The sons of Korah were Levitical musicians who descended from an ancient rebel. But Korah’s sons didn’t perish with their father, because they separated themselves from him (Num. 16:26–27; 26:10–11). These sons had descendants, and the generations of Korahites extended into the days of David. When we read “Sons of Korah” in a superscription of some psalms (either in Book 2 or Book 3), we’re reading about the Levitical musicians whom David appointed. 

There once was a man named Korah, and the ground opened up beneath him. He and some others had been rebelling against Moses and against the Lord. Moses said, “If the LORD creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol, then you shall know that these men have despised the LORD” (Num. 16:30).
And the ground opened, and they perished (Num. 16:31-33).
Korah had been a descendant of Levi and thus was a relative of Moses and Aaron. The lineage of Korah looks like this: Levi begat Kohath, Kohath begat Izar, and Izar begat Korah.
As a Levite, Korah was part of the set-apart tribe, yet Korah coveted the priesthood (Num. 16:8–11), which was an institution God had assigned to Aaron’s line and not broadly to every Levite. Every priest was a Levite, but not every Levite was a priest.
The death of Korah—and deaths of those allied with him—was the result of divine judgment. Since we know what happened to Korah in Numbers 16, his death raises a curious question when you read the superscriptions of some psalms. Who are the “Sons of Korah”?
While almost all psalms in Book 1 (Psalms 1–41) were written by David, the psalms in Book 2 (Psalms 42–72) don’t begin with David’s name in the superscription. Psalm 42 is “A Maskil of the Sons of Korah.” In fact, there are eleven psalms with “Sons of Korah” in the superscription (Pss. 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 84, 85, 87, and 88).
Read More
Related Posts:

In Psalms 42–43, the same psalmist who spoke of his inner turmoil and downcast soul also prayed, “Vindicate me, O God, and defend my cause against an ungodly people, from the deceitful and unjust man deliver me!” (Ps. 43:1). This prayer of vindication is for Christ’s lips as well. Though sorrowful in Gethsemane, he would be vindicated at his resurrection. Though facing the unjust actions of an ungodly generation, Christ’s victory over death would be the divine vindication of his teachings and claims and identity. 

When the author of Psalms 42–43 wrote about the circumstances and taunts he’s facing, the reader can easily imagine the psalmist’s angst and frustration. People taunt the psalmist, saying, “Where is your God?” (Ps. 42:3, 10). Enemies oppress him (42:9; 43:2). Ungodly people act unjustly and deceitfully toward him (43:1).
But the problem isn’t only external. The psalmist describes his inner life as one of turmoil, and he does this three times in Psalms 42–43: “Why are you cast down, O my soul, and why are you in turmoil within me? Hope in God; for I shall again praise him, my salvation and my God” (42:5, 11; 43:5).
His soul is downcast and in turmoil. The psalmist isn’t stoic, so he’s affected by his hardships. But in response to the state of his soul, he exhorts himself. He calls himself to hope. He directs his attention to God. This response is important because the psalmist knows he is not hopeless. His circumstances have not removed him from God’s reach or God’s love.
The sorrowful soul of this psalmist has been something that readers throughout the ages have resonated with. At some point or another, through seasons short or long, we can read Psalms 42–43 and feel like we know what the psalmist means.
Do you think Jesus experienced inner turmoil? The writer of Hebrews says, “In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence” (Heb. 5:7).
Read More
Related Posts:

The method for establishing familiarity is frequent exposure, even immersion. Ask yourself what book of the Bible you’re least familiar with. Now, why not do something about it?

The Bible is not boring. It is the Drama of the ages, the Story of all stories. In this book we read of the living God’s acts of creation and redemption. We see the true story of the world. It rivals all other epics and transcends ancient myths. The Bible is not like any other book.
But maybe you think the Bible is boring. You open it and, before long, you’re yawning and thinking about something else. If you’re bored with the Bible, have you wondered why?
A variety of explanations exist, and any (or several) of them could identify the problem.
First, maybe you’re not thinking about the kind of book you’re reading. You’ve picked it up like it’s a novel or something with a familiar genre. But the Bible is a library of books. The Old and New Testaments contain various genres which all contribute to the redemptive Epic. The Bible is inspired—but not in the way that an author might say he or she was inspired to write what they published. The biblical writings are Spirit-inspired.
Scripture is the Word of God because it is, from Genesis 1 through Revelation 22, the words of God. The Bible is the most important book because its words are not merely from the minds of men. The Spirit has ensured the accuracy and coherence and authority of what the Old and New Testaments say.
Second, maybe you’re ignoring the Christological shape of Scripture. The Bible is a Jesus book. The Old Testament foretells his coming, and the New Testament announces his arrival. In order to properly understand the parts of Scripture, we must see them in light of the whole. The Big Picture is a redemptive story, and it leads to a cross and through an empty tomb.
Read More
Related Posts:

Your Bible reading habit (or lack thereof) won’t increase or decrease God’s love for you. But your spiritual discipline will very much affect the warmth of your heart toward truth. Your devotion to Scripture will very much impact your delight in the glories of Christ and the gospel.

The claim in my title might seem like nonsense to some people, because maybe they’ve tried to read the Bible and just can’t engage it very long or with much interest. I can imagine pushback from someone who says, “Some people like fish; some don’t. Some people like watching baseball; some don’t. Some people find the Bible interesting; some don’t.”
But I’m contending that my claim isn’t subjective in the way that a food preference or a sports interest is subjective. I’m saying that, objectively, the Bible isn’t boring. It is the revelation of the living God to us. If we find the Bible dull or boring, the problem is with us and not with the Bible.
In a previous article, I talked about four reasons why people might struggle with an interest in Scripture. And in this article I want to list reasons five through eight.
Fifth, maybe you’re unaware of certain historical matters. No matter what chapter or book you open in Scripture, you are thousands of years removed from the composition and content of what you read. You should expect, then, that more understanding about certain historical places or customs or laws would fill in the gaps in your mind.
But how curious are you? Learning about biblical background issues takes work, some research, some resources. There are atlases and commentaries and study Bibles that can illuminate what seems perplexing at first glance. So be a curious reader. Ask yourself, “Why is this here? What role does this passage/chapter play in the surrounding flow of Scripture? What details about ____ do I not know and need to investigate further?”
Sixth, maybe you’re reading too quickly. Bible reading is not a race. What if you slowed down?
Read More
Related Posts:

The language in 14:21 forbids mixing life and death. As a holy people set apart for worship at the tabernacle, the Israelites would approach the God of life. Outside Israel’s camp was the realm of death. Think about the logic of the language in 14:21. A young goat would need its mother’s milk for life. But the act of boiling is an act of death. To boil a young goat in its mother’s milk would be to cause the animal’s death with the very means that was designed to give it life!

Last week I discussed the unclean/clean food laws in Deuteronomy 14:1–21 (see “Eat This, Not That”), and today I want to zoom in on the final line of verse 21. Moses told the Israelites, “You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk” (Deut. 14:21).
Have you seen that prohibition before? Maybe you’ve read it elsewhere. It appears in Exodus 23:19 and Exodus 34:26.
The Location of the Prohibition
Think about the command’s placement in Deuteronomy 14:1–21. It’s at the very end. The command follows a series of food regulations about clean and unclean animals. In verse 4, Moses starts listing the animals that the Israelites may eat, and in this verse we read the word “goat.” At the end of the food regulations (14:3–21), we again read the word “goat.” But this time a particular procedure is being forbidden.
Putting it another way: throughout 14:3–21, there are clean and unclean animals, but the final statement in verse 21 is not about a procedure, a manner of preparation. The Israelites can eat goat, but they are forbidden from preparing it by boiling it in its mother’s milk.
A Forbidden Pagan Practice?
When you consult commentaries about the prohibition in Deuteronomy 14:21, Old Testament scholars will often say that the forbidden practice was something which was practiced by the Canaanites. In keeping with the divine summons to live holy lives in the promised land, the Israelites were to avoid idolatrous activities. Perhaps the procedure (identified in 14:21) was such an activity and needed to be avoided.
Read More
Related Posts:

Though eating certain foods and avoiding certain foods might have some health benefits, not all of the forbidden foods could be explained by hygienic concerns. Consider, too, that Jesus declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19). This declaration wouldn’t mean that we shouldn’t think about how foods affect us. This declaration does, however, confirm that the clean/unclean categories in the Old Testament were about ceremonial (and not primarily hygienic) matters.

There are instructions in Leviticus and Deuteronomy about certain foods the Israelites were to eat and certain foods they were to avoid. The main places in the Torah addressing Israel’s dietary laws are Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. The instructions pertain to food from the land, from the sea, and from the sky.
Certain foods were “clean” while others were “unclean.” Have you thought much about these instructions? In Mark 7:19, Jesus declared all foods clean, so these Old Testament food laws were temporary. But what can we know about them?
First, notice the timing of the instructions. The clean/unclean food laws (in Lev. 11 and Deut. 14) were given to the Israelites prior to the conquest of the promised land. Part of Moses’s preparation of the people, therefore, involved communicating these dietary regulations.
Second, the food laws were part of holy living. The Israelites were going into the land of Canaan to worship the one true God and to walk in obedience before him. Because the Lord gave these commands through Moses to the Israelites, the people were obligated to follow these commands. The food laws were not optional.
Third, the food laws would set apart the Israelites in the eyes of others. The Canaanites would have eaten certain foods which God prohibited the Israelites from eating. Living consecrated lives among the Canaanites, then, involved a menu that was unlike the land’s pagan inhabitants. The Israelites were to live differently from the Canaanites—and part of living differently involved eating differently.
Read More
Related Posts:

The fact that some people are spiritually unfit for ministry leadership may not be initially evident, so hastily appointing them to be an elder can backfire. As Paul said, “the sins of others appear later.” Of course, he doesn’t mean the elders are without sin. But a potential elder can, as time passes, show himself unfit for pastoral leadership. If a church and its leaders demonstrate more patience and thorough examination in the process of elder selection, some poor leadership choices can be avoided, and a church can be spared much grief.

Paul’s first letter to Timothy is concerned about the health and welfare of the church in Ephesus. Much of this health is connected to the leaders and those who teach there. Leaders have influence, or they wouldn’t be leaders. And unsound leaders have an unhealthy influence.
One of Timothy’s responsibilities, then, is to ensure the raising up of qualified overseers (or elders) who will lead and instruct the flock of God in Ephesus. In 1 Timothy 3:1–7, Paul writes about the qualifications for overseers, and in 5:17–25 he returns to the subject of these leaders. He speaks about remuneration for elders who teach (5:17–18), about rebuking elders who are in sin (5:19–21), and about the danger of choosing elders in a hasty manner (5:22–25). In this post I want to think about this final element—the danger of hastily choosing elders.
Paul wrote, “Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure” (1 Tim. 5:22).
The phrase “laying on of hands” is about the public recognition of certain men as elders. If Paul is instructing Timothy not to be involved in hastily recognizing certain men as elders, then perhaps some of the trouble in Ephesus is the result of the church acting too quickly, rather than circumspectly and patiently, in appointing particular people to positions of leadership and influence.
In the qualifications section of the letter (1 Tim. 3:1–7), Paul said that an overseer “must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil” (3:6). One way, then, that a church might act too quickly in appointing an elder is if such a candidate is a recent convert.
A candidate reveals his moral and shepherding fittedness (or he reveals his disqualification) over time.
Read More
Related Posts:

The cost of discipleship can be great, but Jesus told us that ahead of time. “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). Jesus’s words are about allegiance. He doesn’t actually want you to hate your family. Those words in Luke 14:26 are hyperbolic to make a larger point about allegiance. True disciples of Jesus are devoted, above all, to Jesus.

[The following post is free for all readers and subscribers. If you’d like to support the work that goes into this site, and to have total access to all the posts in this newsletter, consider becoming a paid subscriber.]
There are different reasons why people turn from truth to error. One such reason is found in Deuteronomy 13. In the context of that chapter, Moses is warning the Israelites about the kinds of people who will seek to steer them away from true worship and into error and idolatry.
Deuteronomy 13:1–5 is about a false “prophet” or “dreamer” who leads people astray. Deuteronomy 13:12–18 is about a whole town plunging into idolatry. The middle section of the chapter, and the one I’m interested in for our purposes, is Deuteronomy 13:6–11. Take a look at that text.
6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, 8 you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. 9 But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11 And all Israel shall hear and fear and never again do any such wickedness as this among you.”
Strong words, I know. Though we’re not under the Sinai Covenant, and though the civil penalties (in this case, stoning) don’t overlap with the New Covenant community, there is a lesson about faithfulness that we need to discern.
In Deuteronomy 13:6–11, the danger of turning to error is due to a snare that feels close to home—and may even be in the home.
Read More
Related Posts:

Paul had access to Luke during his travels, the preface “Scripture says” occurs six times in Paul’s letters and always leads to a quotation of an authoritative writing, and the context of Luke 10:7 corresponds to Paul’s concern about provision for elders in 1 Timothy 5:17–18.

We are used to reading references and allusions to the Old Testament in Paul’s letters. Would you be surprised to know that he quoted from a New Testament book?
In his first letter to Timothy, Paul is addressing groups in the church in 1 Timothy 5:1–6:2. And in 5:17–25, he writes about elders. In 5:17 he says, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching,” and then in 5:18, he gives a reason for his instruction.
The reason begins with, “For the Scripture says,” and then he cites two things.

First, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” which is from Deuteronomy 25:4.
Second, “The laborer deserves his wages,” which is from Luke 10:7.

The two citations serve as evidence for Paul’s instruction in 1 Timothy 5:17, that elders who rule well (especially in the labor of preaching and teaching) are worthy of double honor (the honor of respect and the honor of remuneration).
The first citation is obviously from Deuteronomy 25:4. What’s not so obvious to interpreters is the source of Paul’s second citation. In the previous paragraph, I nonchalantly said that Paul is citing Luke 10:7 when he writes, “The laborer deserves his wages.” But according to New Testament commentators, that conclusion is not certain.
In fact, there seems to be a genuine reluctance among commentators to suggest that Luke’s Gospel is the source of Paul’s second quotation in 1 Timothy 5:18. Why the reluctance? Well, some scholars don’t believe Paul even wrote 1 Timothy, and even if he did write it, some scholars don’t believe Luke’s Gospel would have been written by that point.
But I’m going to assume, just as 1 Timothy 1:1 tells me, that Paul is the author of 1 Timothy. There is no external or internal evidence that actually negates Pauline authorship of this letter. And if Paul is the author of 1 Timothy, the timeline for writing 1 Timothy would be after the events of Acts 28, which would mean sometime after AD 62 but before his martyrdom in the mid-60s.
What about Paul’s source for his second citation in 1 Timothy 5:18? What would he have access to? Some New Testament scholars suggest that a “Jesus saying” was known to Paul, and that was his source for the citation. According to this possibility, Paul would have been aware of a “tradition” that Luke eventually used for his own Gospel in Luke 10:7. This “Jesus tradition” would then have been used by both Luke and Paul for their respective writings.
Read More
Related Posts:

In Ecclesiastes 12:8–14, the book is coming to an end, and in this epilogue we find a strong endorsement of the book’s content. In 12:9, the writer calls the Preacher “wise” and someone who “taught the people knowledge.” So the content between the prologue and epilogue came from a wise person who taught wisdom. This Preacher wasn’t rash or thoughtless with his words, either. Wise people know better than to talk like that. His practice was “weighing and studying and arranging many proverbs with great care” (12:9). The frame editor is telling us that the Preacher’s teachings—called “proverbs”—were the result of the Preacher’s prolonged reflection and careful construction.

Interpreting the book of Ecclesiastes has challenges. Some of the claims in the book are uncomfortable to read. The tone throughout the book feels less like a warm hug and more like a splash of cold water to the face. The speaker’s words are quite grim at times, he claims that animals and people have the same destiny, and he makes comments about how stillborn children are better off than the living. The writer even seems preoccupied with the fact that we’re all going to die.
When you survey commentaries on the book of Ecclesiastes, you’ll notice that not every interpreter is convinced we should trust the words in this book. So how should we approach it? Is the content of Ecclesiastes like the book of Job, in which the speeches of Job’s friends have a mixture of truth and error? Or do the Preacher’s observations about life “under the sun” stay uncorrupted and trustworthy?
I think we can thoroughly trust the book’s content and wisdom, and I want to offer some considerations as to why.
If we pay attention to structural elements in the book, we will see that Ecclesiastes 1:1–11 form a prologue to the body of the book, which leads to an epilogue in 12:8–14. The opening and closing sections of the book are in the third person, and the body of the work unfolds in the first person.
There is much scholarly discussion about how the opening and closing sections relate to the body of the book. Are they from the same author or from different authors? I don’t think we can ultimately be sure if the frame of the book (1:1–11 and 12:8–14) was provided by an author different from the first-person “Preacher” (in 1:12–12:7). My inclination is that a second writer provided an introduction and conclusion to the wisdom material. Nevertheless, the resulting words in the book known as Ecclesiastes are inspired by the Holy Spirit, whether the Spirit worked through one human author or through more than one (2 Tim. 3:16).
In Ecclesiastes 12:8–14, the book is coming to an end, and in this epilogue we find a strong endorsement of the book’s content.
Read More
Related Posts: