ancient but legendary storybook creatures poetically embody all that is wrong with the world and with Job’s life. They seem tame (Job 40:20-23), but really are not (Job 40:24). They will not play nice (Job 41:1-9). They cannot be defeated (Job 41:12-34).

Such is the problem of evil. It will not go away, and Satan ever wanders to and fro looking for someone to devour (Job 1:6-12, 2:1-7). Job can do nothing about this. Not ever. “No one is so fierce that he dares to stir [Leviathan] up” (Job 41:10a).

But someone else can. God asks, “Who then is he who can stand before me?” (Job 41:10b).

And this God will send his Son to wage war on the beast from the land and the beast from the sea (Rev 13). He is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and wages war (Rev 19:11). He will finally capture these beasts and hurl them into the lake of fire (Rev 19:20-21), along with both Satan (Rev 20:10) and death itself (Rev 20:14).

Please remain steadfast in Christ and persevere to the end, Job (James 5:11). God will bring a day with no tears or death, no mourning, nor crying, nor pain (Rev 21:4). Come quickly, Lord Jesus.

————————–

Disclaimer: The “Christopher Ash” Amazon link is an affiliate link, which will take you to one of the best commentaries I’ve ever read. If you click the link and buy stuff, you’ll support this blog at no extra cost to yourself.

Tips for Interpreting Old Testament Narrative

June 2, 2021 By Peter Krol

Colin Adams offers 10 tips for interpreting Old Testament narratives.

Try and grasp the overall point of the book.
Read in big chunks – narrative often tells you ‘a little, in a lot.’
Narratives tell you what happened, not what SHOULD have happened.
OT narrative is first and foremost about God: his holiness, grace, salvation and justice.
Moralise…but not too much.
Repetition is a clue to what the passage is about.
Don’t get bogged down in what the narrative DOESN’T tell you.
Place names and people names are always important.
When the writer’s “point of view” is revealed, you’ve just found gold.
The New Testament ultimately fulfills whatever narrative you are in and is the supreme ‘commentary’ on your passage.

He illustrates each point briefly from the book of 2 Samuel. Check it out!

The Complexity of Applying the Speeches of Job’s Friends

May 28, 2021 By Peter Krol

The closing stanza of Eliphaz’s third speech (Job 22:21-30) is one of the loveliest poems in the book. If you didn’t know who said it, or under which circumstances, you might stencil it on your wall or post it on your bathroom mirror. And this raises an important question when studying the book of Job: What are we supposed to do with the speeches of Job’s “miserable comforters” (Job 16:2)?

Job suggests that silence will be their best wisdom (Job 13:5), and he sarcastically proclaims they have a corner on the market of godly wisdom (Job 12:2). Elihu burns with anger at their failure to answer to Job’s defense (Job 32:3). Yahweh declares they have not spoken of him what is right (Job 42:7). Does this mean we ought to simply discard their speeches, or that we ought to treat them as examples of folly or wickedness to be avoided?

Paul Didn’t Get the Memo

Apparently the Apostle Paul didn’t get the memo.

Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” So let no one boast in men.” (1 Cor 3:18-21a)

That first citation Paul uses? Right from Eliphaz’s first speech:

As for me, I would seek God,
and to God would I commit my cause,
who does great things and unsearchable,
marvelous things without number:
he gives rain on the earth…
he sets on high those who are lowly…
He catches the wise in their own craftiness,
and the schemes of the wily are brought to a quick end…
But he saves the needy from the sword of their mouth…
So the poor have hope,
and injustice shuts her mouth. (Job 5:8-16)

As R.B. Hays asserts, “Paul cites Job 5:13 here [in 1 Cor 3:19] as an authoritative disclosure of the truth about God’s debunking of human wisdom” (quoted by Ciampa & Rosner in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 704).

So Paul doesn’t ignore or contradict Eliphaz. He doesn’t qualify the citation in any way. He appears to use it straightforwardly in support of his point that God views the world’s wisdom as folly.

More to It

And yet, Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 1-3 is remarkably layered and clever. He keeps equivocating on his terms, defining them in different ways so he can play off the differences for didactic effect. For example, he uses the words “wisdom” and “folly” in at least two ways each: As defined by the world, and as defined by God.

So his point in 1 Cor 3:18 seems to be that if you think you are wise (by the world’s definition), you ought to become a fool (by the world’s definition) in order to become wise (by God’s definition). Paul keeps turning things upside-down and inside-out in order to play the terms “wisdom” and “folly,” or “wise” and “foolish,” off each other.

In light of this equivocation, it is altogether possible that Paul quotes Eliphaz as a matter of irony. In other words, Eliphaz presents himself as “wise,” but he’s really a “fool” (in the context of the book of Job). But God then does a “foolish” thing and takes the fool’s “wisdom” and makes it his own, but with an unexpected twist—in order to catch the wise in his own craftiness. In so doing, Paul declares that Eliphaz spoke even better than he knew, perhaps akin to John’s ironic use of Caiaphas’s prophecy that Jesus must die to rescue the nation and gather together God’s scattered children (John 11:49-53). Like Caiaphas, perhaps Eliphaz spoke that which was true from God’s perspective, but not in the way Eliphaz himself intended it.

Eliphaz thereby plays right into the part of the crafty who would be caught by his own craftiness.

Principles for Applying the Speeches of Job’s Friends

So how does this affect the way we read—and especially seek to apply—the speeches of Job’s three assailants? I propose the following principles:

Because the same Holy Spirit who inspired Job also said somewhere that “all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable,” we must read the speeches of Job’s antagonists with the assumption that they are profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and/or training in righteousness.
The point of those speeches must be something more than “suffering is a result of prior sin.” If that were all the Lord wanted us to see in those speeches, he could have done it with one speech instead of eight. We wouldn’t need pages of dialogue that only repeat precisely the same thing over and over again. Therefore, we must read those eight speeches of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar with the assumption that each speech riffs on the theme in a nuanced way. Those three men clearly thought they were advancing the argument each time, so we ought to identify which particular angle each speech takes on the larger topic. Don’t skip over the speeches or lump them all together under the same vague interpretive heading.
Once we do that, we can compare any speech’s particular angle on suffering with the rest of Scripture. Following Paul’s example, we must read the speeches with the assumption that they might simply be speaking truth in the wrong setting. They might be saying something that was false in Job’s circumstance but would be true in a different circumstance. In other words, Eliphaz, Bildad, or Zophar might be saying something better and truer than even he realizes.

Back to Chapter 22

And so, circling back to Eliphaz’s third speech in Job 22, there is nothing wrong with seeing some truth mixed in with the error and the daft inconsiderateness. In many situations, it is true that someone will only find peace if they begin agreeing with God (Job 22:21, Prov 3:2). Many who reconsider their money and possessions in light of eternity will find the Almighty to be far more valuable (Job 22:24-25, 1 Tim 6:17). God does actually hear the prayers of the penitent (Job 22:27, Prov 15:29), and he delights to exalt the humble (Job 22:28-30, 1 Pet 5:6).

Conclusion

So if you’d like to stencil portions of Job 22 on your wall, I say have at it. Just be prepared for the unconsidered criticism of a few curmudgeons to come your way from time to time. But you’ll have your retort loaded for bear: “I offer my humblest apologies on behalf of both myself and the Apostle Paul, neither of whom got your memo.”

Catch the Differences

January 29, 2021 By Peter Krol

Earlier this week, I completed my 11th annual speed read of the Bible. This time, I used a detailed chronological reading order I’ve never used before, which enabled me to catch on to some things that have escaped my notice before. Of course, the purpose of reading large portions of Scripture is not to notice every detail. But the pathway you take through the Bible can certainly help to freshen up some things.

For example, read the following selections of Scripture, one right after the other, and see if anything jumps out at you, as it did for me.

And they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them. And they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. And taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.”
Mark 10:32-34

And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem. And the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day.”
Matthew 20:17-19

And taking the twelve, he said to them, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. For he will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon. And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise.” But they understood none of these things. This saying was hidden from them, and they did not grasp what was said.
Luke 18:31-34

Can you spot the differences? Image by Dmitry Abramov from Pixabay

There are, of course, many differences in the accounts, from Mark’s narration of the disciples’ amazement and fear, to Matthew’s passive voice “he will be raised,” to Luke’s hiding of the saying such that they didn’t grasp it. Each of these differences provides a clue into the narrator’s unique intentions.

But what struck me the most this time around was the differences in how Jesus is “delivered over.” If you didn’t catch the difference, go back and read the passages again, paying special attention to whom Jesus is delivered over to, and in how many stages.

What does Luke’s distinct account suggest about his intentions in describing this passion prediction? How does this fit with Luke’s larger treatment of the Jews in both Luke and Acts?

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!

« Previous Page