Interpretation | Knowable Word

What Does “Meaningless / Vanity / Futility” Mean in Ecclesiastes?

June 6, 2019 By Peter Krol

Last week I summarized three remarkably divergent interpretive approaches to the book of Ecclesiastes. A few readers helpfully pointed out that the translation of the Hebrew word hebel in Eccl 1:2 (and throughout the book) can play a role in nudging readers toward one interpretive approach or another. This keen insight warrants further exploration.

Study the Word

Canvassing English translations produces three main options for translating hebel into English:

Vanity—ESV, LEB, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, KJV
Futility—CSB, NET
Meaningless—NIV, NLT

The Hebrew lexicon BDB suggests a primary translation of “vapour, breath,” with a figurative use of “vanity.”

And by looking up all uses of hebel in the Old Testament, we drum up the following variety of translations from the ESV alone (listed in order of frequency):

vanity
breath
idols
vain
worthless
false
nothing
empty
gained hastily
vapor

This is all well and good. But we quickly confront the limitations of a word study. These lists don’t help us to understand what the word means in Ecclesiastes. We won’t get at the message of the book by simply choosing our favorite option from the menu and running with it. We need more help.

Consider the Context

So we must look to the context for the clues we need. And there is good news! Ecclesiastes is written almost like a research paper, where the introduction introduces the problem and states the thesis.

Thesis (Eccl 1:2): “Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity.”
Problem (Eccl 1:3): “What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun?

So the problem under consideration is: What do we have to gain from our toil under the sun? In other words, what do we get out of life? What will we have to show for it at the end? What reward will there be to make all the pain worth it?

And the answer to the problem is: All that we have to gain is vanity. This much is clear, but it still begs the question: What does “vanity” (hebel) mean?

So the Preacher unpacks his concept of hebel for us with a brilliant panoply of illustration (Eccl 1:3-18).

The universe consists of endless repetition – Eccl 1:4-7
That repetition is deeply unsatisfying – Eccl 1:8
Nothing you do is novel; all new things are merely discoveries of old things that have always been there – Eccl 1:9-10
Nothing will be remembered – Eccl 1:11
Nothing is permanent; there will be nothing at the end to show for the effort – Eccl 1:14 (also suggested in Eccl 1:4)
Nothing you do can fix it – Eccl 1:15

Point #5 gets expanded later in the book as “I must leave it” (Eccl 2:18), or “All go to one place” (Eccl 3:20), or “Just as he came, so shall he go” (Eccl 5:16), or more directly, “The living know that they will die” (Eccl 9:5).

So we can construct a definition for hebel (“vanity”), according to its use in Ecclesiastes, as follows: “Unsatisfying, endless repetition of old things that nobody will remember; nothing you do will last, and at the end you die. And you can’t fix it.”* This is hebel. This is what you have to gain from all the toil at which you toil under the sun.

Return to the Word

So what does this mean for the best translation of the Hebrew word hebel? I’m not qualified to render a judgment on whether “vanity” or “futility” or “meaningless” is the best option. I frankly don’t care which of those English words we use when discussing the book (which is why I used a few of them interchangeably in my summary post).

But I can say that any interpretation of the book that doesn’t frontline the “unsatisfying, endless repetition of old things…” is not using hebel the way the Preacher used hebel. For him, hebel is not really about nihilism, cynicism, or purposelessness. It’s about the tedium, transience, impermanence, and dissatisfaction God built into the universe.

*Though I heard this eloquent definition of Ecclesiastic hebel in a sermon by my dear friend Warren Wright, I am certain even this is not new (Eccl 1:10).

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.

Three Approaches to Ecclesiastes

May 31, 2019 By Peter Krol

In my observation, Ecclesiastes is second only to Revelation in the number of competing interpretive approaches available to readers of the book. It offers a great case study in how perception can drastically affect both interpretation and application. This fact ought to motivate us to be as meticulous as possible in observing the text within its context.

I’ve found interpreters of Ecclesiastes to fall into three general categories, though there are subtle distinctions of flavor even within each category.

Approach #1: The Cynic

This first approach seems to be most common in the academy, where scholars conclude that the text of Ecclesiastes, by and large, is neither orthodox nor commendable.

A conservative proponent of this approach is Tremper Longman, who sees Ecclesiastes as having two voices. The most air time is given to the Cynic, as most of the book is an extended quote of his cynicism (Eccl 1:12-12:9). The outer frame (Eccl 1:1-11, 12:9-14), however, refers to “the Preacher” in third person; therefore it was composed by someone else, who is evaluating the Preacher’s message. This outer frame is the only place in the book where we find an orthodox, praiseworthy message.

Other flavors of this approach suggest that the frame narrator is just as cynical as the Preacher is, and therefore the message of the “frame” is just as suspect as the rest of the book.

In short, this approach typically sees the book as entirely (or almost entirely) negative and not to be commended as godly. It is in the Bible primarily to help us understand the worldview of a thoughtful unbeliever. And the best way to apply the book is to reject the counsel found within the book.

Approach #2: The Hedonist

The second approach, which in my observation is most common among pastors, says the book of Ecclesiastes is to be commended and held up as a model for the wise life. Some proponents of this approach are Zack Eswine and Douglas Wilson.

Now the first approach often sees in Ecclesiastes a hedonism, albeit an ungodly hedonism: “Life is meaningless, so let’s just live it up while we can.” The hedonism of the second approach is a commendable, godly hedonism: “Life is meaningless in itself, but God miraculously blesses us with the ability to enjoy it anyway.”

In other words, Ecclesiastes presents both a dark side and a light side to life. The dark side is the vanity of life “under the sun” (which is all human existence); the light side is the supernatural gift of joy from God, despite the ubiquitous vanity. God has created a world with no meaning inherent within it; yet he also blesses his people with an irrational joy in the midst of that vanity.

In short, this approach typically sees the book as entirely (or almost entirely) positive and to be commended for imitation. It is in the Bible to help God’s people learn how to derive joy from the Lord even when the vanity of life may war against such joy. And the best way to apply the book is to recognize both the vanity of life on earth and the gift of joy from God.

Approach #3: The Apologist

The third approach, which in my observation is most common among evangelists and engagers of culture, says the book of Ecclesiastes is to be commended as a model of how to expose a false worldview and replace it with the truth. Some proponents of this approach are Sinclair Ferguson and Leland Ryken.

Some, such as Ryken, see in Ecclesiastes two competing voices, which alternate, almost in dialogue. There is the voice of the unbeliever, for whom life under the sun is meaningless and hopeless. And there is the voice of the believer, who expresses the joy of seeing the God who superintends everything from beyond the sun.

In this approach, the phrase “under the sun” tends to refer not to human existence universally (as in the Hedonist approach), but to the human existence of the unbeliever. Believers, therefore, can be freed from an “under the sun” perspective and have it replaced with an “eternal” perspective.

In short, this approach typically sees the book as roughly half true and half false. It is in the Bible to help God’s people relate to those whose only perception is “under the sun,” and to win such folks to a more truthful and satisfying outlook on life. The best way to apply the book is to help people grapple with the despair of materialism and naturalism, and to win them to a God’s-eye view of the heavens and the earth.

Conclusion

You can see that these three approaches produce markedly different results when it comes time to interpret a particular text within the book of Ecclesiastes. And with such divergent interpretation, application is bound to be light years apart.

For example, consider Eccl 10:19: “Bread is made for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answers everything.”

The Cynic might tell you that the only way to cope with reality is through food, pleasure, and financial gain. But God wants you to reject this outlook.
The Hedonist might tell you that bread, wine, and money may come and go, but, whether they come or go, only God’s children can receive the gift of enjoying such created commodities. So use them while you can, to the glory and enjoyment of God, and remain aware of how the world works.
The Apologist might tell you that the laughter, gladness, and success of food, alcohol, or money is fleeting. So let go of those things to find life in the unceasing satisfaction of trusting and obeying the only wise God.

Just picture the dramatic small group meeting, where all three approaches are represented in the discussion!

Charge

Now I charge you, as those approved by God to handle his word rightly: Don’t choose your approach according to which one feels best to you. And don’t simply stick with the approach you’ve traditionally heard in your circles.

Please allow this analysis to jolt you from your inertia, to expose the fault lines in your presumption, and to blast your familiarity—and thus free you to dive back into the text to observe it meticulously. Which approach (whether one of these three, or something else) does it seem the original author most likely intended when he wrote the book?

Disclaimer: While the Cynic may believe disclaimers to be a waste of time, the Hedonist is asking God for joy through the vanity, and the Apologist wishes to persuade me to drop the meager pleasure of affiliate relationships: I remain under obligation to tell you that Amazon links in this post will provide a fleeting satisfaction to this blog under the sun, if you have the courage to click them and make a purchase.

And thanks to my delightful colleague Andy Cimbala for the idea for this meaningless post.

Help With Hosea

May 29, 2019 By Peter Krol

Unlocking the Bible has a great introduction to the prophecy of Hosea. If you’ve ever been confused by this book, here is a great place to start.

The article walks through Hosea as a living parable and unpacks what we can learn from the book. In particular, the authors land in three areas:

What does unfaithfulness look like
How does God love us despite our unfaithfulness?
What does God desire from us in return?

May this brief intro to Hosea equip you to read this book well, and to desire your Lord more than ever.

Check it out!

Analyzing the Rich Man and Lazarus

April 24, 2019 By Peter Krol

Peter Gurry has an interesting post at the Gospel Coalition entitled “Is the Rich Man and Lazarus a Parable?” While the post does address that question, it also does much more.

Gurry tackles the account in Luke 16:19-31, demonstrating a number of excellent OIA skills. He observes how the characters are named and portrayed. He considers the surrounding context. He asks great interpretive questions and answers them from the text. He draws vibrant application from the passage.

I encourage you to read the article to see another example of good Bible study skills (even though he doesn’t use the terminology of OIA).

Check it out!

Context Matters: I Can Do All Things Through Him Who Strengthens Me

March 8, 2019 By Peter Krol

Perhaps you’ve seen the face paint or placard at an athletic event: “I can do all things through him who strengthens me.” Sometimes the mere reference “Phil 4:13” is enough to inspire. Perhaps you’ve drawn on this verse to motivate your best efforts and deep confidence. But is that what Paul had in mind when he wrote it?

Context matters. When we learn to read the Bible properly—and not merely as a collection of proof-texts for personal inspiration—we’ll find that some of our most familiar verses speak to situations we hadn’t considered.

Encouraging Quotes (2016), Creative Commons

What are the “All Things”?

Phil 4:13 ends a paragraph where Paul expresses joy at how concerned the Philippian church has been for him. And their “concern” was expressed through financial support of his ministry (Phil 4:15-16, 18).

Paul rejoices at their concern for him, but he wants to make sure they know that he is not in grave need (Phil 4:11). His need is not great because he has learned to be content in whatever situation he finds himself. He knows how be brought low, and he knows how to abound. He can handle plenty and abundance. He can handle hunger and need (Phil 4:12).

In other words, in all circumstances, he has learned how to be content with his lot, and to make it last as long as it must. How can he do this?

Because the one who strengthens him enables him to do it. He can survive any and every situation without panicking or being anxious. So these are the “all things” he can do: plenty and hunger, abundance and need. He can do (live with) them all, for whatever he has is just enough.

Why Does Paul Say This?

We know from the historical context that the Philippian Christians were not wealthy people themselves. Their generous contributions to Paul were given as a test of affliction, despite their extreme poverty (2 Cor 8:1-2). Though they have expressed their “concern” for Paul by giving generously, Paul has his own concern: that they may have given even beyond their means (2 Cor 8:3). This gives him a great opportunity to spur on the wealthier Corinthians to greater generosity. But it leaves him in a tough spot with the Philippians.

Is it really in their best interests to continue giving to him when they have greater need than he does?

So it’s likely that one of Paul’s motives for writing to the Philippians was to ask them to stop giving! He makes his request in quite a roundabout way, so as not to communicate any lack of gratitude.

“It was kind of you to share in my trouble” (Phil 4:14).
No church partnered with me financially except you (Phil 4:15).
You gave time and again during my time in Thessalonica (Phil 4:16).
I don’t want your money, though I am so grateful for the fruit it has borne, which is to your credit (Phil 4:17).
I’ve received it all. I’ve received enough, and more. I am well supplied already (Phil 4:18).
My God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in Christ Jesus (Phil 4:19). In other words, may God continue to grant you exceptional contentment in all circumstances.

Conclusion

Paul wants the Philippians to know that, while he is tremendously grateful for their donations, he does not need them to keep giving for him to continue in ministry. In case they fear he’ll go bankrupt without them, he wants them to know that the Lord Jesus strengthens him to endure both plenty and need, making the most of his available resources.

Context matters.

Thanks to Alison and Daniel for the idea for this post.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

How to Know if Your Interpretation is Correct

February 27, 2019 By Peter Krol

I’ve shared before John Piper’s crucial definition of the Bible’s “meaning”: What the author intended to communicate with his words.

Now in another brief video, Piper builds on that definition by showing us how that definition gives us an objective means by which we can evaluate whether an interpretation is right or wrong.

Check it out!

The Most Important Tool for Observing the Structure of a Narrative Episode

December 7, 2018 By Peter Krol

I’ve spent a few weeks showing both why structure matters and how to observe it. My focus to this point has been on macro-structure—structure across entire books or large subdivisions—because that is the part I’ve seen most people neglect in their Bible study. And there is great value in doing this well.

In this post, however, I’ll narrow my focus to distinct episodes in a single genre: narrative. How do you observe the structure of a narrative scene? And how does that structure convey the author’s meaning?

What We Learned in Grade School

For years, I spent so much time trying to be ingenious when observing structure that I missed something I learned in grade school. And I’ve recently come to see that thing I missed as the most important tool for observing the structure of a narrative.

That tool is the essential plot structure that nearly all narratives follow.

Do you remember learning, in school, terms such as setting, conflict, climax, and resolution? Those are the building blocks of narrative plot structure.

Setting (or Exposition) is what sets the scene for the action to take place. Setting can include an introduction of characters, a description of time or location, and even some basic action that sets up the body of the story.
Conflict is the story’s heartbeat. Tension enters the story in the form of man vs. man, man vs. nature, man vs. society, man vs. technology, man vs. himself, or man vs. God.
Rising Action narrates how the chief tension moves the story forward and builds through the episode.
Climax is the point at which the conflict is dealt with or reversed in some way.
Resolution (or Falling Action) describes the consequences of the climactic reversal.
New Setting (or Denouement) is the situation in which the characters find themselves as a result of living through the conflict and its climax. This new setting often sets up the next episode.

With these building blocks, we can quickly outline nearly any narrative episode. (Exception: Sometimes a single episode serves no other purpose than to elaborate the setting or to introduce the book or subdivision. If there is no conflict and reversal, we’ll need other to use other tools to observe the structure.) And there might be some gray area as to where exactly the setting ends and conflict begins, or which precise statement constitutes the exact climax. But if we get ourselves in the right ballpark, we will do well.

Putting the Tool into Practice

Let’s outline the narrative in Mark 2:1-12 of the healing of the paralytic.

Setting (Mark 2:1-5): Jesus teaches in Capernaum after some days. So many people listen to his teaching that a group of friends can’t get in the door. They open a hole in the roof, lower their friend, and Jesus forgives his sins. Someone could argue that the struggle to get into the crowded house introduces conflict (man vs. environment), but the fact that the story doesn’t climax with their entry to the house suggests Mark wants a different conflict to grab our attention.
Conflict introduced (Mark 2:6-7): Scribes vs. Jesus. Scribes question Jesus in their hearts: God alone can forgive sins!
Rising action (Mark 2:8-10): Jesus knows their thoughts, bluntly addresses them, asks a few questions, and reasons that though it would be easy to say “your sins are forgiven” (since you can’t see or touch the evidence to verify that forgiveness took place), it would be harder (i.e. more objectively falsifiable) to say “rise and walk.” Will he have the chutzpah to go there? Maybe he will! To make them know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive, he speaks…!
Climax (Mark 2:11): “I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.” The point of conflict was whether Jesus had authority to do what he had done. He now puts that claim of authority on the line by doing that which is more objectively falsifiable.
Resolution (Mark 2:12a): The paralyzed man immediately rises, picks up his bed, and walks out in plain view of all. The proof is presented; the gauntlet has been thrown down.
New setting (Mark 2:12b): All are now amazed and glorifying God, as they’ve now seen something they’ve never seen before: A man with divine authority to forgive sins.

Let me give another example from Exodus 13:17-14:31, the crossing of the Red Sea.

Setting (Ex 13:17-22): God leads the people along a certain route.
Conflict introduced (Ex 14:1-4): God commands the people to turn back and camp between Migdol and the sea because Pharaoh will think they’re helpless. God will harden his heart so he can get glory over Pharaoh. Striking: The primary conflict is not between Israel and Pharaoh; it is between Israel and God! Will they trust him, even when he makes their situation harder than they expect?
Rising action (Ex 14:5-28): Pharaoh indeed responds as God foretold, and God indeed hardens his heart. Pharaoh pursues the people, and they see their impossible predicament. They cry out to God through Moses, and Yahweh wants them to move forward instead of crying out. He holds Egypt back long enough to set up walls of water for them to race into. Then, through Moses, he crashes the water down on Egypt’s chariots.
Climax (Ex 14:29): If the chief conflict is between Israel and God (will they trust him through the painful circumstances?), the reversal happens in verse 29 when the people walk on dry ground through the sea. In doing this, they obey God’s command to “go forward” (Ex 14:15). It’s tempting to place the climax at Ex 14:28, when the waters drown the Egyptians; but the Egyptians were not the chief antagonists in the narrator’s framing of the story.
Resolution (Ex 14:30): Yahweh saved the people that day (summary statement), and Israel saw Egypt dead on the shore.
New setting (Ex 14:31): The people who were struggling to trust their God have now seen his great power. They have learned to fear Yahweh and to believe both Yahweh and his servant Moses.

Sometimes the exact boundaries of the different plot components will be fuzzy. But the clearest points should be 1) when conflict is introduced, and 2) when that conflict climaxes in a reversal. If you can find those two things, the rest of the pieces fall into place.

Why This Matters

We will typically find the narrator’s main point at the point of climax or resolution. The climax presents the reversal he seeks to portray. The resolution draws out the implications of that reversal. So we must look there for the main point.

Observing the narrative’s plot structure in this way helps us to avoid placing too much weight on unimportant details. For example, in Mark 2, we ought not make much (either interpretation or application) of the fact that Jesus saw the friends’ faith and thereby forgave the paralytic’s sins (Mark 2:5). That’s only part of the setting, or the set up for the actual main point: Jesus’ authority to pronounce forgiveness. For another example, in Exodus 14, our application will focus more on developing trust in God than in necessarily expecting to be rescued from hard circumstances.

And outlining a narrative’s plot structure enables us to answer the age-old question of whether a particular narrative is meant to be prescriptive or descriptive. Identify the conflict, climax, and resolution, and you’ll be close to the main point. Grasp that main point, and you can have confidence in what the author wants us to get from his narrative. Perhaps it may be a descriptive point; perhaps it may be more prescriptive.

Putting Micro-Structure and Macro-Structure Together

And when you combine the micro-structure (plot arc) with the macro-structure of the larger division, you are approaching mastery of the text and a profound grasp of the narrator’s intentions.

For example, you might notice that the story of the paralytic is preceded by 4 healing episodes (Mark 1:21-28, 29-31, 32-39, 40-45) and that it is followed by 4 controversy episodes (Mark 2:13-17, 18-22, 23-28; 3:1-6). The paralytic story is itself both a healing and a controversy. The first two healings take place on a Sabbath, and the last two controversies take place on a Sabbath. The passage begins with Jesus having more authority than the scribes (Mark 1:22), and it ends with Pharisees and Herodians taking counsel to destroy him (Mark 3:6). There is therefore a clear chiastic (symmetric) arrangement here (A-B-C-D-E-D-C-B-A), with the paralytic story sitting at the prominent hinge point in the center.

So Jesus’ divine authority (perhaps even his specific authority to forgive sins) must be a major component of the message of the full section that goes from Mark 1:21 to Mark 3:9. Append Mark 1:16-20 as an introduction and Mark 3:7-12 as a conclusion, and you’ve got your hands on Mark’s first major literary division.

I’m grateful for a few Simeon Trust preaching workshops, which alerted me to the importance of these plot devices in outlining a narrative’s structure.

How Structure Conveys Meaning

November 30, 2018 By Peter Krol

What is the difference between the following statements?

Because the Bible is the authoritative word of God, I must submit every area of life to its instruction.
God doesn’t just want me to work on the Bible; he wants the Bible to work on me.

The first statement is obviously more precise. But I bet most would consider the second statement more inspirational. More memorable.

And why is this? Because structure conveys meaning. In this case, the structure of the sentence itself packs a persuasive punch. The sentence makes use of a “concentric pattern” or “chiasm” to drive its point:

Me … work … Bible

Bible … work … me

The symmetry of the phrases catches your attention. You can feel the hinge in the middle that unwinds until the tension finally lands with force on the final “me.” The very structure of the sentence conveys additional inspirational or persuasive meaning that goes beyond what the first, more precise, statement could ever communicate.

Biblical authors do this very thing, when they embed their primary emphases, their authorial intentions, within the very structure of the texts they compose.

Observe the Structure

Before we can talk about interpretation, we must first develop the skills to observe the structure. I wrote on this topic a few weeks ago, so I just want to underscore the need to do this well.

Get your chapter and verse divisions out of the way. Drop the extra headings that most Bibles put in. Get a reader’s version, use software such as Logos, or print a numberless manuscript from Bible Gateway. Get yourself looking at the naked text so you can actually observe the literary signposts the author drops in like paint blazes on a wilderness trail.

Identify the constituent units. Then take note of how those units are arranged. If your structural observation is poor, your interpretation won’t be any better.

But once you’ve discovered the units, and you’ve mapped their arrangement (typically parallel, symmetric, or linear—again see the previous post for explanation), you are ready to consider what this structure communicates about the author’s intended meaning.

But how do you do that? David Dorsey (chapter 4) explains 3 main ways that structure conveys meaning.

George Pankewytch (2014), Creative Commons

Overall Structure

Sometimes historical narratives follow a linear pattern to simply communicate the progress of time. But at other times, they follow a cyclical pattern to communicate, through the structure itself, the spiraling up or spiraling down of the protagonists’ fate. For example, Judges gives us 7 cycles of Judges, following the pattern established in Judg 2:11-19, which clearly spiral downward into greater fallenness. But the book of 1-2 Samuel gives us 3 main overlapping narrative arcs: Samuel’s, Saul’s, and David’s. Those three arcs advance from one degree of glory to another, yet all three are ultimately tragic in their shape (narrating a rise, a peak, and then a fall).

Another example of the overall structure conveying meaning is the book of Lamentations. Hebrew poetry often works in parallel lines with parallel stresses (A-B-C/A-B-C). For example, “Serve (A) the LORD (B), with gladness (C)/Come (A) into his presence (B) with singing (C)” (Psalm 100:2). But scholars of ancient literature have pointed out that laments cut this pattern short. The second line loses one of the stresses, yielding a 3-2, or something like an A-B-C/B-C pattern. For example: “O my God (A), I cry by day (B), but you do not answer (C)/and by night (B), but I find no rest (C)” (Psalm 22:2).

Lamentations takes this pattern of laments and drops it into the book’s overall structure. Not only do we see a 3-2 pattern in almost every verse (for example: “She (A) weeps bitterly (B) in the night (C)/with tears (B) on her cheeks (C)” (Lam 1:2a). But we also see this pattern across the chapters.

Chapter 1: long acrostic with 66 lines

Chapter 2: long acrostic with 66 lines

Chapter 3: long acrostic with 66 lines

Chapter 4: shorter acrostic with 44 lines

Chapter 5: even shorter acrostic with 22 lines

The whole book takes on the 3-2 shape of lament that visually and audibly peters out by the end, leaving the sadness hanging heavily.

Structured Repetition

When you observe matching units in parallel or chiastic structures, you should investigate why and how they match. Do they present a comparison or contrast? Is a promise in the first section fulfilled in the second? Does one section better explain the other? Is some sort of reversal taking place?

The Gospel of Mark divides into two main divisions: 1:1-8:30 and 8:31-16:8. The first verse outlines the structure: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” The first half of the book concludes with Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ (Mark 8:29). The second half concludes with the centurion’s confession that Jesus is the Son of God (Mark 15:39). By comparing the closing sections of each half of the book, we see that Peter gets part of Jesus’ identity (chapter 8), but he doesn’t understand all of it (chapter 14-15). By the end, Peter is denying that he even knows this man (Mark 14:71), while a Gentile military officer grasps something remarkable about the nature of Jesus’ suffering. “When the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said…” (Mark 15:39).

The parallel between Jonah’s prayer in chapter 2 and his prayer in chapter 4 leads us to question the sincerity of his repentance in the belly of the fish.

When you observe these repetitions, these matching units, you are well prepared to ask “Why” and better uncover the author’s intentions.

Positions of Prominence

The final way structure conveys meaning is through positions of prominence.

This is neither mechanical nor foolproof, but often the most prominent part of a parallel structure is the end. And the most prominent part of a chiasm is the center.

Don’t apply that principle woodenly, but you should at least investigate the matter.

For example, Mark 6-8 follows a parallel structure, surrounded by an inclusio (bookends):

Intro: When Jesus sends out the twelve, Herod fears John the Baptist has risen from the dead. But others think he’s Elijah or one of the prophets (Mark 6:7-29).

A. Feeding a multitude (Mark 6:30-44)

B. Crossing the sea (Mark 6:45-56)

C. Disputing with the Pharisees (Mark 7:1-23)

D. Discussing bread with a follower (Mark 7:24-30)

E. Healing a malfunctioning sense—deafness (Mark 7:31-37)

A. Feeding a multitude (Mark 8:1-9)

B. Crossing the sea (Mark 8:10)

C. Disputing the Pharisees (Mark 8:11-13)

D. Discussing bread with followers (Mark 8:14-21)

E. Healing a malfunctioning sense—blindness (Mark 8:22-26)

Conclusion: When Jesus questions the twelve, they claim people think he’s John the Baptist or Elijah or one of the prophets. But Peter (who used to be deaf and blind—Mark 8:18) now sees clearly enough to know “You are the Christ” (Mark 8:29).

What is Mark’s point here in chapters 6 through 8? Jesus is healing his disciples’ own deafness and blindness so they can hear and see who he is.

And what is my point with this little exercise? If you find yourself fretting over why Jesus would call someone a dog (Mark 7:27), what the disciples failed to understand regarding the number of baskets of leftovers (Mark 8:19-21), or why it took Jesus two tries to heal the guy’s blindness (Mark 8:23-25), you need only take yourself to the position of prominence. In this case, the end of the parallel sequence gives us the author’s emphasis and intention: to help Jesus’ disciples perceive who he really is. When we get this, the rest will make more sense.

Conclusion

Observing structure is hard work. But it bears fruit thirty-, sixty-, and a hundred-fold when it comes time to interpret the author’s meaning.

Disclaimer: Amazon link is an affiliate link.

Context Matters: The Love Chapter

October 5, 2018 By Peter Krol

Perhaps you’ve heard that love is patient and kind (1 Cor 13:4). That it does not envy or boast. I’m willing to wager you’ve either seen these words on a plaque or heard them at a wedding, or both. And what mood do these words create when you hear them read? Comfort? Security? Compassion? Warmth? Mood really matters as something we ought to observe in a text. And if we take a passage like 1 Cor 13 out of context, we’re in danger of missing the mood. Which may cause us to miss the point.

Context matters. If we learn to read the Bible for what it is—and not as a collection of independently assembled proverbial sayings—we’ll discover that some of our most familiar passages don’t actually mean what we’ve always assumed.

Scripture as Art (2014), Creative Commons

Paul’s Mood

While 1 Corinthians is not Paul’s harshest letter—that honor would fall to Galatians—it comes pretty close. He has nice things to say about the Corinthians at the start (1 Cor 1:4-9), but he quickly moves into one criticism after another.

They have a reputation for quarreling and divisions (1 Cor 1:10-11).
They boast about themselves and their teachers (1 Cor 1:12).
They forget where they came from, that they were nothing special (1 Cor 1:26-29).
They have acted like unspiritual, fleshly people (1 Cor 3:1).
They are but infants in Christ (1 Cor 3:1).
They have deceived themselves (1 Cor 3:18).
They boast about their gifts (1 Cor 4:7).
They need to be admonished like children (1 Cor 4:14).
They don’t have much spiritual guidance (1 Cor 4:15).
They tolerate extreme immorality that even pagans wouldn’t tolerate (1 Cor 5:1).
They boast about their perceived maturity (1 Cor 5:6).
They are suing one another over trivial matters (1 Cor 6:7).
Their knowledge puffs them up, causing them to sin against others’ consciences (1 Cor 8:11-12).
They engage in idolatry (1 Cor 10:7).
They engage in sexual immorality (1 Cor 10:8).
They put Christ to the test (1 Cor 10:9).
They grumble (1 Cor 10:10).
They think they stand secure, but they really don’t (1 Cor 10:12).
They are contentious (1 Cor 11:16).
Their worship gatherings are not for the better but for the worse (1 Cor 11:17).
Selfish, factious people are being struck dead under the judgment of God (1 Cor 11:30).
They are impatient and don’t wait for one another (1 Cor 11:33).
They claim to be self-sufficient, not needing one another (1 Cor 12:21).

When we read the letter as a letter, and not as one independent chapter after another, we see that Paul is building a case, scaling a mountain. And chapter 13 is the peak. We rightly laud this chapter, but often in the wrong way.

Paul’s Climax

In the immediate context, Paul is addressing their questions “concerning spiritual gifts” (1 Cor 12:1). He just told them to “earnestly desire the higher gifts” (1 Cor 12:31). But there is a still more excellent way.

They can have the flashiest, most popular, and most coveted spiritual gifts. But if they don’t have love, they’re only making a cacophony (1 Cor 13:1-3).

Then Paul describes this more excellent way, the way of love. And what he says about love directly and explicitly corresponds to what these people are not.

Love is patient and kind. They are not (1 Cor 11:33).
Love doesn’t envy or boast. They do (1 Cor 1:12, 4:7, 5:6).
Love is not arrogant or rude. They are (1 Cor 10:10, 12).
Love does not insist on its own way. They do (1 Cor 6:7-8).
Love isn’t irritable or resentful. They are (1 Cor 1:10-11; 10:9, 10).
Love doesn’t rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. They tolerate much wrongdoing, ignoring the truth (1 Cor 5:1).
Love bears all things. They don’t (1 Cor 11:16).
Love believes all things. They don’t (1 Cor 12:21).
Love hopes all things. They don’t (1 Cor 11:17).
Love endures all things. They don’t (1 Cor 10:12, 11:30, 12:21).

In other words, it’s as though Paul is saying, “Love is everything you are not.”

Paul’s Assessment

Love will get them farther than the “best” spiritual gifts ever will (1 Cor 13:8-10). Then comes the kicker: Paul, too, was once a child. But he eventually had to grow up (1 Cor 13:11). That’s what it means to love; it requires us to grow up and become mature, which is something these infants (1 Cor 3:1), these children (1 Cor 4:14), have yet to do.

The next chapter tells them that spiritual gifts are not bad (especially prophecy). But they must desire them only in proportion to how much they are willing to “pursue love” (1 Cor 14:1). Chapter 14 is filled with instructions about how to exercise gifts in a way that is kind and loving to others.

Then Paul caps off the letter with a call to endure in faith (cf. “love believes all things…endures all things”) in light of the greatest expression of God’s love in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, a foretaste of our own resurrection (1 Cor 15). The thinly veiled insults of chapter 13 are not meant to crush them but drive them to draw grace from the deep well of salvation, revealed in the resurrection of Christ. Then they can become like their Lord, expressing their love and unity with the suffering brethren in Judea by contributing to their needs (1 Cor 16:1-4). Love never ends; it never fails—when it is derived from the right place.

Conclusion

1 Corinthians 13 may be one of Paul’s most eloquent chapters. Perhaps only Romans 8 or Philippians 2 can rival it. But the mood is absolutely not a warm and fuzzy one. Its character is one of sustained rebuke, not one of pleasant encouragement. To miss this mood may be to miss the point.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t put it on plaques or read it at weddings (in fact, I’m preaching it at a wedding in a few months). But to get the message right, we must be sure to capture the tone of warning, rebuke, and satire. May it resound, as Paul intended, as our mandate to grow up and act no more like selfish little children.

I drew inspiration for this post from a talk on “Context” given by David Helm. Click to see more examples of why context matters.

Making Sense of Prophecy

October 3, 2018 By Peter Krol

In his article “How to (Mis)Interpret Prophecy,” Michael Heiser illustrates one weakness with over-generalizing our interpretive principles. He mentions the principle: “When the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.” And then he examines the use of Amos 9 in Acts 15 to show one place where the principle needs more nuance.

He concludes:

Comparing these passages illustrates important lessons: Interpreting biblical prophecy cannot be distilled to a simple maxim, and not everything can be taken literally. The New Testament shows us otherwise.

His concise analysis is worth your time. Check it out!

« Previous Page