MISREADING I CORINTHIANS 6:19

My wife has been interested in our family history for some time now. And she came across a note in the flyleaf of the Bible belonging to one of our ancestors. It read: “I Corinthians 6-19 prooves (sic) we have no free moral will.”

That seemed to be a rather strong statement, even coming from a strict Calvinist, so I looked at that verse myself to see if I would reach the same conclusion. Here is how the NRSV renders that passage:

“Or do you not know that our body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own?”

Then, as I do whenever I hear a somewhat dubious interpretation of a given verse, I began to read the surrounding context of those words. And I didn't have to go very far afield in either direction in order to find ample contradiction of that ancestor's explanation of v. 19. In fact, the strongest indications that he was incorrect came from just looking at the previous and subsequent verses.

Thus, verse 19 is prefaced by these words: “Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself.” If we have no free moral will at all, then why did Paul waste his time telling us to avoid certain sinful actions if we had no control over those actions in the first place?

At this point, the only statement in I Corinthians 6:19 which might possibly lead one to say that we had no free will is the final phrase: “you are not your own.” However, the subsequent verse goes on to clarify the meaning of that phrase when it says, “For you were bought with a price.” In other words, a believer is supposed to be no longer free to go ahead doing whatever selfish act he or she wishes since Christ sacrificed on our behalf and we now belong rightly to Him.

If that were not enough to challenge this ancestor's interpretation, verse 20 concludes by urging believers to “glorify God in your body.” This serves as a positive expansion of the negative admonition in verse 18. So together, the two bookend verses to the one in question state that we do have control of our moral will and need to direct it not only away from sinful activities but also toward those actions which will glorify God at the same time.

The only remaining question I ask myself is, “Why did this ancestor go so much out of his way to misconstrue this passage? (It happened to be the only passage in his Bible on which he bothered commenting.) I know from his background that he wasn't necessarily raised in strict Calvinist congregations.

The most probable answer comes from my wife's genealogical research, in which it becomes apparent that this person had made some horrible life choices which negatively impacted a number of people in his family. My educated guess, although I don't want to appear too judgmental of other people since I have enough reason to be ashamed of things I have done, is that this was his way of reconciling himself to his past behavior. It is like Skip Wilson's favorite line: “The Devil made me do it!” It is always a lot easier to blame God or Satan for one's own shortcomings rather than facing up to them and then asking for forgiveness. But then, most of us tend to take the easy way out.

SHUFFLING SCRIPTURE: BOOK OF REVELATION

There is a well established tradition among liberal Bible scholars who are involved in what is called “source criticism” to state that the books in the Pentateuch arose as a combination of at least four separate original sources. But this approach is not as often followed when analyzing the books in the New Testament. Below is one exception to that general rule.

J. Massyngberde Ford, in her entry to the Anchor Bible series of new translations and commentary, posits three separate sources to the Book of Revelation:

    1. “Chs. 4-11 originated with the revelations given to the Baptist before and during the time he recognized Jesus as 'He that cometh.'”

    2. “Because chs. 12-22 actually contain the name of Jesus...they were probably written by a disciple [of John] who knew more than John [but still less than actual followers of Jesus].”

    3. “The present writer believes that 22:16a, 20b, and 21 are later Christian interpolations akin to chs. 1-3.”

Thus, in her commentary, she rearranges the material in Revelation so as to put it into her proposed chronological order of composition with chapters 1-3 coming after chapter 22, followed by the three verses listed in #3 above as later additions. Her reasoning is based mainly on two foundations: (1) Revelation is a book of prophecy and John the Baptist was a prophet and (2) the vocabulary in those “later Christian interpolations” contrasts with the vocabulary found in the rest of Revelation. There are several problems with her thesis:

    1. There is absolutely no early manuscript evidence to back up her proposal of three separate original sources.

    2. Very early evidence from the writings of the Church Fathers states that either John the Apostle or “John the Elder” was the author of the book.

    3. It is well known that the vocabulary utilized by a given author can be quite dependent on the particular subject of the writing. And since much of Revelation 1-3 consists of direct quotes from Christ rather than John, it is not surprising that the vocabulary might differ from the bulk of the book.

    4. Ford's next piece of evidence is that the description of Jesus as “Lamb,” which is common in Revelation, only appears in the Gospels in contexts in which John the Baptist is concerned. This argument can be easily discounted. In the first place, there is only one such context for such a usage in the Gospels, which hardly constitutes a trend, and that is found in John 1:29,36. Secondly, and most importantly, the Greek word used in those two verses is amnos (also applied to Jesus by Luke in Acts 8:32 and Peter in I Peter 1:19), unlike the word for sheep used throughout Revelation, arnion.

    5. In contrast to the four-source theory regarding the Pentateuch, which is still widely accepted among liberal circles, Ford (as far as I am aware) has attracted no scholarly followers to her unusual thesis since its publication back in 1975. That lack speaks volumes regarding the validity of her reasoning.

    6. She treats Revelation 1-3 as the composition of a different author than Chapter 4. However, my analysis of these first four chapters demonstrates that they all belong together as a discrete section (see more details for this and other literary considerations in the post “Book of Revelation: Introduction to the Literary Structure”). It forms the common ABA structure found throughout the Bible:

    A. Vision of Christ (Rev. 1)

            B. Letters to the Churches (Rev. 2-3)

    A. Vision of Heaven (Rev. 4)

And as usual in such a literary arrangement, there are strong affinities that ch. 4 has with the opening passages of the book, especially ch. 1. Both are filled with images taken from Ezekiel 1. Both are theophanies that take place in heaven, unlike the earthly setting of chs. 2-3. Between these two “A” scenes, all the major heavenly characters of the drama are introduced: the Son of Man, seven spirits and seven angels in ch. 1, and Almighty God, 24 elders and four creatures in ch. 4. Beale points out that practically the same grammatical irregularity appears in Rev. 1:10b-11 and 4:1. In addition, specific words and phrases common to chs. 1 and 4 are:

“what is to take place hereafter”

            “like a sound of many waters” / “speaking like a trumpet”

            “I was in the Spirit”

            “what is to (must) take place after this”

            “seven spirits before the throne”

            “seven lamp stands” / “seven torches of fire”

            “for ever and ever, I am alive for evermore” / “who lives for ever and ever”

            “who was, and is, and is to come”

            “glory and dominion” / “glory and honor and power”

            “voice like a trumpet”

These data are almost impossible to reconcile with Ford's statement that chapters 1 and 4 were written by entirely different people.

    7. If the present order of verses is maintained, then the first chapters are intended as the prologue to the book and chapter 22 as the epilogue. Thus, we would expect there to be strong verbal parallels between chapters 1-3 and 22, but only if they were written by the same person, which Ford denies. In such a comparison, we must in all fairness omit the three partial verses that she does feel were written by the author of Rev. 1-3. That still leaves the following numerous parallels:

        revelations coming from God, Christ and angels (1:1; 22:6)

        “Blessed is he who reads this prophecy” (1:3; 22:7b)

        “prophecy” (1:3; 22:7,10,18,19 )

        “the time is near” (1:3; 22:10)

        “the things written” (1:3; 22:18-19)

        “Behold, he is coming (1:7; 22:7a,12)

        “I am the Alpha and Omega” (1:8; 22:13)

        God's only speeches in the book (1:8; 22:1-5)

        “I was in the Spirit, a loud voice said, “Write” (1:9-11) // “I, John heard...the angel...said, do not seal up the words.” (22:8-11)

“The first and the last” (1:17; 22:13)

        “When I saw him (them), I fell at his (the) feet.” (1:17; 22:8)

        “He put...on me” (1:17) // “God will put on him.” (22:18)

        the importance of “deeds” (2:2,5; 22:12)

        “grant to eat of the tree of life” (2:7) // “have the right to the tree of life” (22:14)

        the only occurrences of phileo (“love”) in the book (2:19; 22:15)

        similar descriptions of judgment in 2:23 and 22:12

        “the morning star” only in 2:28 and 22:16

        “people who have not soiled their garments” (3:4) // “those who wash their robes” (22:14)

        both God and Christ are on the throne (3:21; 22:1)

    8. The present text of the final section of the book can be readily analyzed as shown below:

A. “I am coming soon” – Blessing (22:6-7)

B. “I John...heard and saw...keep the words of this book...worship God” (22:8-9)

C. Contrast (22:10-11)

1. evildoers

2. the holy

                                                                            D. “I am coming soon” (22:12)

                                                                            D'. “I am the Alpha and Omega” (22:13)

C'. Contrast (22:14-15)

2. the holy

1. evildoers

B'. “I Jesus...him who hears...take of the water of life” (22:16-17)

A'. “I am coming soon” – Warning and Blessing (22:18-21)

However, this symmetrical arrangement readily falls apart once one omits those verses which Ford feels have been inserted by another author, i.e. 22:16-17a and 20-21.

    9. The strong unity of the present text is confirmed by a myriad of individual words, phrases or similar events which appear throughout Revelation as exact multiples of the symbolic numbers 7 and 12. These statistics are disrupted greatly if one only counts the contribution of any one of the putative multiple authors proposed by Ford.

    10. Finally, the extensive literary analysis of this book summarized in my post referenced above demonstrated that it could viewed alternatively as organized in three completely different ways: as alternating sections dealing with heaven and earth, a mirror-image (or chiastic) structure, or as seven successive sections meeting the definition of progressive recapitulation – a hallmark of apocalyptic literature in the Bible. To edit together such a complex structure from three diverse blocks of source material is almost impossible to imagine. But, of course it is much more believable if written by one single, inspired author under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

ADVICE TO LISTENERS IN BIBLE STUDIES

 

                    Letter to a Dead Church (collage and acrylics, 2011)

I have previously posted three short essays giving my unsolicited comments to Sunday school teachers (see “Advice to Adult Sunday School/Bible Study Teachers: Part 1, “Advice to Sunday School/Bible Study Teachers: Part 2,” and “How to Lead Bible Discussions”). The rationale for this emphasis came from James 3:1: “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”

However, it is instructive that there is more emphasis in the New Testament on the proper way to listen to what is taught spiritually. For example, Jesus' admonition “He who has an ear (or ears) to hear, let him hear” actually appears no fewer than 16 times in the Bible (Matthew 11:15; 13:9,43; Mark 4:9,23; 7:16; 8:18; Luke 8:8; 14:35; Revelation 2:7,11,17,29; 3:6,13,22; 13:9). In addition, Jesus constantly upbraids both his opponents and followers for not properly listening to his words.

Since I have taken part in both the teaching and listening aspects of Bible studies for more years than most of you have been alive, I should be as aware as most Christians of the failures on both sides of the communication issue – especially since I have been personally guilty of most of the problems I will describe below, given in random order.

Not being alert

It pretty much goes without saying, but I will say it anyway, that you can't get anything out of a teaching if you are physically asleep or constantly trying to fight off sleep during a lesson. As a Bible teacher myself, I have observed my share of nodding heads in the audience as I talked. Sometimes I tried to combat it by raising my voice suddenly, but on other occasions when I knew that someone in the group had had a very busy and trying day, I would lower my voice so as not to wake him.

There was one young man who would faithfully show up for one of my evening classes after he had had a long day at work. He manfully fought off sleep as long as he could, but would always succumb at last. He ended up being a missionary in China, so I guess he didn't suffer much from missing half my lessons.

Of course, we have the striking example of Eutychus in Acts 20:9. Luke lists the contributing factors that went into that poor man's drowsiness: a hot, stuffy room and an overly long sermon by Paul. I find it comforting that Paul rushed downstairs to save him and did not criticize him at all.

My wife and I try to always make sure that we get plenty of sleep the night before a church service. We also purposely avoid the early morning service if we have a choice between it and a later one.

Obviously, being physically awake is only the first step in getting the most out of a teaching. You must be mentally alert as well.

Listening with a critical spirit

I will admit that I have been guilty of this sin for most of my life, especially before I began to teach Bible classes myself and found out how hard it is on the other side of the fence. My solution to this attitude problem was to purposely listen very carefully to the teacher or preacher through his or her whole presentation to see what new spiritual insight I could learn. It is amazing that if you start out with that receptive mindset, you will usually find that even the most dull, uninspiring, untaught speaker will come up with at least one good point to ponder.

Unfortunately, I had a highly critical attitude towards some of the pastors in our church while growing up. I can still recite one after another laughable mistake made by one particular preacher, without ever remembering anything good he had to say. But I am sure there was a lot of useful teaching that I didn't even bothered to notice.

The poster children for this negative attitude were the scribes and the Pharisees who followed Jesus around everywhere and heard his wonderful teachings and saw his miracles but viewed everything through a critical lens. So Jesus' warning to them after they witnessed his restoring a blind man's sight is also pertinent in the context of listening to teachings in church: “If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.” (John 9:41)

Speaking out of ignorance

But not all negative reactions to teachings in a church setting are as blameworthy as the example above since sometimes our comments during Sunday school discussions are made out of sheer ignorance. I have three examples to share in this regard, all in relation to the subject of our views of heaven and the last days.

The first one concerns my own ignorant view of eschatology when I was much younger. I didn't realize it at the time, but the churches I had attended all my life up to that time taught what I later learned was called amillennialism. But I later found myself in a different denominational congregation in which the subject of life in the millennial period was being discussed in our Sunday school class. It turns out that these people believed in what is called historical premillennialism, but I thought that I must have gotten mixed up in some sort of cult by mistake. I tried my best to correct their “errors,” but they had a great deal of trouble trying to understand what in the world I was talking about. I would have been much better served by just keeping my mouth shut and waiting until I could have a private talk with the pastor so that he could enlighten me on the whole subject.

Another pastor I had much later in life shared with me his quite opposite experience when he first entered seminary. He had been only taught dispensational premillennialism up to that time. So when his professor began explaining amillennialism to the class, he felt it was his duty to immediately speak up and correct the prof's obvious errors. Looking back on that experience, my pastor was still quite embarrassed by his lack of knowledge on the subject.

I ran into this identical problem in two other churches where I taught. I was explaining the concept of amillennialism as one of several eschatological views when a visitor to the class stood up and loudly proclaimed, “I don't see how you can possibly call yourself a Christian and believe in that!”

This last example also comes under the category of ad hominem attacks, of which I have witnessed the aggressor sometimes being the teacher and sometimes a person in the class.

One-upmanship

This is a type of problem listener I have rarely run into except in competitive business and academic circles, but I know they are out there in churches throughout the land. These are people in a congregation who go beyond having a mere critical or superior attitude toward the pastors and teachers at their church, and seem to make it their mission to put those church leaders in their place with critical questions or snide comments. Of course, the scribes and Pharisees provide us with appropriate role models here too.

The root problem for these people is often one of jealousy – the fact or suspicion that someone else is getting the attention that they feel they rightly deserve instead. So to build themselves up in their own mind and that of their acquaintances, they have to bring any rival parties for attention down to their own level or lower.

We did have one teacher in our Sunday school teaching team who subtly, and probably unknowingly, practiced this constantly. He was not overtly critical of the others on the team. However, whenever it was his turn to give a lesson, he felt it his duty to first go over all the lessons taught previously by the others in order to present the material according to his own high standards and correct any mistaken impressions we may have made.

Attention Grabbers

This category of behavior is somewhat related to the last one above but is often much more excusable in terms of motive. I remember two especially prominent examples during my time of leading teaching teams. One man in our class would make it a habit of interrupting the teacher and proceeding to ramble on and on somewhat aimlessly about some subject or other that was not really directly related to the subject at hand. It got so bad that everyone would groan whenever he raised his hand or began to talk.

Then there was someone at another church who was apparently from a very strict Calvinist background. And whenever a teacher would get talking about practical applications of the Scripture for the day, he would start in with the same speech about how we were denigrating the role of God by talking about our own actions instead of God's sovereignty.

As leader of those two teaching teams, I came up with a simple way to get rid of the problem, at least temporarily. During the summer sessions, our Sunday school team would often approach someone in our class and ask them if they would like to teach one of the lessons during that semester. That way we got more active participation within the class and could see whether those persons might be good ones to add to our regular teaching team. Both of the gentlemen I described above jumped at the chance. But they both floundered horribly during their attempts to teach a coherent class. They realized that teaching was not nearly as easy as criticizing a teacher. And also, I am convinced that all they really were looking for was a little bit of recognition of their worth in the eyes of others. In any case, both of these men went almost a year after their teaching experiences without interrupting again.

Lack of Discernment

As in many cases, one extreme is often just as unhealthy as the other extreme. Thus, I have run into several cases where those in the congregation had apparently never been encouraged to think for themselves. For those people, their faith was often a second-hand one at best.

As an example, I attended a church where I rotated with others in our Sunday school and mid-week classes as a teacher. After one lesson where I had presented several possible ways to interpret a particular passage of Scripture, I was approached by two women in the class who looked concerned. They explained that I had confused them by giving them more than one option to ponder. They asked that in the future I just tell them which belief was correct.

I hardly knew where to begin in answering them, but I did manage to tell them that the particular issue was not cut-and-dry. It was the sort of thing that they would have to use their own discernment to sort out. Then I said, “What if I tell you one thing this week and another of our teachers tells you something completely different next week?” Their immediate answer, with which they apparently had absolutely no problem, was, “That's OK. We will believe you this week and the other teacher next week.”

The second time I ran in to this same complete refusal of members of the congregation to think for themselves was when I was asked to teach a few classes to some of the slightly older congregants during a special summer session. I first read the Scripture we had been assigned and talked about it for a bit before dividing the people into discussion groups with different questions for each one to talk about. I was dumbfounded when I was met with a room of totally blank stares followed by utter silence from each of the groups until at last I relieved their agony by giving them the answers myself. They had obviously been trained to sit and quietly listen to a more knowledgeable person do their thinking for them.

Some of this problem is generational. At one church, I occasionally filled in to teach our regular Sunday school class. I enjoyed it because the class was always alert and participated actively by adding their own comments. But then I was asked to fill in on times at a class populated by older members. I found that however much I tried, I could only get one or two of them to participate when I would ask them to share comments or questions. One of the members later told me that it was because I intimidated them with my learning. That was in spite of the fact that I had been purposely trying to avoid doing so. Again, this was a group of people who had been trained for years into the habit of looking up to the preacher and teachers as the only knowledgeable ones in the congregation and that their own opinions counted for little or nothing in comparison.

Disconnect Between Knowledge and Practice

Then there was another church I attended for years in which the preachers we had were extremely learned and the Sunday school classes had the reputation of being taught on a high level of competency.

However, in practice, the combined clique of elders, pastors and their children for the most part failed miserably in living out a Christian life of service and love for others. And actually, several of them were out-and-out rude to those who didn't fit into their small club of professionals and businessmen. By contrast, I moved from that church to another one where without a exception there was an obvious servant heart among those in the congregation and staff even though one would have to fairly admit that the intellectual level of teaching was at a fairly elementary level.

As James asks in chapter 2 of his epistle after denouncing the audience for their prejudice against the poor in their midst, “What good is it, my brothers, if you say you have faith but do not have works?”

Itching Ears

This is a term Paul uses in II Timothy 4:3 to describe those Christians who will abandon sound doctrine and surround themselves with leaders who cater to their own desires. This is not a mere hypothetical possibility today since many of the megachurches in America attract their members by promising them material wealth or by pandering to their fears concerning satanic opponents who are coming to take away their religious freedoms. And those congregations who remain faithful to the Bible are at the same time being branded as wishy-washy, naïve, or too demanding in their moral expectations.

Conclusion

I must apologize for this lengthy diatribe, but I just wanted to get across the inescapable fact that we have just as much responsibility to listen to God's word being taught as teachers have in doing the teaching itself. But I can certainly sympathize with Paul when he wrote to one congregation: “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?” (Gal. 3:1) or when he pleaded with the Corinthians to stop falling for all the false teachings being circulated in their congregation during his absence.

DOES GOD CHANGE HIS MIND?

This question is posed by a Bible critic who points out the contrast between God's statement in Genesis 6:6 regarding God repenting that He had made mankind and passages such as Numbers 23:19 and I Samuel 15:29 which state that God does not change his mind. In all three cases the operative Hebrew verb is the same: nhm. Let us start with two quotations from the scholarly literature regarding the meaning of that Hebrew root:

“The word is used to express two apparently contrasting sentiments in 1 Sam 15, where God says, 'I am grieved (nhm) that I have made Saul king' (v. 11; cf. v. 35), but where Samuel also announces that 'the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind (nhm), for he is not a man, that he should change his mind (nhm)' (v. 29). The explanation seems to be that God does not capriciously change his intentions or ways of acting. It is the change in Saul's behavior that leads to this expression of regret. The reference is notable as being one of the rare occasions when God is said to repent or change his mind concerning something intended as good (cf. Gen 6:6).” (Butterworth)

Kaiser mentions the above scriptural uses of nhm and others besides and agrees that “many are legitimately startled when they read that the Lord 'was grieved' or 'repented' that he had ever made man and woman upon the earth (Gen 6:6). How can both the immutability and the changeableness of God be taught in the same canon of Scripture?”

Kaiser's answer to such concerns is for us to keep in mind that basically anthropomorphic language (using human emotions and passions to explain the actions of God) is being utilized which can never adequately describe His character.

He goes on to say, “When the Bible says that God repented, the idea is that his feelings toward some person or group of persons changed in response to some change on the part of the objects of his action or some mediator who intervened (often by God's own direction and plan)...In Genesis 6:6 the repentance of God is his proper reaction to continued and unrequited sin and evil in the world. The parallel clause says that sin filled his heart with pain. This denotes no change in his purpose or character. It only demonstrates that God has emotions and passions and that he can and does respond to us for good or ill when we deserve it. The point is that unchangeableness must not be thought of as if it were some type of frozen immobility. God is not some impervious being who cannot respond when circumstances or individuals change...He does not change in his character, person or plan. But he can and does respond to our changes.”

Let us next consider what some commentators say regarding the three specific passages quoted by our critic:

Genesis 6:6

Hamilton, in discussing this verse, explains that nhm is related to the noun nehama, which means “breath.” The verb can have six distinct meanings, including such things as suffering emotional pain, being comforted, executing wrath, retracting punishment or blessing, and retracting a sinful life. So obviously, much depends on the specific context. Hamilton also notes that “only a few passages that speak of God's repentance refer to God repenting over something already done. The vast majority of the instances of Yahweh's nhm have to do with this possible change of will concerning a future plan of action. This is one significant difference between God's repentance and man's. Still, the fact that the OT affirms that God does repent, even over a fait accompli, forces us to make room in our theology for the concepts of both the unchangeability of God and his changeability.”

“'Regret' or 'repent' may suggest a mere change of attitude, but when God 'repents,' he starts to act differently...That God should change his mind might lead to his being accused of capriciousness, which Scripture firmly denies: 'God is not a son of man that he should repent' (Num 23:19; cf. 1 Sam 15:29). Such remarks obviously raise various questions for the doctrine of divine sovereignty and its correlate human responsibility, but theological systemization is hardly the concern of the biblical narrators. For them divine repentance is a response to man's changes of heart, whether for better or worse.” (Wenham)

Numbers 23:19

Ashley also notes the anthropomorphic language in this verse and warns us that it is “only an analogy.” He next reviews some of the Old and New Testament verses expressing the idea that God never changes. Regarding this, he says that “one must be careful to read in these an invariability in purpose rather than a modern, pseudoscientific kind of unapproachable immutability, which in the end denies God any real relationship with his creation. It is important for a biblical doctrine of God's constancy that both these kinds of affirmations be held simultaneously. Although God's larger purposes do not change, as a Being in relationship his ways of dealing with others in that relationship will vary in specific cases. People are unreliable and fickle; Yahweh is neither.”

Carson cites Edersheim as saying that God's repentance is His "unmovedness while others move and change. The divine finger ever points to the same spot but man has moved from it to the opposite pole.”

Numbers 23:19 and I Samuel 15:29

Andersen and Freedman point out the similarity in thought between these two passages and then state:
“The conclusion would be in both cases that God is different from man in that he is faithful and just; he does what he says he will do. He does not say one thing and do another, neither does he change his mind for frivolous reasons or no reason. He is not capricious or arbitrary but is truthful, consistent, and reliable. In that sense he does not repent: he does not change his mind and then change it again without cause...Whether in words or prayers, repentance may be, as it often is, a sham. Divine repentance, on the contrary, has nothing in common with this sort of activity. When Yahweh repents, it is always for cause and is never deceptive or false. The reality is that there is an important difference between divine repentance and the human variety; at the same time, there is a significant similarity, for otherwise the same word would not be used....In the end, it may be truer to affirm both statements and risk contradiction instead of asserting one and explaining away the other, in order to achieve a false or superficial consistency.”

Poetic Parallelism

All three quoted passages are poetic or semi-poetic in nature. Thus, the two lines in each can be used to explain one another since they should express the same basic thought.

Genesis 6:6

    “And the LORD repented that he had made humankind on the earth,

    and it grieved him to his heart.”

This is roughly cast in the form of introverted parallelism in which “repent” in the first line expresses a similar idea to “grieve” in the second one.

Numbers 23:19a and I Samuel 15:29

    Moreover the Glory of Israel will not deceive (or recant) or change his mind,

    for he is                                        not a mortal that he should change his mind.”

In these parallel verses, it becomes obvious that God's actions are to be contrasted to those of mankind, not compared to them. Also, depending on which original text you adopt, this verse defines “changing his mind” as the same as deceiving or recanting.

BIBLICAL CONTRADICTION: HOW HIGH WERE THE TWO PILLARS AT THE TEMPLE?

This question, or actually contradiction, appeared in someone's list on the internet as being one of the top ten reasons for not believing the Bible. The problem to which he is alluding, arises when you compare the measurements concerning the temple found in I Kings 7:15-22 (18 cubit-high pillars) with those in the parallel passage in II Chronicles 3:15-17 (35 cubit-high pillars). One can also compare the length of 18 cubits given in Jeremiah 52:21-22, which agrees with I Kings.

There are other reasons for suspecting that 35 cubits “seems clearly to be erroneous,” in LaSor's words.     1. Comparing these two figures with the dimensions of other ancient structures, it appears that 18 cubits “is inherently more probable.” (D.R. Jones)

    2. Thirty-five cubits is actually higher than the top of the temple roof itself, so that the columns would be useless in supporting it and would have to stick out of the top of the temple. (Bright) This second objection is not an insurmountable one since Thompson and many others mention the obvious alternative that “they stood outside the entrance, which is possible.” In that position they could have either helped support a covered portico in front of the temple or been freestanding decorative pillars instead.

It is for reasons such as these that NEB, for one, simple replaces “35 cubits” with “18 cubits” in its translation of II Chronicles in order to reconcile it with I Kings and Jeremiah.

Then the logical question arises as to where the figure of 35 cubits came from. Bright simply says, “The origin of this alternative tradition is obscure. And Williamson makes the sweeping statement: “It is generally agreed that the Chronicler added to this figure [i.e. 18 cubits in I Kings 7:15] the circumference of the pillar (12 cubits and the height of the capital (5 cubits), but unless his Vorlage [i.e. a prior version or manifestation of a text] was unclear there is no apparent reason for this.”

Despite this “general agreement,” I think there is another far more likely explanation. I was struck by the fact that the Hebrew text does not separately list the lengths of the two pillars. Thus, it is somewhat ambiguous whether the length of each pillar or their combined lengths was being described. What sent me off in this direction was the simple observation that 35 cubits is twice the length of 18 cubits, considering that (a) these are probably only approximate measurements anyway and (b) the exact length of a cubit changed quite a bit during OT Jewish history. At first I thought I was the only one to come up with this solution. And then I read the following:

1. In commenting on I Kings 7:15-22, G.H. Jones notes that the listed circumference of 12 cubits for the columns appears to make it too massive. Thus, maybe the figure referred to the combined circumferences of the two pillars. But that same reasoning, if applied to the 35 cubit height as I had, would lead to no contradiction between the two parallel passages.

2. In addition, the NIV reads in II Chronicles: “two pillars which together were thirty-five cubits long.” Dillard says, “The supplying the word 'together' represents an attempt to harmonize this measurement with the 18 cubits [each] in 1 Ki 7:15.”

Finally, we should point out again, as we have in other posts, that it is much easier to accidentally make mistakes in copying numbers than words and correspondingly, much harder for subsequent scribes to reconstruct the proper numbers, even assuming that they suspected there was an error. In addition, a mere discrepancy in numbers in the text of the Bible is certainly not to be ranked as one of the ten top reasons for rejecting its accuracy elsewhere in areas which are much more important theologically.

MARY AND ELIZABETH (LUKE 1:39-45)

 

                Scenes in a Life: Panel B (mixed media, 2006)

Mary visited her relative Elizabeth and stayed with her during the last 6 months of her pregnancy. “During the nine months of Elizabeth's pregnancy, Luke's narrative subverts the patriarchal status quo of her household by silencing the man and giving initiative to speak and act exclusively to the two women, Elizabeth and Mary, and the unborn John.” (S. Young)

Luke 1:39

The first controversy concerns the location of the place where Elizabeth was living at the time. According to Pliny (Natural History 5.14), the Greek word oreine ['hill country'] refers to the area around Jerusalem. “A literary tradition that can be traced back to the sixth century identifies the birthplace with En Kerem (Arabic ain Karim), seven kilometers west of Jerusalem. Remains of two fourth-century churches indicates, however, that the tradition stretches back to a still earlier time.” (Reisner)

However, Geldenhuys says, “Attempts to ascertain precisely which village in Judaea is meant have thus far been unsuccessful. The manner of expression indicates that it was an unimportant place.”

Luke 1:40-41

In these verses we have the reunion of Mary with Elizabeth at which time even John in Elizabeth's womb appears to recognize the presence of Jesus in Mary's.

“The movement of the fetus finds its precedent in Gen. 25:22-28, although it is doubtful that the struggle between Jacob and Esau is in view here. More relevant is the reference to the expressions of eschatological joy in Mal. 4:2.” (Pao and Schnabel)

“Although it is said that an emotional experience of the mother can cause a movement of the foetus, it is more likely that a miraculous expression of the emotion of the unborn child is meant than Elizabeth simply saw her own joy reflected in the unconscious movement of her child.” (Marshall)

Some have quoted v. 41 in order to argue against terminating an unborn baby's life since it appears that a fetus, at least one six months old, is capable of being moved by the Holy Spirit. Even if that is a valid argument, it says nothing regarding the earlier stages of pregnancy.

Soards suggests that “Elizabeth's being 'filled with the Holy Spirit' may also acknowledge the presence and power of the Holy Spirit at work in relation to the unborn John 'in her womb.'”

Geldenhuys points out that “Elizabeth shows no sign of jealousy. In humility of heart she utters her amazement that she is so privileged as to be visited by the mother of her Lord.” I find this completely amazing since parents of young children seem to often vie with one another in defending the superiority of their own children.

The application for us by this example, according to Geldenhuys, is “He who elevates himself is constantly engaged in wrecking his own life. But he who is sincerely humble finds richness of life and happiness.”

Marshall notes: “In later life John apparently did not know Jesus very closely (Jn. 1:31; Lk. 7:19). This is in harmony with this passage, where nothing is said about the two boys subsequently coming into contact with each other.”

Luke 1:41b-45

Craddock: “Elizabeth eulogizes both Mary and her child. She blesses Mary on two grounds: she has been chosen to be mother of the Lord, and she has believed the word of God.”

Luke 1:42

Pao and Schnabel quote 2 Baruch 54:11 [an intertestamental Jewish writing] as another work “drawing on the same tradition in their descriptions of the mighty acts of God.”

And Marshall explains that “the participle is being used in a comparative or superlative sense: “You are the most blessed among women.”

“Elizabeth greets the mother of my Lord with clear spiritual insight and complete lack of any jealousy – a trait that foreshadows her son (Jn 3:30).” (Porter) Pao and Schnabel explain, “The expression 'my Lord' (tou kyriou mou) echoes the language of Ps 110:1 and therefore points to the messianic status of Jesus.”

Luke 1:43

Fitzmyer brings up an interesting aspect to this verse: “Some commentators have noted the similarity of this question to either 2 Sam 6:9 ('How can the ark of the Lord come to me?') or 2 Sam 24:21 ('Why has my lord, the king, come to his servant?'). For E. Burrows...and R. Laurentin..., Elizabeth's question compares Mary with the ark of the covenant. This link is supposed to be confirmed in 1:56, where Mary is said to remain three months with Elizabeth, just as the ark stayed three months with Obededom. But this is subtle.” Subtle or not, I still find the possibility fascinating.

Luke 1:44-45

“The hoti ['for'] clause may express the reason why Mary is blessed – because what she believed will certainty come true; or it may give the content of what she believed. The analogy of Acts 27:25 favors the second interpretation.., which surely includes the former.”

Conclusion

Young says, “The narrative makes it clear that Jesus is primary [and John is secondary] by such devices as devoting twice as much space to Jesus as to John, the two prophetic responses to Jesus versus one to John, and the focus of attention on Mary when the two stories converge in Luke 1:39-56. The purpose of the parallelism, however, is not primarily to highlight Jesus' superiority over John, but rather to show how the two figures together serve to fulfill the divine plan.”

WHY DON'T WE EXPERIENCE OVERT MIRACLES AS MUCH TODAY?

The Biblical Record

The first thing to note is that maybe our expectation that spectacular miracles should be a current phenomenon is based on a faulty understanding of miracles in biblical times. “In point of fact, miraculous signs are not uniformly distributed throughout the OT. They are largely grouped in three main periods, each of which was marked by a life-and-death struggle for the people of God and which put Yahweh's saving powers and will to the proof.” (Colin Brown)

And during the long period between the OT and the NT, one of the sign gifts, prophecy, was apparently missing entirely. We get this from hints in the apocryphal book I Maccabees 4:46; 9:27; and 14:41.

And if you chart those major time periods which are characterized by miracles, they appear to be a ordered in a symmetrical pattern.

    A. Primeval World History

            B. Moses and the Exodus

                    C. Conquest and Settlement of Canaan

                            D. Divided Kingdom

                                1. Elijah

                                2. Elisha

                            D'. The Exile

                                1. Daniel

                                2. Daniel's Three Friends

            B'. Life and Ministry of Christ

                    C'. Early Spread of the Gospel

    A'. Final World History

Note that:

    A and A' are the only periods in which the miracles affect a large geographical region and are effected by God only, without human intervention.

    B and B' are times dominated by the major figures of the Old and New Testament, respectively.

    C and C' represent the missions of those leaders being continued and expanded by their immediate successors.

    D and D' are both difficult times for the nation of Israel in which almost the only miraculous elements are found to be associated with a small group of select individuals: two during the Divided Kingdom period and four during the Exile. And in the case of Elijah and Elisha, they were only active during about 30 of the 300 years of the Divided Kingdom.

The Testimony of Jesus

The next clues we get concerning the future of miraculous happenings come from Jesus' experiences and teachings. It may surprise many that although Jesus was widely known as a miracle-worker at the time, his feelings regarding those activities was somewhat mixed. While it was out of love and concern for others that he healed wherever he went, at the same time this reputation sometimes hindered him from carrying out his teaching ministry. We see from Mark 2:2-4; 3:7-9; and Luke 8:42-45 that the press of the crowd who followed him served as an impediment.

In addition, he found it necessary on occasion to chastise those who approached him with requests for a miracle (See Matthew 12:39; 16:1-4; John 2:18-22; 4:46-48) even to the point of calling some of them “an evil and adulterous generation.”

Matthew 28:16-17 demonstrates that such a miracle as Jesus' resurrection is not enough to bring some people to the point of belief. And even belief brought about by sight is considered a much lower form of belief than that brought about by faith in the absence of sight (John 20:28-29).

And more concerning is the possibility of false miracles and signs luring people away from the truth, as Jesus warns us in Mark 13:22. So they are not reliable signs by themselves.

All of these factors might have gone into the gradual diminishing of miracles in the church as time went along. In addition, we are given the following teachings in the Gospels which have an impact on the ability and advisability of believers doing miraculous deeds:

Luke 11:9-13 – Jesus says we ask God for the wrong things, rather than the Holy Spirit.

John 16:23-24 – This passage warns that we need to ask in Jesus' name. And that is not just a matter of saying the right words at the end of a prayer, but asking for the sake of Christ and all that He stands for. In other words, it is akin to Jesus in Gethsemane praying that God's will be done, not his own.

Matthew 13:58 records that Jesus himself “did not do many deeds of power there [his own hometown] because of their unbelief.” So there is the possibility that the general lack of belief in a community may have an adverse effect on the ability for miracles to be performed there.

But on the positive side, Jesus says to his disciples in John 14:12 that they will be able to do greater works than He himself did on earth. This statement only makes sense when one realizes that the task of worldwide evangelism to save souls is a miracle of greater numerical scope and spiritual importance than what Jesus accomplished in his three years of teaching and healing ministry.

Then there is the difficult passage in Matthew 17 in which the apostles prove unable to cast out a demon and Jesus upbraids them for their lack of faith. He says that even an amount of faith the size of a mustard seed would be enough to move mountains. Taking into account the hyperbolic nature of that saying, it still brings up the question as to how we today would be able to muster (no pun intended) enough faith to accomplish a miracle if even the apostles couldn't do it.

Also, Jesus tells his apostles that where two or three are gathered together, their prayers will be answered. Assuming we can extend this principle to the church as a whole (which admittedly may not have been intended in Jesus' words), it indicates that a group prayer by united believers is the one most likely to result in a miraculous answer.

My personal experience over the years as a believer is that I have witnessed three overt examples of miraculous healings. And in each case, there was a concerted and fervent group of believers praying at the same time for a miracle to be performed despite what doctors had determined were hopeless cases.

Spiritual Gifts in Acts and the Epistles

Moving on in time to the early church age, we have an interesting incident recorded in Acts 8:9-24. A new convert named Simon the magician witnesses the apostles laying hands on new believers, at which point they receive the gift of the Spirit and begin speaking in tongues. Simon offers to pay for the ability to do the same thing himself but is rebuffed strongly by the apostles. It should be clarified at this point that receiving the gift of the Spirit is something beyond receiving the Holy Spirit, since that is promised to all believers.

From this example, some have proposed that the sign gifts were performed by the original apostles and those who had the apostles' hands laid on them, but this was not passed on to subsequent generations of believers. This interpretation is certainly not an obvious one, but it is possible and would roughly fit the historical evidence of experiences in the later church.

The gifts of the Holy Spirit listed in I Corinthians 12 contain two basic categories. The first are those which give practical and spiritual aid to the church as a whole and would not be considered by outsiders as miracles at all, although the Holy Spirit is still directing them. Those of the second type have been labeled by some as “sign gifts,” and these for the most part would result in what most people would call overt miracles. Among these are utterance of (hidden) knowledge, mountain-moving faith to work miracles, healing, prophecy, and tongues-speaking and interpreting.

Those Christians called cessationists take the stance that the sign gifts were never intended to last forever, but only during the early years of the church when it needed the most help. As biblical evidence to bolster up this view, they cite the following passages in I Corinthians and Hebrews:

“Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away...but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away.” (I Corin. 13:8-12)

“How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his own will.” (Hebrews 2:3-4.)

Regarding the first passage, the meaning all hinges on what “the perfect” is that will usher in the cessation of these sign gifts. Cessationists state that it is the printing and dissemination of the Bible, but that definition of “the perfect” is certainly not found anywhere in Scripture. A more reasonable understanding is that it represents existence in the New Heaven and New Earth in God's very presence.

And no matter how many times you read the Hebrews passage above, I doubt that you would come up with the idea that signs and miracles were destined to disappear once the initial announcement of salvation had been done. You could just as well argue that this means miracles will continue as long as there are those on earth who have not heard the Good News.

The safest approach to understanding Hebrews 2:3-4 is to take seriously the last phrase of verse 4: “gifts of the Holy Spirit according to his own will.” In other words, the Holy Spirit is free to do whatever he wishes in terms of the sign gifts and is not bound by any arbitrary restrictions interpreters may attempt to place on him.

Paul echoes Jesus' own caution regarding miracles and their utility in the life of the church. In I Corinthians 1:22-23, he criticizes those Jews who demand signs and treat Jesus' ignominious death as a stumbling block to accepting him as the Messiah. And in chapter 14 of that same epistle, he tries to wean the congregation away from their elevation of the gift of tongues to the detriment of other more useful gifts such as prophecy. It is generally accepted that “prophecy” in that context encompasses more telling-forth God's will than foretelling future events, as it also does in the Old Testament.

Finally, James 4:2-3 gives another obvious reason why miraculous events are not happening as often, namely “You do not have because you do not ask.” To this we might add the just as obvious fact that miracles by their very nature are not, nor will they ever be, the norm, but always the exception to the norm.

Post-Biblical Evidence

One of the first bits of historical evidence indicating that miraculous events continued to happen to Christians after the Apostolic Age actually comes from the dubious ending to the Gospel of Mark, in verses 16:17-18. This ending is felt to have been written by an unknown author somewhere around A.D. 130. It promises, among other things, that Christians will speak in tongues and heal the sick. The feeling is that these words would certainly not have been written unless such events were still happening. Of course, that evidence alone does not necessarily indicate that such miracles will continue in the church since they may have been performed by those who were given the gifts by the laying on of hands by an apostle.

Next we have the writings of the early Church Father Origen (A.D. 185-254) who spoke of exorcisms occurring in his day. And the first church historian after Luke, Eusebius (A.D. 260-341), wrote that Christians were “evangelizing...with God's favor and help, since wonderful miracles were wrought by them in those times also through the Holy Spirit.”

And even St. Augustine (A.D. 354-430), who was initially skeptical about such reports, supposedly changed his mind when he witnessed what he felt were genuine miracles taking place in nearby churches.

Genuine, overt miracles following that time period are harder to document with the exception of sporadic reports still coming in from some missionaries in third-world cultures steeped in pagan beliefs and practices. And even those can fit into the idea that miraculous healings nowadays appear to take place primarily in those places (a) having no good medical personnel in the area and (b) where demonic forces appear to be also active.

 

PAUL IN PERSON

I imagine that many Christians at one time or another have fantasized what it would be like to meet famous people of the past in heaven, especially those who are the most prominent in the Bible. We can certainly picture towering, larger than life giants of the faith such as the apostle Peter as someone like Charlton Heston in his role as Moses – a powerful leader and commanding presence. Or maybe we imagine Thomas as a somewhat sharp and cynical intellectual.

But what about the apostle Paul? Our church was fortunate to have in our congregation an older man with long flowing white hair whose ministry was to impersonate Paul. He had memorized all of the epistles of Paul and would dress up in a robe and act out the apostle reading over his latest letter, sometimes while wearing chains and being in a prison cell backdrop. His readings were especially well received by the prisons in which he was allowed to present his program.

He did an excellent job, but I still wondered if that was what Paul really looked and acted like. Fortunately, we have some hints given us right in the New Testament.

Paul first appears as Saul in Acts 7 where Stephen is stoned by an angry mob who lay their outer clothing at Saul's feet to free their arms to hurl their rocks. And Saul stood by approving of their actions. It may be because of my own experiences as an undersized, near-sighted, klutzy boy that influence the following supposition. But Saul sounds a little bit at this point like the sort of person who is always the last one picked for a team in any group sport since his athletic kills are sadly lacking and he is only of use as a bat boy, bench warmer, team mascot, cheerleader, or in my case, the player assigned to far left field. And Paul's early experience being taught by the great rabbi Gamaliel also types him as the studious sort who might be uncomfortable taking part in any strenuous physical endeavor, even stone-throwing.

Following this event, we soon see Saul/Paul on the rampage against the early church in Acts 8-9. This demonstrates another aspect of his personality, his highly developed sense of righteous indignation. This personality trait pops up again when he refuses to take John Mark with him on his second missionary journey due to his disappointing performance on a previous trip (Acts 15:37-38) and when he demands an apology from the magistrates at Philippi for illegally mistreating him (Acts 16:35-40). But it is in Paul's writings where we see this trait most strongly. Paul starts II Corinthians in an even tone, but by the end of the letter he is pleading earnestly with them not to follow those who are teaching a different gospel and even threatens to come to them in person to scold them. Galatians is even harsher in tone toward those false teachers and those in the congregation who follow them. Especially harsh is his addressing them in 3:1 as “you foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?” And concerning the false teachers, he expresses the fervent wish that they might castrate themselves (Gal. 5:12).

Yet even in the middle of his righteous rants and sarcastic attempts to defend himself against false accusations, Paul can stop and admit that his boasting only makes look like a fool. Just look at the way those two words alternate with one another throughout his speech in II Corinthians 10-12 (22x “boast” and 7x “fool”). He concludes that the only sort of true boasting he can do is boasting of his “weakness” (9x “weak[ness]”) since in his weakness, God's strength is seen.

In terms of the way Paul presents himself in person to others, we can only go by hints in the New Testament writings. Concerning his physical condition, Paul alludes to his thorn in the flesh in II Corinthians 12:7, the marks on his body (probably from whippings) in Galatians 6:17, and a possible eye condition in Galatians 4:15 and 6:11. William Ramsay read into Paul's comment of Galatians 4:13 (“It was because of a physical infirmity that I first announced the gospel to you”) the possibility that he had contacted malaria in the lower altitudes and that was his reason for moving to higher ones in the area of Galatia. Yet despite his physical handicap, he must have had enough physical resources to continue his demanding travel schedule to new cities where he would continue to earn his own living at tent-making while also preaching to others.

As to how Paul presented himself to others as a public speaker, we can't go entirely by the persuasive way he wrote his letters to the church. Just look at II Corinthians 10:10 in which his enemies say, “His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.” To this, even Paul admits, “I may be untrained in speech, but not in knowledge.” I see in this exchange the same unfortunate phenomenon which is common today among a large percentage of Christians who wrongly equate a forceful personality with a truthful and effective leader, and a milder personality with a wishy-washy one.

We perhaps find confirmation of Paul's poor preaching skills in the fact that Eutychus fell asleep and out of a window during one marathon session Paul conducted. I know from first-hand experience that no matter how much rapt attention you can garner from an audience, there will often still be one in the group who just can't manage to stay awake. And I have certainly been on the receiving end of my share of boring speakers myself.

But apparently despite Paul's rhetorical weaknesses, his intensity of belief and surety of what he said were enough to allow him to found churches in several hostile environments. And he managed to hold his own in a group of his intellectual peers at Mars Hill (Acts 17) and “almost persuaded” King Agrippa with his reasoning (Acts 26:28). Despite that, it is somewhat difficult imagining him delivering the same sort of powerful Pentecost sermon that Peter gave.

That is about as far in the biblical record as we can go in preparing ourselves with a possible face-to-face meeting with Paul in the future. But we do have the supposed physical description of Paul found in a second-century Christian document, the Acts of Paul. It reads, “A man of middling size, and his hair was scanty, and his legs were a little crooked, and his knees were far apart; he had large eyes, and his eyebrows met, and his nose was somewhat long.” This sort of a unprepossessing presence would also help explain why the people of Lystra thought that Paul was only Hermes while Barnabas was Zeus (Acts 14:14).

But whatever he happened to look like, I am certain I would not be disappointed in any encounter I would be blessed to have with him

ZECHARIAH, JOHN THE BAPTIST'S FATHER (LUKE 1:5-25; 56-66)

 

Scenes in a Life: Panel A (mixed media, 2006)

John the Baptist stands firmly between the Old Testament and New Testament acting as a vital bridge between the two eras. His story actually begins before his birth, as we see in these verses:

Luke 1:5 – This story is first rooted in the historical events of the time, placing the events about 7-6 BC. We are introduced to a priest named Zechariah, not to be confused with the 27 other men in the Bible with that same name or a variant such as Zachariah or Zacharias.

“The priestly order of Abijah was the eighth of the twenty-four divisions of priests (1 Chr 24:10) who served annually, for one week at a time, in the Jerusalem Temple...As a descendant of Aaron, Israel's first priest, Elizabeth was also from a priestly family.” (Soards)

This was no mere coincidence since Allen points out, “Luke 1:5 reflects knowledge of the recommended marriage of priests to the 'daughters of Aaron.' This...goes beyond anything in the Pentateuch concerning priests. It, however, part and parcel of first-century practice within Judaism.”

Luke 1:6 – “Luke here referred to two passages in Malachi which speak of messengers: a messenger was to be sent to clear the way before the Lord (Mal. 3:1), and Elijah's return was promised before the day of the Lord (Mal. 4:5-6) to restore the hearts of the fathers to their children.” (J.A. Martin)

Luke 1:7 – Fitzmyer states that “Elizabeth's barrenness is intended by Luke in a class with that of Sarah (Gen 16:1), Rebecca (Gen 25:21), Rachel (Gen 30:1), the mother of Samson (Judg 13:2), and Hannah (1 Sam 1-2), i.e. the mothers of famous OT patriarchs or leaders...Their barrenness was remedied by God's intervention, and so will Elizabeth's be.”

Luke 1:9 – Soards points out, “The privilege of offering the incense was normally granted only once in a lifetime.” And Allen adds that “the use of lots to determine which priests should offer incense is not found in canonical Scripture but is implied in extrabiblical Jewish literature.”

“Gabriel stands before God because according to contemporary Jewish concepts there was no sitting in heaven. Only God sits, as a sign of his uniqueness and grandeur. All that has been created must stand before him.” (Mienzer)

Luke 1:9-10 – “In the morning the incense was to be offered first, before the offerings on the altar of sacrifice; in the evening it was to be offered last, thus bracketing the day of temple service...As the priests proceeded to the altar of incense, a signal was sounded for the Levites to gather for singing, the priests from about the temple to assemble, and the people who were to be purified that day (e.g. women and those healed of skin disease) to gather at the eastern gate called Nicanor.” (Reid)

Luke 1:13 – Marshall says, “Giving a name was the father's duty. When God took over this task, it was a sign that He was making the child His responsibility.” The name 'John' means “Jehovah has been gracious.”

Luke 1:18 – “It was to the quest for evidences that Zechariah in the nativity narratives succumbed.” (Bruner)

Luke 1:19-20,22 – “The verb euangelizomai ('to bring good news') evokes the Isaianic promises (Isa. 40:9; 52:7) where the new exodus is in view. This word group also appears in Roman imperial propaganda and Luke's use of this verb may carry a secondary significance in reaction to such propaganda.” (Pao and Schnabel)

Note that the angel Gabriel had earlier struck Daniel speechless in Daniel 10:15.

It may be a coincidence, but it is interesting that each half of Luke's two-part history contains a similar temporary sign from God given to a righteous person who doubted – Zechariah in vs. 20 and Saul losing his sight in Acts 9.

Luke 1:25 – It may seem incredulous to us that a barren woman would be a figure of disgrace in any society. But as Soards points out, “Among Jews sterility was regarded as a sign of divine disfavor and therefore a disgrace (see Gen 16.2; 25.21; 30.23; 1 Sam 1.1-18; Lev 20.20-21; Ps 128.3; Jer 22.30).”

Luke 1:57-58 – We lose track of Zechariah for a while and then he pops up again in this verse regarding the birth of John. “The expression 'the time came for Elizabeth to give birth'...echoes the birth of Esau and Jacob in Gen. 25:24..., and the theme of rejoicing also finds its parallel in OT birth accounts with God's wider expression of mercy toward Israel (1:50, 54).” (Pao and Schnabel)

Luke 1:59 – “The eighth day was the appointed date for circumcision (lv. 12:3), but the naming of the child on this occasion is unusual, as in the OT names were given at birth.” (Marshall)

Luke 1:63 – Marshall points out that the translation should be “His name is John” not “will be John” since the angel had already commanded it. Standers-by are concerned that the name John was not one running in that family since it was the common custom to name a boy after a relative, especially a grandfather. But Zechariah is insistent, and at that point he regains his speech.

Luke 1:65 – “Fear designates humble, reverent recognition of the limits of human understanding and power before God (2.9; 7.16; Acts 2.43, 46-47; 5.5,11; 19.17).” (Soards)

WHY ARE THERE SO MANY VARIANTS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS?

Here is another of Tim Zeak's 10 fatal flaws in the Bible he lists in his blog. He quotes Bart Ehrman, a former evangelical and fundamentalist as citing “a fact that has been documented by many other scholars that the New Testament manuscripts have more variants than there are words in the New Testament…well over 200,000 of them. Some scholars now count closer to 400,000 of them. While most do not affect any doctrine, there are some that make a big difference in how it is interpreted.”

“If it was the intention for a perfect, all-knowing God to inspire a perfect book so that His creatures would have His word and instructions, it would be of little value unless He made sure all copies of it were also correctly copied. Surely, one should expect that a perfect God would have his word made available to every creature that is 100% accurate and not have over 200,000 variants in the copies.”

This objection actually falls into the same category as two more of Zeak's “flaws,” namely, (1) Why couldn't God have implanted solar cells into the ears of animals so that they wouldn't have to kill one another to get their energy? and (2) Why would an all-powerful God who loved his creatures and desired them to know him, just refuse to or not know how to communicate with the many people who lived and died without ever having access to His truth and will for their lives?

All three objections attempt to second-guess God by stating that anyone of us humans could have done a better job that He did. If you have the same thought in mind, just look at the Jim Carrey movie “Bruce Almighty” sometime. He attempts to create a more perfect world only to learn that every improvement he makes has unintended consequences that are not so perfect.

The whole subject of evil in the world has been rehashed so many times by theologians and philosophers that the technical title “theodicy” was coined to define it. I have dealt with this subject in other posts, so let's just concentrate for a minute on the opening objection Zeak offers above.

Attempting to count the number of variants in the New Testament manuscripts (i.e. handwritten copies) is anything but a scientific endeavor. Thus, a member of the committee to prepare the American Standard Bible stated that there are 150,000 variants instead of the 200,000-400,000 claimed above. For example, what do you do about the case where a single word is misspelled in 1,000 different manuscripts? The method used to come up with the large number of variants above would count that as 1,000 different variants. Or what about the case where the roughly 26,000 Greek, Latin and other early manuscripts of the NT in other languages are equally divided as to how a given verse is to be read? That would be counted as another 13,000 variants.

In fact, once one concentrates on the individual verses in the NT where there is still some remaining doubt as to the correct wording, the number of variants is reduced to about 400 with only 50 of them representing significant differences and none affecting any church doctrine. And if you are still suspicious of those statistics and want to see those “problem passages” for yourself, I highly recommend Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. He lists those 400 passages and even more and provides the reasoning used by the committee which prepared the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament. In lieu of that, any good modern study Bible will provide footnotes wherever there are alternative readings worthy of mention. With these textual helps, we can be much more sure of possessing a document close to the original writings than would be indicated by just looking at a horrendously high figure such as 400,000 variations in the text.

And it is also possible to put it into the context of other ancient writings of the same approximate time period in terms of number of existing manuscripts, number of variants, and lapse of time between the original writings and the manuscripts. In all respects, the New Testament comes out head and shoulders above the major works of classical writers such as Julius Caesar, Livy, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Seutonius, etc. in terms of reliability.

If the above is not convincing to you, let us try Zeak's approach, also called the Bruce Almighty approach. Zeak suggests that God could have simply made sure that all the copies of the New Testament were copied accurately. Let's pursue that to its logical conclusion.

Image a man sitting at his desk painstakingly copying a NT text on a parchment to give to his friend living in another city. As he is doing it, his eye mistakenly moves from one line of the original to another one and he skips a line (a common error called haplography). But before he is able to transfer that mistake to his copy, God jerks his hand up and forces his eyes to focus on the original text so that he will see his mistake before it is too late. And the same thing happens every time he is about to make a mistake, and it happens not only to this one man but is experienced by hundreds of other copyists as well.

How long do you suppose it would be before the word spread of this obvious miracle? I know that if I had heard of it by word of mouth, I would have immediately taken out my copy of the NT and purposely tried to add in an extra word just to see what happened. From that point on, it wouldn't be long before everyone in the ancient world became converted by such a miracle that they could all see with their very eyes. But it wouldn't at all be faith, but belief by seeing instead.

I had a friend from work who is a Christian and a fellow scientist, but it appears that he cannot be satisfied with having a reasonable faith. He demands hard proof. First he felt he had it with the Shroud of Turin, but when that “evidence” fell through, he went into a minor spiritual depression. Then he became fascinated with the writings of modern prophecy “experts” who proved through a long chain of diverse Scripture references that the Bible had predicted to the very day when the modern state of Israel was officially founded.

After I provided him with a quite detailed critique of each step of reasoning in that calculation, his response was, “Well, it all works out in the end, doesn't it?” In other words, he was not at all upset that roughly ten out-and-out lies had been exposed, as long as the calculation came out to what you wanted it to be. We chemists had a common term for that sort of cheating – dry-labbing. You began with the answer you wanted and made up the data so that it would fit that foregone conclusion.

Back to Zeak's attempt to play Bruce Almighty. You must realize at this point that even if you have forcibly prevented each and every copyist over the centuries from making any mistakes in the Greek text, you now have to do the same thing regarding the translations that are prepared from that perfect text. Now here we do have at least three example from religious history to cite.

The first one comes from Islam. Years after Mohammed wrote (or dictated to be more precise) the Quran, it became obvious that variations had crept into the texts being used throughout the Islamic world. So the edict came down from the religious leader at the time that all copies of the Quran were to be confiscated and destroyed. Then one “official” edition of the book was produced and distributed so that today there are no variants whatsoever in the Quran. This boils down to the old question, “Is it better to have one watch and always know the correct time, or to have more than one and never be exactly sure?” The truth, of course, is that the one watch may be faulty and you would never know it whereas with more one, you can always compare them and at least know the approximate time within a few minutes. (This example only works with mechanical timepieces, not electronic ones.)

I actually had an English translation of the Quran in my bookcase and had begun to read it before giving up because it paled in comparison to the Bible. I mentioned this to a Palestinian friend and he took a look at my translation. His first comment was, “Of course you didn't like it. It was written by a man from India, and they don't understand Arabic. He next commented that no translation whatever is adequate since you can only appreciate the beauty and logic of the Quran in the original language. Thus, the problem of translation is handled in Islam by merely telling its believers that they must know Arabic since the book is not really translatable.

The early Roman Catholic Church had their own solution to the problem of translation, forbid it altogether (other than the Latin translation) and enforce the edict with force. Thus we have the early Protestant martyrs such as John Wycliffe facing death in order to bring the Bible to people in their own language.

Then in more recent times we have the Mormon Church, founded at a time in American when doubts began to rise concerning the accuracy of the King James Bible since it was founded on a Greek text which had been in the hands of the Catholics for hundreds of years before the Protestant Revolution. At this point in time, Joseph Smith came along with a text written on gold tablets in "reformed hieroglyphics" (whatever that is) that purported to be a new holy document. Fortunately, he was able to translate it into English without any error whatsoever through the help of a giant pair of angel's glasses. It is a shame that the tablets and glasses disappeared magically as soon as he had finished dictating the whole text to some of his friends. For some reason or other, the friends were never allowed to see the text itself or the glasses (called the Urim and Thummin) even though they signed an affidavit to that effect which appears on copies of the Book of Mormon today. One of the signees later admitted that they had been allowed to see the tablets, but it was only in a vision.

As to the Bible itself, large portions of it are quoted from the King James Version in the Book of Mormon, but the two versions differ in some significant places to make it look as it the continent of American was predicted in the Book of Isaiah. The explanation given for the differences is that we can't at all trust any translation of the Bible since it was obviously altered in numerous places by the Catholic Church. That is why you will rarely see a Mormon missionary walking around with a Bible under his arm. Later on, Joseph Smith made some abortive attempts to prepare a correct English translation of the Bible himself, but the results were rather embarrassing and seldom advertised in Mormon circles to the outside world.

Getting back to the requirements demanded by Zeak before he will believe in the God of the Bible, it would not be nearly enough to just force all copyists not to make mistakes in the thousands of manuscripts followed by enforcement of the production of perfect translations into each language of the early. Since most people hear what is in the Bible through a pastor or missionary telling them in the first place rather than reading it for themselves, God would now have to ensure that every word preached from the pulpit or taught in a Bible lesson was an accurate application of the text.

But even then, it still comes down to practicing what is preached. And unless God takes active steps to prevent people, including Christians, from acting against His will, there will be the chance of someone doing what they shouldn't and causing evil to spread. Therefore enforced morality with punishment being directly meted out from God would be needed, or at least enforcement carried out by a theocratic dictatorship. So what would result in the latter case would be akin to a return of the Spanish Inquisition.

So the whole issue of accurately preserving, translating, disseminating, explaining, and obeying God's will ends up looking a whole lot like the establishment of a fundamentalist Islamic state. And I somehow doubt that is what Zeak had in mind.