Interpretation | Knowable Word

Applying Proverbs to the Right Situation

March 18, 2020 By Peter Krol

A common piece of conventional wisdom is that “proverbs aren’t promises.” That is, that they are only true sometimes. Though well-intentioned, such principles are often misleading and unhelpful.

Tremper Longman has a more helpful way to fulfill the good intentions of such advice. He says of proverbs: “They are not true in every situation.” He then gives a number of examples showing how you can easily go wrong if you try to apply a proverb to the wrong situation.

So proverbs are not simply “sometimes true.” They are true in the situation intended by the proverb. And they are not true in other situations.

This is far more helpful and pastoral than causing people to question the validity of proverbs, as though they are simply rules of thumb, but you can’t really trust them. Longman’s examples are worth considering.

Check it out!

Context Matters: Leave the Dead to Bury Their Own Dead

February 28, 2020 By Peter Krol

Perhaps you’ve heard some of Jesus’ cryptic sayings, such as “Let the dead bury their own dead.” What are we to make of such a mysterious sentence? How shall we go about trying to puzzle it out?

Context matters. When we learn to read the Bible properly—and we don’t just take a guess at the meaning on our own—we’ll find that the clues are right there in the passage waiting to be found.

The Text

The command comes in response to a man who considers following Jesus. The man asks to be allowed to go first and bury his father. Then Jesus speaks the words under consideration: “Leave the dead to bury their own dead.”

This brief scene occurs in both Matthew 8:21-22 and Luke 9:59-60. For the sake of this post, I’m looking at Luke’s version. Because Matthew may have a different use in mind for this scene, I might analyze his version in another post. For this season, however, my head has been in Luke. So I’ll camp there.

Some Options

A number of options have been proposed for how to interpret this command.

Some describe an ancient Jewish practice of “second burial,” where a family would return to the tomb of a loved one a year after burial and rearrange the placement of the bones. They suggest that, because Jesus would presumably never contradict the 5th commandment to honor one’s parents (Ex 20:12), Jesus must be ordering the man to forgo this practice of second burial. “Leave the second-burial dead to bury their own first-burial dead.”

Others claim that the first “dead” in the verse refers to the spiritually dead. And a Christian ought to delegate the responsibility for burying their (physically) dead parents to those who are not Christians. “Leave the spiritually dead to bury their own physically dead.”

Still others suggest that the man’s father was not yet dead, and the potential disciple was merely making excuses not to follow Jesus. “Leave off the excuse of needing to care for the aging.”

Another idea is that the phrase means either that God must come first before all else, or that we must accept that what is done is done. “Bury your priorities and your past as though they were dead, and put me first.”

Still others propose that the command is not relevant to Christians today, but was only for the first apostles. Jesus’ call to them then was so strict as to preclude their responsibility to care for aging or dying parents. But his call on us today is not as strict. “Leave the dead apostles to leave the dead to bury their own dead.”

How are we to choose from among these options? Surely we won’t get the answer by closing our eyes and reflecting on the options until one of them feels right. There have got to be clues in the text itself.

Help from the Structure

In Luke’s account, we’re given three brief scenes with potential disciples, all in a row. The first (Luke 9:57-58) and third (Luke 9:61-62) both take initiative with Jesus and announce “I will follow you.” However, with the second potential disciple, the one we are considering, Jesus makes the first move: “Follow me” (Luke 9:59). This pattern sets up a simple three-part structure:

“I will follow you wherever you go.”
- “Follow me… But as for you…”
“I will follow you, Lord, but…”

The first and third potential disciples are idealists. They’re quick to make promises about what they will do. The first is a broad idealist, offering to follow Jesus “wherever.” And the second one is a narrow idealist, offering to follow Jesus under one small condition (“let me first say farewell to those at my home”). But both remain idealists who need a dose of reality: We won’t have the greatest of accommodations (Luke 9:58), and we need to be singly focused on the kingdom (Luke 9:62).

But the structure of the paragraph points a flashing neon arrow at the second potential disciple. Being at the center of the concentric structure, we ought to expect the punchline to fall there.

And so it does. Not only is Jesus the one to take initiative, but he also closes the vignette with a clear call: “But as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:60). So in some way, “burying the dead” is in tension with “proclaiming the kingdom of God.” If burying the dead will get in the way of proclaiming the kingdom, then leave the task to the dead.

In brief, then, the structure helps us to see the main point: Go and proclaim the kingdom. But it doesn’t yet help us to grasp the precise interpretation of the phrase “leave the dead to bury their own dead.” We need more help.

Help Before and After

The train of thought in the larger passage may come to the rescue.

The paragraph before the one we’re examining (Luke 9:51-56) launches a major division in Luke’s gospel (see my post on how to navigate the middle of Luke). In that paragraph, James and John ask if Jesus wants them to call down fire on a village that didn’t receive him (Luke 9:53-54). Clearly he doesn’t, because he rebukes them and moves on to another village (Luke 9:55-56). So now is not a time for unflinching judgment.

The paragraphs after the one we’re examining (Luke 10:1-24) show Jesus appointing “seventy-two others” (so not including the Twelve) to go ahead of him (Luke 10:1) and proclaim the kingdom of God (Luke 10:9, 11). For this particular mission, they are to take no supplies and stop to greet no one (Luke 10:4). In other words, they are to leave possessions and ordinary politeness behind. This mission is far too urgent.

So the train of thought takes the following track:

Now is a time not for judgment but for patience—Luke 9:51-56
Now is a time for single-minded and urgent proclamation of the kingdom—Luke 9:57-62
Here are your marching orders for this season of patient yet urgent proclamation—Luke 10:1-24

Conclusion

I don’t think we have reason to believe that “leave the dead to bury their own dead” is intended by Luke as a code or metaphor for something else, as though we need to figure out who exactly the first “dead” are and who the second “dead” are. I also don’t see support from the context for even a precise definition for the saying.

Luke’s purpose here is not to tell us what to do with our dead. His purpose is to paint a picture of the urgency of proclaiming the kingdom of God. In particular, the urgency they had then of proclaiming Jesus’ approach toward Jerusalem to bring that kingdom (Luke 9:51, 53).

In painting this picture, Luke portrays a man who wants to bury his father. And Jesus wants the man to leave the situation alone for now so he can proclaim this urgent kingdom message instead. Somewhat like a modern father of a preschooler, late for a family gathering, telling his daughter to just leave her baby dolls to have their own tea party; we only need to get in the car! She would be missing the point if she began dissecting the question of whether dolls really have the ability to have their own tea parties without her.

So the weight of our interpretation ought to land on the proclamation of the kingdom instead of on deciding allowable burial practices.

Now, while the passage clearly has a particular setting (proclaiming Jesus’ imminent arrival in Jerusalem), I wouldn’t go as far as to say that this means the passage has no application to today (as with the last option on the list above). All Scripture is profitable for teaching and equipping. We can identify principles here for application, but we need to be careful not to read the instructions as though they had been delivered directly to us. There was something unique about Jesus’ journey toward Jerusalem, for which those 72 folks had a particular urgency. We likewise face an analogous urgency in our proclamation of the kingdom, but the instructions don’t always directly apply. For example, it may now be appropriate for missionaries to raise support (contra Luke 10:4; see Rom 15:24, Phil 4:15-18).

Context matters.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

What Paul Means By “Act Like Men”

February 5, 2020 By Peter Krol

Wyatt Graham has a thoughful piece at his blog, asking the interpretive question: “What Does Paul Mean When He Says, ‘Act Like Men’?”

“Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.”
1 Cor 16:13

After examining the underlying Greek word according to a lexicon, and then its use in other ancient literature, Graham walks through the literary context of the last few chapter chapter of 1 Corinthians. Then he explores the biblical context that Paul taps into through allusion to the psalms.

This is vibrant, rich, contextual observation and interpretation, which I eagerly commend to you.

Check it out!

How Matthew’s Opening Verses Frame the Book

January 22, 2020 By Peter Krol

I appreciate Charles Quarles’s reflection on Matthew’s gospel, and how the opening verses establish the theological themes that ought to shape our reading of the book. Quarles describes how even his PhD students often need to learn how to read the Bible the way the author intended. His observations and reflections are well worth considering.

For the last ten years I have concentrated my studies on learning to read theologically the Gospels, particularly the Gospel of Matthew. By reading “theologically” I do not mean reading Matthew through the lens of a particular creed or confession (though I am strongly confessional). Nor do I mean asking how each narrative or paragraph might relate to the various categories of systematic theology like ecclesiology, pneumatology, demonology, etc. (though I highly value systematic theology and often employ this reading strategy). I mean rather reading Matthew like the apostle himself intended it to be read. Matthew has packed his Gospel with all the cues and prompts necessary to read his Gospel properly.

Check it out!

How an Overview of Luke Helps You to Grasp a Particular Passage

November 1, 2019 By Peter Krol

I proposed a few weeks ago that if you fail to grasp the big picture of a book of the Bible (in this case, Luke), you’re in danger of getting the pieces wrong. Let me now give an example.

Let’s say you’re ready to begin studying the Gospel of Luke, and you come to the first episode (after the prologue). How does the work you spent in overviewing the book help you?

Structure of Luke 1:5-25

After some careful observation of literary clues, you’ll see that the passage breaks clearly into sections based on the narration and dialogue:

Narrative setting – 5-7
Narrative introduction of conflict – 8-12
Angel speaks – 13-17
Zechariah responds – 18
Angel speaks – 19-20
Narrative climax and resolution – 21-23
Narrative new setting – 24-25

And as you look even more closely at the details, you’ll see that these sections are actually arranged concentrically (as a chiasm). Even the narrative sequence of events supports the structure (mention of Zechariah the priest, and the people praying in reverse order in 8-12 and 21-23).

Setting: An elderly couple’s reproach – 5-7
- Tension introduced: Priest chosen for incense duty – 8-9
  - Rising action: People outside praying – 10
    - Rising action: Angel appears with words from God – 11-17
      - Zechariah: “How will I know? I’m old!” – 18
    - Rising action: Angel decrees silence until word fulfilled – 19-20
  - Rising action: People waiting outside and wondering -21
- Climax/resolution: Priestly service ends in silence and signs – 22-23
New setting: The wife speaks of her reproach being taken away – 24-25

So the narrative conflict revolves around the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for this elderly, reproached priest to offer incense. How will he do? Will he prove faithful? Will his disgraced, childless status affect his ability to serve as priest in any way?

The word of God comes to him, but he does not believe (Luke 1:20)—not even when the most important, chief angel is the one to deliver the message. Whoops! So the passage hinges on Zechariah’s response in Luke 1:18.

The resolution of the tension is actually an anti-resolution: He emerges successful from his service of offering incense, but unable to speak. Since he will not listen to God’s words through the angel Gabriel, he will have no words of his own to speak.

Help from the Big Picture

So what are we to make of this? We could draw significant lessons simply from observing and interpreting the text itself. How does the book’s big picture help at all?

First, we must remember that Luke’s stated purpose to his primary audience (Theophilus) is “that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:4). Paul is on trial for his life, and Luke wants to give Theophilus all the facts of this Christian movement.

Then the very first scene of the book hinges on the question “How shall I know this?” (Luke 1:18). Luke opens his book with a man asking the very question Theophilus would have regarding Christianity and Paul’s defense.

Second, when we consider that the Jewish priests are the chief accusers of Paul (Acts 24:1-8), we realize it’s no accident that Luke opens his book with the story of a Jewish priest. A priest serving in the temple — the very place Paul was accused of having profaned (Acts 24:6). And that priest’s service in the temple doesn’t prevent him from being characterized by unbelief (Luke 1:20). It’s as though Luke wants Theophilus to see from the beginning that you can’t really trust what Jewish priests say. Even when they serve in the temple. Even when they get a message directly from God by the hand of the most famous angel.

Now, of course we see Zechariah come around by the end of his story, believing the promises of God (Luke 1:62-64, 67-79). But that doesn’t change the fact that he clearly does not believe God’s word at first. And this only highlights Luke’s purpose for his secondary audience — that the Jews might repent and believe.

The Main Point of Luke 1:5-25

So Gabriel says some remarkable things in Luke 1:13-17. And it’s all there for a purpose. But we should note that the prophecy about John, his role like Elijah, his presumed Nazirite lifestyle, and his effect on the hearts of his generation are all supportive of the main point. These things certainly make up part of the message we must believe. But if we come away from this passage armed with only the theology of John’s role in God’s plan, we have missed the main thing.

The main point is: How do we know? Can we really trust any of these reports? Can we trust an account about an encounter with a supernatural being?

Luke wants Theophilus, along with the rest of us, to know that we can have certainty regarding what we’ve heard about Christianity — just possibly not from a first century Jewish priest. And those who will not listen to the word from God will have nothing useful to say.

Application

Having seen Luke’s main idea, we’re ready to consider application.

We all tend to know what ails us. We are aware of the reproach and shame we feel.

And we can know God’s rescue plan. We can know God’s intentions to turn our hearts back to him. We can know joy and gladness once again, in the Lord’s plan of salvation.

But listening to the wrong voices (those with the greatest authority and the largest following in our culture) won’t get us any closer to the truth. Those who won’t listen to God’s plan for the world’s salvation will have nothing of value to say.

Therefore, we can trust God’s plan to rescue us from our worst ailment. This passage doesn’t say anything about Jesus yet, but it sets us up to be ready for him.

And we don’t need to fear the bluster of those who won’t believe. They may have all kinds of accusations against the faithful. But we can know that their accusations will fall to the ground. They will one day be silenced.

When “Literal” Interpretation is Not as Straightforward as it Seems

October 30, 2019 By Peter Krol

Michael Heiser makes a helpful point in his article on “How to (Mis)Interpret Prophecy”:

“There’s no shortage of advice on how to interpret the Bible. One maxim … advises, “When the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.” I’ve heard it quoted when it comes to biblical prophecy—encouraging people to interpret literally, at face value. Although that sounds like good advice, some New Testament writers didn’t get the memo.

Heiser then analyzes James’s use of Amos 9 in the Jerusalem council, recorded in Acts 15, where James (and Luke, the narrator) appears to take a non-literal approach to the fulfillment of Amos’s prophecy.

There are textual and translation issues involved as well, which Heiser briefly sorts out. But Heiser does well with this example to show us that “Interpreting biblical prophecy cannot be distilled to a simple maxim, and everything cannot be taken literally. The New Testament shows us otherwise.”

Check it out!

What Does It Mean to Be Born of Water and the Spirit?

August 7, 2019 By Peter Krol

Here is a cogent and brief article from D.A. Carson on the phrase “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5. Carson observes the text in light of Jesus’ argument to Nicodemus. He compares and contrasts the statement with another statement in the same discussion. He explains why some common interpretations don’t fit the context. And he explains the Old Testament imagery that Jesus draws on, and which Jesus expects Nicodemus to have understood.

The question is important, because it lies at the heart of Jesus’s explanation of “born again,” of new birth, of regeneration…
Many people think the question Nicodemus poses shows that he is a rather dimwitted literalist. But that’s almost certainly too harsh. You don’t get to be called “the teacher of Israel” (John 3:10—possibly a title) if you can’t spot the odd metaphor. When he hears Jesus say that to enter the kingdom one must be “born again,” I suspect Nicodemus understands Jesus to mean that we are not good enough to enter the kingdom: we must start over, have a different origin, spring from a different life. Nicodemus thinks Jesus is going too far: people can’t really start over or claim a new life, boast of a new birth, or enjoy a new beginning.

This is world-class Bible study. Check it out!

Examples of Jesus in the Old Testament

July 24, 2019 By Peter Krol

Jesse Johnson did us a great favor by giving 6 thoughtful examples of how to preach Jesus from Old Testament texts, where “the coming Messiah” is not the main point. Even when a text doesn’t directly predict the coming of Christ, we ought to make sure we see it climax in the good news about Jesus’ death and resurrection, and/or the message of forgiveness being preached to all nations.

Johnson’s examples are good models of first determining the author’s main point for his original audience, and second connecting that main point to the good news about Jesus. This prevents forced or tenuous gospel connections that fail to land with transformative power. See my post on this topic for further explanation.

Johnson’s examples are:

Leviticus 13 (leprosy)
Judges 19 (dismembered concubine)
Genesis 11 (Babel)
1 Kings 18 (showdown on Mt. Carmel)
1 Samuel 14 (Jonathan eating honey)
Proverbs 5 (sexual immorality)

Check it out!

Take a Closer Look at Nicodemus

July 17, 2019 By Peter Krol

Here is a terrific example of observation and interpretive investigation. Ian Carmichael revisits what he always thought to be true about Nicodemus, the kingdom of God, and being born again. This leads him to look more closely at the text, and consider what it has to say in light of the context of John’s argument.

This is some terrific Bible study, with weighty application. Check it out!

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.

« Previous Page