LUKE 14:1-6

These verses contain both a controversy story and a healing, and are unique to Luke. Concerning the passage as a whole, we have the following comments from scholars:

Soards: “This healing story forms the second part of a balanced pair with the foregoing account of Jesus' healing the crippled woman (13:1-16), exhibiting Luke's concern to show the inclusive nature of Jesus' ministry.”

Pohl: “The Gospel of Luke is particularly rich with images of Jesus' experiences of hospitality...He is frequently a guest in the homes of Pharisees (Luke 7:36-50; 14:1-21)...These shared meals provide an important setting for his teachings on divine and human hospitality.”

Luke 14:1-2

Marshall describes the background to this passage: “The situation indicated is doubtless a meal after the service in the synagogue (cf. 7:36; 11:37)...by now the Pharisees were suspicious of Jesus and looking for evidence against him, and it is possible that the man [with dropsy] was planted there as a trap for him.”

Luke 14:2

Regarding dropsy (v. 2), Fitzmyer explains the medical condition as follows: “suffering from edema, an abnormal accumulation of serous fluid in connective tissues or cavities of the body accompanied by swelling, distention, or defective circulation. It is usually symptomatic of more serious problems.” Note that Jesus will alleviate the man's symptoms as an indication that he had also removed the underlying medical cause.

Luke 14:3

Jesus' question showed that He knew that they wanted to trip him up, and in addition the question placed them in a difficult position – for if they answered that it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath day this would give him the right to continue His Sabbath healings. On the other hand, they could not venture to declare that it was unlawful to heal on the Sabbath, especially in view of the distress of the sick man, visible to all.” (Geldenhuys)

I would add that this episode and others imply strongly that Jesus' opponents knew that He had the power to heal all along and didn't seem to reflect on what that meant concerning the authority of His teachings as well.

Another glaring omission committed by the Pharisees was in purposely ignoring the Old Testament teachings on the subject. As Fitzmyer explains, “The attitude presupposed by Jesus in that second question reflects Deut 22:4, the Mosaic injunction to help a brother whose ox or ass falls by the way.”

As Ellis says, “The churchmen display a thoroughly false standard of values. Not only are they hard-hearted toward the sick man (3f.) but both guests (7) and host (12) are status-seekers and social climbers. The principles (5, 10, 13) that Jesus enunciates were known and approved by all. The sting of his words is their utter candor...He undresses their concealed and half-forgotten motives and lays them naked on the dinner table. Most embarrassingly, he applies the principles to the churchmen's relation to God.”

Luke 14:4

Fitzmyer explains that 'they kept silent' indicates ”they would not commit themselves. But to be silent is to agree (especially when legal matters are the issue).”

Luke 14:5

There is a minor textual problem concerning this verse. Comfort notes that if you have a son or ox “is the original wording according to five early MSS [i.e. manuscripts]...Three variants are 'donkey or ox.., 'sheep or ox'...and foal of a donkey or ox'...The variants are scribal attempts to have a pair of animals rather than a human paired with an animal.”

“Jesus highlights their [i.e. oxen's] value when he poignantly equates the Pharisees' sabbath care of their oxen with his own sabbath healing of a crippled woman and a man with dropsy (Lk 13:15; 14:5).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Luke 14:6

“Conscious of modernity's anthropocentrism, Christians are noticing Jesus' background assertion that God attends to the death of each sparrow (Matt. 10:29). And they are noticing that Jesus rightly presumes that even his theological opponents will not dare to deny that it is good to break the Sabbath in order to rescue a sheep or an ox from a pit (Matt. 12:11; Luke 14:5).” (Greenway)

Fitzmyer alludes back to v. 4 in which the Pharisees could find no answer to Jesus' question and states, “The reaction [in v. 6] is thus stronger than in v. 4. It is assumed that Jesus' words have reduced his observers to silence. In effect they agree that they would do exactly what he intimated they would.”

Concluding Update

Craddock notes, “It is significant that following the Jerusalem conference, which Luke reports in Acts 15, the Gentile churches are asked to show deference to Judaism only in matters of idolatry, unchastity and foods (Acts 15:20). No mention is made of the Sabbath. Either the matter had already been settled, or it was not a critical issue, or it was left to the convictions of different Christian communities to observe or not observe the Sabbath...One suspects, however, in Luke's time and place, that...Sabbath observance still generated a great deal of tension.”

As a result of such actions and teachings of Jesus, “the extreme (and potentially legalistic) forms of refraining from work that prevailed under the law are softened and set within the context of God's new redemptive work...Given this NT modification we are left with a picture of the sabbath as a day of doing good as well as a day of worship and cessation from ordinary work.” (DBI)

NEHEMIAH 13

This chapter describes a low point in the spiritual life of the early returnees to Jerusalem from Persian captivity. It occurred when Nehemiah had left to live there for a 12-year period. When he did return to Jerusalem in 433 BC to check up on the returnees, he found the truth of the old saying “When the cat's away, the mice will play.” He immediately noticed a number of abuses taking place and wasted no time trying to correct them. These included the following behaviors unacceptable to God:

Nehemiah 13:1-3 As a sort of prelude to this section, the people were read the Pentateuch including the passage in which they were told in no uncertain terms that they were to separate themselves from the Ammonites and Moabites.

Nehemiah 13:4-9 The priest Eliashib had turned over a large chamber in the temple designated for storage of food and drink to be used in the offerings to his buddy Tobiah for his personal use.

This move was wrong for two major reasons. In the first place, the fact that this store room was practically empty indicated that the Jews had been horribly negligent in bringing in the required tithes and offerings to the temple.

Secondly, there is a good chance that this Tobiah was the personage mentioned earlier in the Book of Nehemiah. If so, then as J.S. Wright says, “In Ne. 11. 10 he is called “the servant, the Ammonite'. He may have been a freed slave who rose to a position of influence in Ammon, perhaps even governor of the province. He was probably the ancestor of the Tobiads who governed Ammon for generations after his time, as attested in the 3^rd-century-BC Zeno papyri...If Ez. iv. 7-23 is dated shortly before the coming of Nehemiah Tobiah may well be identified with Tabeel of Ezr. iv. 7.”

In any case, it was totally inappropriate for Eliashib to hand over temple property for an Ammonite's exclusive use. I remember that at one church I attended for years, membership had dropped so low that we no longer had as much need for the large annex we had built. So the leaders of the church cast around to see if we could rent it out to help support our own congregation financially. There were several organizations interested in utilizing our facility during the times we weren't, but the wise decision was that any such organization, especially a religious group, should have goals consistent with our own.

Nehemiah 13:10-14 The Levites who served in the temple had not received the portion of the offerings due to them and so were forced to take on additional work in the field to feed themselves and their families.

It is of interest that three times in this chapter Nehemiah asks God to remember him for his good deeds. As Allen explains, “Nehemiah, in a series of prayers that punctuate his memoirs, requested that his work might stand as a memorial to his service for God and his fellow Jews. Evidently he had enemies who gave him no credit for his dedicated labors and sought to undo them. So he committed to God both his own works (Neh 5:19; 13:14, 22, 31) and the opposition he had encountered (6:14; 13:29).”

But one commentator notes that “Nehemiah,who was not too modest to remind God of his own integrity, comments favorably on those whom he trusted to handle substantial quantities of goods and money (Neh 13:13).”

Perhaps the lesson to us here is that we have no need to either blow our own horn or to personally punish our enemies, but to turn both wholly over to God to deal with.

Numbers 13:15-22 All the rules forbidding work on the Sabbath had been ignored.

We should certainly be reminded here of the later actions of Jesus in casting out the money changers in the temple and others who had turned the Court of the Gentiles into a noisy marketplace where it was impossible to worship.

Short summarizes Nehemiah's measures to combat these abuses: “Nehemiah rebuked them. He ordered also that the main city gates should be kept closed from the evening when the sabbath began till the following evening, and as to certain smaller gates beside them which we have to assume remained open, Nehemiah appointed some of his servants to stand near them so as to ensure that no burden was brought into the city on the sabbath. There were certain merchants, however, who tried to break Nehemiah's blockade by setting up their stalls outside Jerusalem; but Nehemiah discovered them and threatened them with arrest; so they decided not to try this again.”

Various churches today have attempted to apply this principle as well as that of Jesus casting out the money-changers. I know that all of the congregations I have attended were quite adamant against such practices as holding Bingo games at church or similar fund-raising techniques often practiced by other denominations. But on the other hand, most of them saw nothing at all wrong with letting a guest speaker set up a booth on the way out of the church building where he could sell his books and other literature to those exiting the service.

Numbers 13:23-29 The strictures against Jews intermarrying with pagan women were similarly ignored, even by those in influential positions. As Dearman says, “Moabite wives were a contributing factor to the problem of synchretism [i.e., combining several incompatible religious systems together] in and around postexilic Jerusalem (Ezra 9:15; Neh. 13:23).”

These verses act as a sort of conclusion to the chapter in that they return to the strictures against associating with foreign nations (especially Ammon and Moab) that began the chapter in verses 1-3.

As a sad point in their history, Nehemiah points as an object lesson to the fact that even wise King Solomon was led astray by the foreign women he had married. If even he could not stand up to such pagan influences, how much more would the rank-and-file Israelites be unable to combat the pagan influences of their non-Israelite wives!

“Nehemiah, a layman, was able to cooperate with his contemporary Ezra, the scribe and priest, in spite of the fact that these two leaders were of entirely different temperaments. As one example, in reaction to the problem of mixed marriages, Ezra plucked out his own hair (Ezra 9:3), whereas Nehemiah plucked out the hair of the offenders (Neh 13:25)!”

The take-home lesson for us here is that it takes all sorts of personalities to make up a well-rounded congregation. This is in stark contrast to one church I attended where for a while the common buzzword was “likemindedness.” By that, those who spouted out this doctrine meant that no individual opinions should differ in any way with the official and unofficial beliefs and practices of that congregation. That not only included absolute adherence to all twenty or more specific doctrinal statements of the church, but also such unwritten but understood things such as one's preferred political party. Because of that attitude, I am afraid that I fell afoul of the elders more than once and was only allowed to continue teaching there after arguments advanced in my favor by two of the associate pastors, who were much more enlightened and theologically sound than anyone on the elder board, almost all of whom were chosen on the basic of their supposed business acumen.

In verse 29, Nehemiah has a completely different kind of remembering in mind when he asks God to remember the deeds of those who had “defiled the priesthood, the covenant of the priests and the Levites.”

Numbers 13:30-31 As a coda to Numbers 13, Nehemiah draws up a series of regulations for both the priests and Levites in order to clearly define their duties.

As Eskenazi explains, “The purification of the priesthood and Temple administration was the most difficult and consequential task because of the status of the opposing priests. Therefore, Nehemiah presents restoring order and sanctity to the worship system as the crown of his achievement.”

Yamauchi aptly summarizes Nehemiah's life: “His motive throughout his career was to please and serve his divine Sovereign. His only reward would be God's approbation. He was in many ways a model leader.”

A THIEF IN THE NIGHT

Metaphors and similes are funny things in that the comparisons they make sometimes seem quite bizarre to us. As a case in point, consider the references in the New Testament comparing Jesus to a sneak thief. Our confusion should dissipate when we realize that (a) such a shocking image is meant to be memorable so that once heard it sticks in our minds and (b) metaphors and similes generally only compare one property in common with both items, not all properties. Thus, in the case of this particular image, it is only the suddenness and total unexpectedness of the thief's appearance that is in mind, not at all his nefarious mission.

Matthew 24:42-44

Interestingly, I have two scholarly books on the parables and one (by Kistemaker) lists this passage and its parallel in Luke 12:39-40 as a parable, while the other (by Snodgrass) does not. To be more accurate, Kistemaker considers it to be “a parabolic saying rather than a parable as such.” He goes on to say, “Does Jesus warn his own disciples of imminent danger? We expect the followers of Jesus to look forward to a joyful occasion at the time of his return. Those who listen attentively to and act in obedience upon Jesus' words will be prepared when he comes. For them, his return will be a joyous event...The parable addresses itself to those who wait for Jesus' glorious return and to those who are ignoring Jesus' instructions...Those who prepare themselves and are ready will not be surprised when Jesus returns.”

I Thessalonians 5:1-4

The metaphor “a thief in the night” appears twice in this passage. Stott has some wise words concerning this passage and the verses that follow. “The apostle explains that there is no need for us to be alarmed by the prospect of the Lord's coming, because there is no need for it to take us by surprise. “Surprise” is the key word in in Paul's argument. There are two reasons why people are taken by surprise when a burglar beaks in. The first is that he comes unexpectedly during the night, and the second is that the householder is asleep. We can do nothing about the first reason, but we can about the second. The solution to our problem lies not in knowing when he will come, but in staying awake and alert at all times. For then, even if his parousia is totally unexpected, we will be ready for him and not taken by surprise.”

As to what exactly it means to “be awake,” that is explained by Paul in verse 8: “But since we belong to the day, let us be self-controlled, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet.” Only in that manner can one become thoroughly prepared for Jesus' coming, whenever it happens to occur.

Elias explains the apparent reaction the Thessalonians had to teachings they had received concerning the end times. “During their evangelistic preaching in Thessalonica, Paul and his companions incorporated teaching and warnings about the day of the Lord. It is impossible to determine exactly what they might have said. In 5:1-11 some of what they originally taught, and which the Thessalonians seemingly already know well, is repeated to emphasize the need for their vigilance and preparedness. Evidently further confusion and deliberate misinterpretation occurred after this first letter was read in the congregation. The second letter devotes major attention to this theme, especially to counter the arguments of some that the day of the Lord has come (2 Thess. 2:1-12).

2 Peter 3:10

Michael Green: “The parousia will be as sudden, as unexpected, as disastrous to the unprepared, as a nocturnal burglary...Here, as throughout the early Christian tradition, a saying of Christ was treasured because it dealt with a living problem, the date of his return. It was useful to the early leaders in curbing the apocalyptic excesses of the enthusiasts who were always fixing dates for the end. Jesus had said that even he did not know the date (Mk. 13:32), and he had told his followers not to speculate about it (Acts 1:7), for ''he coming of the Son of man would be like that of a thief in the night.'...despite the delay, the Day of the Lord will come.”

Revelation 3:3

Morris says, “This is not a reference to the second coming. That will take place whether the men of Sardis are watchful or not. But Christ comes in many ways and this is clearly a limited coming in judgment on unrepentant Sardians. The fate of these unrepentant sinners is none the less fearsome because left undefined. He labels “a thief in the night” as a “proverbial expression for unexpectedness.”

“The second coming of the Lord is likened to the coming of a thief (Mt. 24:43), but that does not seem to be the thought here. Here the thought is that the Lord will come suddenly upon the church, which has nothing but an empty reputation, and will break it up...The Lord warns this local church that if there is no self-judgment, He will come suddenly and break up the testimony once and for all. It is a remarkable fact that western Asia Minor, now Turkey, was once the brightest spot on earth for the gospel witness. Today it is one of the darkest.” (John Phillips)

Beale: “Verse 3b is a development of the parable of the thief in Matt. 24:42-44, but is more likely applied here to a conditional 'coming' of Christ before the parousia rather than to the absolute final coming...Nevertheless, this coming in history is connected to the final coming in that both are part of the same inaugurated end-time process.”

Revelation 16:15

“In Revelation Jesus warns, 'Behold, I come like a thief' (Rev 16:15 NIV). This is obviously not an image of Jesus coming to take what is not his own. Whether it be the church at Sardis (Rev 3:3) or believers in general the image is intended to inspire wakefulness and preparation.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Mounce says, “The interjection of a warning in the midst of a prophecy of final conflict is entirely appropriate...The faithful are admonished to be on the alert for this great event – not taken by surprise as a soldier who, when the alarm is sounded, must run away naked because he has misplaced his clothing. The kind of spiritual preparedness that Christ requires is the discernment which cuts through the deceptive propaganda of Satan and his henchmen...It promised the blessing of God for those who remain faithful in the critical hours which lie ahead.”

Conclusion

The biggest mistake I have witnessed among believing Christians is to totally misunderstand the import of the above passages. They confuse the need for spiritual preparedness at all times with the necessity of intellectually figuring out the exact sequence of events preceding the Second Coming. Such misled Christians seem to revel in the fact that they are much more in the know than the mere masses, including their unenlightened Christian brothers and sisters. They smugly continue to watch “the countdown to Armageddon” in the daily news and even go as far as saying (and I have actually heard this from some of them) that for the time being they can do whatever they want or don't want to do in terms of bringing up their young children in the church or preparing for a career in full-time Christian service since it will all be wasted effort once Jesus comes in a year or less.

Note that from the above comments we can see the same two perversions of NT teachings today regarding the end-times as were present in the ancient church. Liberal theologians teach that these passages really mean that when we believe Christ's words, then the day of the Lord has come into our hearts, and obviously we shouldn't expect any further coming at all. On the other hand, I have talked to more fundamentalist Christians who have read a few current prophecy books and are convinced that they can know the time of Christ's reappearing. One of them even told me that although Jesus warned that we couldn't predict the day of his coming, that didn't mean that we couldn't narrow it down to a specific period of a few months. Of course, I pointed out to him that Acts 1:7 clearly states that we aren't even to know the times or seasons.

 

GENESIS 50:19

 This verse, which comes at the finale of Genesis, has Joseph saying to his brothers who are afraid he will kill them now that their father is dead, “Fear not, for am I in the place of God?” (RSV)

Other translations render this question in pretty much the same manner:

    “I can't put myself in the place of God.” (TEV)

    “Is it for me to put myself in God's place?” (JB)

    “Do I act for God?” (The Message)

    “Am I God to judge and punish you?” (The Living Bible)

Our pastor recently pointed out in a sermon that this statement stands in stark contrast to the first couple Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 who ate of the Tree of Good and Evil, thinking that action would make them equal to God. So these two episodes act as bookends to the whole book of Genesis and hold out hope that at least one of Adam and Eve's descendants has learned his proper place in the overall scheme of things. Below are a few additional comments regarding Joseph's rhetorical question.

Our pastor was probably alluding to the idea of Dahlberg, also echoed by Victor Hamilton, who goes on to point out, “Such comparisons, among others, again are illustrative of the literary artistry throughout this first book in the Bible.”

“Since they had just spoken of themselves as God's slaves (v. 17; translated in the NRSV as servants), their description here as Joseph's slaves implicitly equates him with God. Echoing his father's words to Rachel (30.2), Joseph rejects this equation, attributing his dominion over his brothers as resulting from God's plan for him to provide for them.” (Carr)

Kaiser says, “Joseph was taught to acknowledge and revere God's providence in his circumstances. He taught his brothers to share these same truths. They and we are to view God's hand not only in his goodness and mercy to us, but in our afflictions and trials as well.”

Payne: “Joseph's question, 'am I in the place of God' does not of course deny that he had the power of life or death; his point was that when God had shown so clearly His loving and saving purposes could he, Joseph, thwart them by any attack on his brothers? It was rather his duty to provide for the whole family, putting past wrongs out of mind.”

“Their great fear led them to attempt to deceive Joseph into thinking that Jacob had left this request [to spare them from Joseph's wrath]. The impact of the request reduced Joseph to tears...The sovereign plan of God, designed to save many people alive, in some way incorporated the evil of the brothers and used it as the means of bringing about the good. On the basis of his confidence in the ways of the Lord, Joseph was able to comfort his brothers and relieve their fears.” (Ross)

As Wenham puts it: “It is not just the great overarching theme of the Pentateuch that this section relates to, but to the Joseph story in particular, that unhappy tale of disastrous sibling rivalry, which was only resolved through the overruling of divine providence and Joseph's magnanimity.”

I have a personal story to share in which I, for probably the only time in my life, had the opportunity to act somewhat like Joseph and attempted to follow his example. I started work as a research chemist at the same time as another chemist (I will call him Jim) who was quite competitive. About a year later, my team leader and I came up with a research idea and decided to present it to Jim to see if he wanted to be a co-inventor with us since it fell more into his line of inquiry than ours. We presented the idea to Jim for comment near the end of a work day, but he said that the idea would not work and he was not in the least interested. So the next morning, my team leader and I wrote the idea up and submitted it through proper channels, only to be informed that Jim and his lab mate had written up the identical idea soon after we had left him and submitted it the following morning a few hours before we did. Our supervisor was told about it and was livid. He told me that he believed my story since he knew I was a Christian. In any other company Jim would have been fired on the spot or at least harshly disciplined, but in our company one simply did not make waves.

A number of years passed, and both Jim and I got transferred to another division of the company where eventually I got promoted and became Jim's immediate supervisor. He quite obviously was not at all happy with that situation, but there was no open conflict between us. Then we had a change of management in which it became necessary for every research project to have an internal sponsor within the business branches of the company. Jim had been used to doing his own thing, whether it directly served an immediate business goal or not. But under these changed conditions, I knew his job was vulnerable unless he and I could come up with a corporate sponsor. He suggested a particular project which I thought had a good chance of being paid for by one of our internal business entities, and both of us made a trip to another one of our labs to investigate if it was feasible. It appeared to be, and I told him to write up a proposal that could be presented for possible funding.

At that point, he surprised me by saying that he had no intention taking on that project himself because it didn't really interest him. The upshot was that when the inevitable cuts in manpower were dictated by upper management, Jim could find no one in the business area who was willing to sponsor him, and he was laid off. Again, surprisingly, rather than just quietly leaving, he asked me if I could host a going-away party for him, the way we usually did for retiring employees. That way he could save face with his co-workers and family. I did the best I could, and he departed.

He readily got employment with another chemical company and stayed there until ready for his full retirement. I myself retired soon afterward and we both occasionally met at a regular retiree's luncheon held in the area. After one of these meetings, he even went out of his way to walk with me to my car and chat awhile. It was obvious that he no longer feared any retribution from me. And he may have even learned more by the experience because I found out that he had become a loyal church attender as well.

As Joseph and his family learned, God certainly does work in mysterious ways (That expression, by the way, occurs nowhere in the Bible).

COLOSSIANS 4:7-17

These verses constitute the final greetings of Paul's letter. As such, they might be expected to yield little theological importance or other food for thought. However, there are a few gems hidden in these verses which are worth exploring. The first thing to point out is the way these eleven verses are bound together by an equal number of repeated words and related concepts. I have graphed them visually below:

                                           Figure 1: Repetition in Colossians 4:4-17

1. make known to you about me (7a)

        2. beloved brother (7b)

                3. faithful (7c)

                        4. minister (7d)

                                5. slave (7e)

                                        6. in the Lord (7e)

1'. make known concerning us (8a)

                                                7. comfort you (8b)

                3. faithful (9a)

        2'. beloved brother (9b)

                                                        8. one of you (9c)

1''. make known to you (9d)

                                                7'. comfort (11)

                                                            8'. one of you (12a)

                                5'. slave (12b)

            2''. beloved physician (14)

            2'''. brothers (15)

                            4'. ministry (17a)

                                             6'. in the Lord (17b)

As you can see above there is a certain degree of symmetry concerning these key words so that (a) items 2-6 appear at the start and end of this passage and (b) 7 and 8 are concentrated within verses 8-12 near the center. In addition to the vocabulary highlighted in Figure 1, the phrase “greet(s) you” appears four times in vv. 10-14, and “read” is found three times within v. 16. This is obviously more than a mere random listing of people who are to be greeted.

Colossians 4:7

Barth and Blanke address the phrase 'concern me' in the following way: “The Greek expression ta kat eme (literally: that according to me) is a customary formula. In Phil 1:12, it is used in a context similar to the one in Col[ossians]. Here, Paul introduces with these words the details of how his captivity has served the advancement of the gospel. Here in Col, he presumably has something similar in mind. The information will reach the Colossians through Tychicus, the conveyor of the epistle.” From this we can deduce Paul was not concerned about his own welfare in prison, but just in the manner God had used his circumstances to reach others for the Gospel.

Colossians 4:7-8 There is a very close correspondence between these verses and Ephesians 6:21-22, with a number of words in exact agreement. “It certainly suggests that the author of [Colossians] copied from [Ephesians.] It is very possible that both epistles were written at the same time or that the author still had the first letter while he was penning the other. It may well be that if Paul were the author of both epistles, as is argued in this commentary, Tychicus took both letters with him when he went to Asia Minor.” (Hoehner) From that comment, you may be surprised to learn that there is even the slightest doubt concerning Pauline authorship; but if so, you are probably not very well acquainted with liberal biblical scholarship.

Colossians 4:9

“Paul urged the church to accept Onesimus. This became a test case for the instructions Paul issued regarding slaves and masters (3:22-4:1) and of whether Christianity could triumph over social and economic distinctions.” (Melick)

Colossians 4:10-11

Seitz says, “Mark is presumably the John Mark of the checkered career we read about in Acts 12:24-25 and 15:37-39. A reconciliation has presumably taken place (2 Tim. 4:11). He ends up with a ministry in Rome according to 1 Pet. 5:13. Mark may well have written his gospel in Rome. Should he pass through Colossae, they are to greet him warmly and receive him.” This favorable mention of Mark helps us flesh out the details of his life and demonstrates not only the fact that God gives believers a second chance once they have fallen, but also shows Paul's forgiving nature.

Colossians 4:10-14 “Some have inferred from the listing of Luke's name separately from 'those of the circumcision' that Luke was a Gentile.” That may well be true, but D.L. Allen, in his book Lukan Authorship of Hebrews spends several pages discussing the various reasons against that common supposition.

Colossians 4:14 “In Col 4:14, Demas...is probably the same as the one named here [Philemon 24], and in Tim 4:10, where he is said to have deserted Paul.” It is reported by two early church leaders, Epiphanius and Photius of Constantinople, that he became a pagan priest. (Fitzmyer) This demonstrates that not all early Christian leaders remained “faithful” to the Gospel.

We can probably all point to Christian pastors who have abandoned the ministry for one reason or another, and sometimes went in the completely opposite direction. I can personally cite six such examples just in the few churches I have attended over the years. We need to keep in mind how stressful and filled with temptation such a position can be, and try to help our pastors rather than causing more difficulties for them than they already have.

Colossians 4:15-16

Seitz holds along with Sumney that v. 16 “provides the clearest evidence for the intentional distribution of Pauline letters beyond their original addresses.” Thus it begins the pattern in which those who take the Bible seriously today are encouraged to take writings originally intended for a relatively narrow audience and search for underlying principles that still have current applicability in our historical context.

Colossians 4:16 The early Reformation leader “Knox...argues strongly for the identification of [the Letter to] Philemon with 'the letter from Laodicea.'” (Orr and Walther). However, Maclean states that “some identify it with Ephesians”

We seem to all have a penchant for wanting to know everything revealed to or written by prominent biblical personages. But keep in mind the injunction against desiring to delve into hidden and secret things, and remember what John said toward the end of his Gospel: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30-31) Those were the primary goals that the inspired authors of the New Testament had in mind, not to “tickle our ears” with extraneous facts designed to put us in more in the know than those ignorant people around us.

Colossians 4:17

Concerning this verse, Barth and Blanke ask why Archippus was not addressed directly by Paul. They suggest that perhaps he wanted “to avoid the appearance of acting as a 'grand overseer'...Thus the instructions given to the community are intended to have the members teach and exhort each other to perform good deeds, based on his words in 3:16.” If that supposition is true, how different that attitude of Paul's was compared to those church pastors today who continuously engage in self-glorification and rule their congregations with an iron fist.

Conclusion

The above are only the tip of the iceberg as to the spiritual messages found in this passage of Scripture, even where we might least expect them.

 

A THEOLOGY OF PLAY

David Zahl recently wrote an interesting article in Christianity Today magazine. He titled it “Blessed are the Pickleball Players: Having fun might be the greatest testament to the gospel of God's grace.” Below are some quotes from that article as will as a few added comments.

“Much has been made of the decline of free play in the lives of American children...They certainly play less freely. Social psychologists like Jonathan Haidt link this decline to inversely high rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide among young people. The decline applies to adults as well...The decline of play is lamentable not just for its social consequences; it is also lamentable for what it signals about contemporary spiritual conditions. A life in which play is sparse is one in which joy is sparse. This alone ought to grieve believers who consider joy a fruit of the Spirit and a core aspect of the Christian life and God's character. More than that, Christians are bold enough to claim that God's fundamental disposition toward the world he created, as revealed in Christ, is one of grace.”

He next lists six traits which characterize play. These are: (1) It does not immediately serve our need to survive; it is an unnecessary activity; (2) It is voluntary and not simply required by external pressures; (3) It only occurs when our basic needs of life are satisfied; (4) It is done for its own sake, not for what it can accomplish; (5) It is relational in that it is generally done with others; and (6) It is transportive in that it takes you to a different sort of universe.

The Bible is not void of references to play. Zahl cites three examples, namely, II Samuel 6:14 in which David dances before the Lord when the ark at last enters Jerusalem; Zechariah 8:5, in which the prophet compares the building of the Second Temple to the picture of children playing in the streets; and Proverbs 8:30-31 describing Wisdom as “filled with delight, rejoicing always in the presence of God.”

And in the New Testament there is the example of Matthew 18:2-3 in which Jesus tells His audience that they must become like a little child. This statement has been taken in a number of different ways, but Zahl suggests that one interpretation may have been missed – we must have an attitude of childishness about ourselves and enjoy play as much as they do. “There is no becoming like a child that does not involve play.”

But to have such freedom in our own lives as Christians involves understanding the theology upon which play is based. For one thing, it partially boils down to a question of freedom. Zahl asks, “What would you do, what risk would you take, what would you say if you weren't afraid? What would you do if you truly believed your standing with God was secure, the ultimate threat of judgment was removed, and you didn't have to do anything? How would spend your time and energy if you could undertake something for the sheer joy of doing it rather than any outcome it might produce?”

The second theological aspect of play is based “on a robust view of the Holy Spirit...'The Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom,' writes Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:17. It is no coincidence that the images the Bible gives us for the Spirit – fire, water, wind – are united by their uncontrollability, spontaneity, and dynamism, three attributes that apply to play as well.”

In conclusion, Zahl reminds us that “work and play are not mutually exclusive categories. Adopting a playful attitude toward your work on behalf of others doesn't make that work any less urgent; it merely ensures you won't burn out at quickly. To serve others in a way that makes you small, that even brings delight, means you will serve your neighbor better. Like a child in a sandbox, you will take bigger risks if you believe eternity isn't at stake.”

Now for a few personal experiences to share, I will begin with a random encounter I had while an undergraduate at UCLA. I was walking through one of the large buildings there when I stopped to see what some workmen were doing. One of them came up to me and asked what career I was studying for, and I told him I wanted to be a research chemist. He just couldn't understand that since he told me I could make a lot more money if I became a medical doctor. My reply was, “But that wouldn't be nearly as much fun.”

I would have to say that my four years in graduate school and the first twenty years or so as a researcher for an oil firm were the most fun I can imagine anyone having while still being able to earn good money doing it. I managed to make my job fun for myself and even for others when I became a research manager. I won't go into all the creativity initiatives I began at work, but they paid off in a great increase in the number of patent suggestions generated by our lab as well as being enjoyed by our chemists and engineers who voluntarily attended the activities I staged at work even during lunch hour (including such things as an analysis of an early Walt Disney cartoon, coming up with research ideas by staring at two random slides superimposed on one another, and analyzing how Watson and Crick managed to come up with the structure of DNA after we viewed a Jeff Goldblum movie on the subject).

I have had just as much fun after retirement, first after resuming my very early interest in modern art. I didn't make a penny out of that hobby, and didn't intend to. But I did display some of my pieces in several shows and got a lot of enjoyment out of hearing what people said about my art when they didn't know that I was the eavesdropping artist nearby. Not surprisingly, those who seemed to enjoy these pieces the best were young children, who best appreciated the playful spirit in which they were created. Two of these works even made it to the permanent collection of an art museum in Texas, and the many others I made (before I ran out of room to keep them in my house) have been featured on some of my blog posts.

And the last fun “hobby” I have been pursuing is of course writing my blogs. They take me back to my days in research since each one requires canvassing the prior literature on the subject and then attempting to synthesize it together in at least the semblance of an orderly presentation. In conclusion, the greatest blessing on earth I could wish for any of you would be if you could have as much fun as I have had in my long and rather childish life.

DEUTERONOMY 29:29 REVISITED

This verse talks of the secret things of God being God's while the revealed things are given for our benefit. Of course, that immediately causes many of us to know what the nature of those secret things is. Six years ago I wrote a short post summarizing the opinions of several commentators regarding this passage. After repeating that post below, I would like to supplement it with some additional comments I have gleaned elsewhere.

The most obvious meaning to this verse is expressed by several scholars:

Andrew Hill: The word translated as hidden or secret may “refer to the residual mystery of the transcendent God, who is free to remain hidden (Job 34:29; Prov 25:2; Isa 45:15) or free to involve himself in his creation...Likewise, the secret things like wisdom belong to God (Deut 29:29; Job 28:21). This contributes to the suddenness of human destiny and purpose in life (Job 3:23), making divine revelation all the more essential (Ps 119:19).”

R. K. Harrison: “Certain matters of eternal significance belong to God alone, while others are revealed to men. The law has been given for the obedience of Israel, and if the kingdom is sought in this way, everything else needful will be added (cf Mt. 6:33).”

Cousins: “God has revealed his law and his nature in the covenant (Much more, Christians would say, in the New Covenant.) God's people should attend to these and not hanker for knowledge of his hidden purposes.”

J. A. Thompson: “The secret things, i.e. things beyond man's knowledge, such as the future, are God's concern...Sufficient is revealed in Yahweh's covenant with Israel to provide her with a sure guide for living in the present and to this she is called. This is a salutary observation which is as relevant for the Christian community as it was for Israel.” In this regard, we should keep in mind the lesson of Job 38-41. If we can't even comprehend all the secrets of the natural world, how can we expect to understand God's nature and plans?

Craigie treats the context as the previous verses. “That is to say, one thing was certain and revealed, namely, the words of the law...It would be presumptuous of man to assume that in revelation he has been given total knowledge of God.”

Others have attempted to get more specific in determining what the secret things are:

Mayes: “The secret things are usually understood as a reference to the future which only God can know...what lies in the future, whether a continuation of the present conditions or a happy restoration, should not be the object of speculation. It lies in God's hands.”

Levinson: They are “concealed acts that God will punish (vv. 18-19), or future events. More likely, the antithesis with revealed rejects religions of esoteric speculation that restrict access to truth to a learned few. Torah, based upon a public revelation (ch 5) and Mosaic instruction (chs 12-26), is accessible to all.” Although I would certainly agree with Levinson's last sentence, the two explanations he gives do not have much to recommend them in my mind. How can concealed sins of others be the secret things of God? And proposing that the Jews would encounter esoteric religions in Canaan such as the much later Gnostics rests on a thin historical basis and falls into the category of speculation itself.

Beale and Gladd (Hidden But Now Revealed) present the most elaborately reasoned thesis concerning this verse, treating the previous verses 22-28 as the context. That passage can be interpreted to say, in marked contrast to other future scenarios present in the OT prophets, that the Jews will reject God and only be restored after the Gentiles have come to salvation.

This hidden truth is only revealed much later and explained by Paul in Romans 11:25-27. Thus, “Paul has experienced the resolution to the Deuteronomic secret or 'mystery'; indeed, the first to be saved in the eschaton [last days] were Jews in Jerusalem and Judea, and then the Jewish Christian witness went out to the Gentiles resulting in their salvation.” But for the rest of this age, the order will be reversed.

As evidence pointing to this interpretation, Beale and Gladd note that:

    (a) Later Jewish writings actually explained Deuteronomy 29:29 in much the same manner.

    (b) The Greek phrases “kept secret” and “revealed” found at the end of Romans (at 16:25-26) are either the same or synonymous with those found in the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 29:29.

Lastly, the intended immediate context for v. 29 bears a little consideration. As mentioned above, Craigie says that it is the previous verses while Mayes and others associate this verse with 30:11-14 rather than with what precedes it. Thus, they feel that 29:29 and 30:11-14 actually serve as a framework to the intervening verses. Beale and Gladd agree with both these views in that 29a harks back to verses 22-28 and 29b connects to 30:1-10.

So much for my earlier analysis. I turned next to some additional scholarly resources in my home library to come up with the following:

Two anonymous contributors to Dictionary of Biblical Imagery add these comments:

“Parents are responsible to teach their children of God's justice, both his judgment and his mercy. Admonitions to 'train up a child in the way he should go' are many (Deut 4:9-10; 6:7; 29:29; 30:2; 31:13; 32:46, etc).”

“God is hidden from human knowledge except by revelation...to those able to receive it. God's 'marvelous work' is hidden from 'the understanding of [the] prudent' (Is 29:14 KJV)...Earlier, Isaiah spoke of new revelation in his time from the treasury of 'hidden things' (Is 48:6), and Deuteronomy 29:29 distinguished between what had been revealed and what was still secret.”

Watts says, “The high point of the first exodus was Yahweh's self-revelation through his word (Deut. 30:11-14), near enough for all Israel to hear and see (Deut. 29:29). Christologically for Mark [in Mark 3:4], God's presence and his Torah are now embodied in Jesus (as John 1:14 will later so memorably put it, 'the Word became flesh').”

“Uncritical acceptance of messages because they were received in a supernormal experience is unwise. Problems also occur when people demand special knowledge or answers from God. These are 'secret things' that belong to God (Deut 29:29). Divination and magic are attempts to gain knowledge and control that God declares are not needed. When things do not make sense or the future looks anxiously uncertain, divination and magic are tempting rivals to trusting God.” (O'Mathuna) This is an important point to remember since many of us would much rather live by sight rather than by faith. And such people do not necessarily have to go all the way to turning to magic. Instead they are much more likely to trusting in popular podcasts or the proclamations of self-proclaimed prophecy experts to hang their assurance on.

Speaking of popular sources on the Internet, lastly I decided to take a sampling of what people posting on it felt. And for once, I was pleasantly surprised with what Google AI had to say on Deuteronomy 29:29. It (or should I say they, he, or she?) felt that this verse “distinguishes between God's hidden, sovereign knowledge and the truths He has revealed to humanity for obedience. It teaches humility, encouraging trust in God for unknown mysteries while focusing on applying revealed scripture.” 

Another popular site is Bible Hub, which collects the comments mainly of scholars from an earlier generation. Below are samplings from that source:

“Must not Moses have longed to know what would befall his people in the latter days? and if we ourselves, 'upon whom the ends of the world are come,' do not yet see the future of Israel distinctly, are not the words appropriate still?” (Elliott)

“We are forbidden curiously to inquire into the secret counsels of God, and to determine concerning them. But we are directed and encouraged, diligently to seek into that which God has made known. He has kept back nothing that is profitable for us, but only that of which it is good for us to be ignorant. The end of all Divine revelation is, not to furnish curious subjects of speculation and discourse, but that we may do all the words of this law, and be blessed in our deed.” (Matthew Henry)

"Those who give the answer close their address with an expression of pious submission and solemn admonition. 'That which is hidden belongs to the Lord our God (is His affair), and that which is revealed belongs to us and our children for ever, to do (that we may do) all the words of this law.' That which is revealed includes the law with its promises and threats; consequently that which is hidden can only refer to the mode in which God will carry out in the future His counsel and will, which He has revealed in the law, and complete His work of salvation notwithstanding the apostasy of the people.” (Keil and Delitzsch) 

Despite the sometimes old fashioned and stilted language in which such sentiments are expressed, commentators such as these are generally to be trusted to stay rather close to the intended meaning of the text and not engage in much undue speculation.

 

 

HOW MUCH IS JESUS WORTH TO YOU?

This is a question Luke Geraty asks in a recent article in which he summarizes the main points in Craig Keener's book Suffering. To answer this question, he turns to Scripture and comes up with the following things which Jesus should be valued above:

Job Security (Matthew 4:18-22)

This is the passage in which Jesus tells some of the apostles to leave their nets to follow him, which they do. However, to be fair they did not at all abandon their job security permanently. Remember that at the end of the Gospel story we find them again with their boats and nets, which had probably been left with a trusted party to take charge of for whatever time they happened to be gone.

Contrast this story with the earlier story of Elisha's call by Elijah to follow him (see I Kings 19:19-21). In that case, Elisha actually butchered his yoke of oxen and roasted them on a fire made from his wooden yokes and plow. Now that was a case of someone truly following God's calling unconditionally by burning his bridges (or oxen and plow) behind him.

Residential Security (Luke 9:57-58)

I am acquainted with several missionaries who moved from one place to another during their lives in order to serve God wherever He might lead them. And when they finally retired, and some haven't done so yet, they realized that they had neither built up any equity on a house nor have enough savings to let them retire in relative comfort except in a group setting of some sort. I thoroughly admire such dedicated Christians, and they deserve any financial support the rest of us are able give them, even after they have officially retired.

Financial Security (Matthew 19:21)

Overman says regarding this passage, “This hard word provides a glimpse into the difficult and austere life of the first followers of Jesus (6.24; 10.8-11).” As such, one could ask if the same hard conditions apply to believers today. Certainly in some countries it does, whereas in others like our own it may actually be to one's financial advantage to proclaim yourself as a believer. I know in my own case it happened to pose no barrier at all to my advancement in a company. That changed situation is actually somewhat unfortunate since it gives rise to those claiming to be Christians merely as a pretense to making more financial contacts. I have attended two congregations where that was clearly demonstrated to be the case.

At one evening gathering of a home Bible study group I was visiting for the first time, I tried to break into a circle of men who were each discussing their various grandiose business opportunities. When one of the men at last turned to me and asked me what I did for a career, I answered that I was a research chemist. That man (who later became an elder in the church) loudly pronounced sarcastically to the group, “Great, a chemist! Just what we needed!” And the circle closed promptly closed me out.

And while in another congregation, one of the elders there showed up on our doorstep on a Saturday morning and introduced himself. I will admit that I was at first impressed that the elders actually took the time to do house visits. However, very soon it became obvious that all he wanted to do was sell me some life insurance. He left not long afterward when I told him I was not interested.

Family Ties (Matthew 10:37; Luke 9:61-62;14:26)

Matthew's version has Jesus condemning anyone who loves his earthly family more than they do God. Luke in 14:26 expresses this same idea in a more powerful way by saying one must hate his family, but that is usually explained as being a Hebraic way of saying the same thing as in Matthew's wording.

Luke 9:61-62 has Jesus saying in effect to the second prospective disciple 'I expect more from you than Elijah asked of Elisha (I Kings 19:19-21)'.” We know this is in Jesus' mind by the coupling of references to a plow in the context of a calling by God. Thus, we see two different usages of the same Elisha story, one in which Elisha goes further than expected of the Apostles and one in which Elisha does not go far enough.

Craddock has an interesting insight regarding this general teaching of Jesus. He states, “The radicality of Jesus' words lies in his claim to priority over the best, not the worst, of human relationships. Jesus never said to choose him over the devil but to choose him over the family. And the remarkable thing is that those who have done so have been freed from possession and worship of family and have found the distance necessary to love them.”

Social Obligations (Luke 9:59)

On the surface this word of Jesus to a man who expressed an interest in following Him appears to be rather harsh since He won't even give the man enough time to bury his father. But that is not the whole story, as commentators such as Soards explain: “From the statement that follows (v. 60), the man's father was almost certainly not yet dead; rather, the man used this responsibility to procrastinate complete commitment to discipleship.”

One fellow chemist of my acquaintance I knew years ago began pontificating on the various stages in every man's life. As I recall his analysis, it included first an overwhelming interest in sex followed by a preoccupation with sports. Then when one was too old for much involvement in either, one turned finally to religion. I often wondered if he ever arrived at that final stage before his death or whether he had added to his list several more items before getting around to it.

Life Itself (Matthew 10:38)

In this passage, Jesus tells the Apostles that they should take up their cross and follow him. One thing Hendricksen is at pains to point out is that it certainly cannot be used in any way to equate Jesus' unique sacrifice of his very life with any cross that we may be called to bear. Then he goes on to explain more fully what Jesus' words really imply: “In the light of full biblical revelation cross-bearing, applied to the believer, can have only one meaning, namely, submissively and in a sense even joyfully 'bearing his [Christ's] reproach' (Heb. 13:13; cf. Acts 5:4). This is true of those who, come what may, follow where he leads, trust in his redeeming blood, reflect his mind (John 13:15; II Cor. 8:7, 9; Eph. 4:32-5:41; Phil. 2:5; I Peter 2:21); and proclaim him.”

My one major additional caveat to Keener's analysis, at least as summarized by Geraty, is that it may be argued that it is not fair to apply the above teachings of Jesus to all believers today since in their original contexts these words were addressed only to (a) the Twelve Apostles, who had a unique mission to carry out or (b) a few individuals whom Jesus knew were not yet ready to meet the harsh conditions of such a mission themselves and needed a powerful reality check.

HEBREWS 5:11-14

For most Bible scholars this chapter is of interest solely because of the way the author deals with the Old Testament story of the mysterious character of Melchizedek. He appears again in Chapter 7, and I have already written a post concerning the way Hebrews treats him as a type of Christ (see “Hebrews 7”). But at the end of Hebrews 5 there are a few verses which are often ignored entirely. I would like to correct that omission.

After introducing the topic of Christ as “a high priest after the order of Melchizedek (v. 10),” the author stops before continuing his analogy in order to address “the spiritual immaturity of his readers,” to quote Metzger.

Hebrews 5:11

Bruce notes that the author will return to the subject of Melchizedek “in Ch. 7:1ff, but first he turns aside (as he has done before [cf. Heb. 3:7ff]) to address some words of practical admonition to his readers' spiritual condition.” As Hawthorne says, “he feels compelled to postpone it until first he has stirred them out of their lethargy. From this it is clear that the problem Hebrews is attempting to resolve is the problem of inactivity, of not persevering, of dullness and spiritual immaturity.”

The phrase “'hard to explain' may tactfully imply 'teaching difficult in itself and therefore doubly difficult for you to understand in your present state.'” (Ellingworth)

Stibbs states, “The whole subject...is difficult to expound to these particular readers because, although they are Christians of long standing, they have become slack and backward in their response to the God-given Word.”

Hebrews 5:12

“For many sects of Judaism and Christianity, there was a certain length of time allowed for moving from one degree of initiation to another...No time is indicated for the training required for the readers of Hebrews, but, in the author's judgment, they were slow learners and had already taken a longer time than was customary...Those who continued mulling over elementary subjects were not yet weaned, academically.” (Buchanan)

Ellingworth explains the words here apparently implying that any of his audience should be capable of teaching. He says that “there is the conviction, widespread in the hellenistic world, that any mature person should be able to teach others.”

Hebrews 5:12-14

Kittridge says, “Common in Hellenistic rhetoric, the comparison between milk as rudimentary teaching and solid food as more advanced teaching is used to encourage the community to move beyond basic teachings (cf. Cor 3:12).”

Allen states, “5:12-14 furnishes a strong parallel with 1 Cor 3:13 both in vocabulary (with the repetition of the words 'babble,' 'milk,' and 'perfect'), and in the concept of spiritual immaturity.” He goes on later in his commentary to say, “This passage is replete with medical and physiological terms,” of which he cites nine specific examples.

As an aside, Delitzsch years ago detected medical language in these particular verses, pointing to Luke as the possible author of this anonymous epistle.

Hebrews 5:13a

The Jerusalem Bible footnotes this verse with the comment: “'The doctrine of righteousness' like 'God's oracles' can mean either the O.T., cf 2 Tim 3:16, or the whole body of doctrine. Here it seems to mean all that Christ taught about the righteousness of God as applied to mankind, Rm 3:21-26, and especially about his own priesthood of mediation, prefigured by Melchizedek, the 'king of righteousness', 7:2.”

“The term 'the word of righteousness' found in Hebrews 5:13 is best understood in the light of Polycarp's exhortation to obey 'the word of righteousness' by following the example of the martyr's endurance...If this is the case, the readers of Hebrews were described as 'unskilled in the word of righteousness' because they had forgotten how to endure persecution for the sake of Christ.” (Kruse)

Hebrews 5:13b

Concerning the last half of this verse, NEB notes that an alternative to describing his audience as not knowing what is right is to say that they are “incompetent to speak of what is right.”

Hebrews 5:13-14

Their sluggishness slowed itself in a disposition to settle down at the point which they had reached..; the intellect is not over-ready to entertain an idea that the heart finds unpalatable.” (Bruce)

Hodges goes on to say, “It is not so much that a spiritual 'infant' lacks information – though at first he obviously does – but rather that he has not yet learned to put 'the teaching about righteousness' to effective use. He lacks the skill which goes with maturity and which results in the ability to make appropriate moral choices.”

 

THE KEY THEME IN 2 JOHN

 

The key theme in 2 John

As is usual in John's writings, he often circles around and repeats the same vocabulary over and over in various contexts. For that reason it is often extremely difficult to definitively divide any portion of his writings into individual paragraphs. So without going into too much detail regarding how this short letter is organized, there is one fact that appears to clearly stand out. Three key theological words which may or may not be related to one another appear only in certain groupings of verses. These are:

    “truth” (aletheia) – five times in vv. 1-4,

    “commandment” (entole) – three times in vv. 5-6,

     “doctrine” (didache) – three times in vv. 9-10.

Below is a short study investigating the differences and overlaps between the three original Greek words used in the short letter, as explained by different commentators.

W.E. Vine

“Aletheia, truth, is used (a) objectively, signifying the reality lying at the basis of an appearance; the manifested, veritable essence of a matter..; especially of Christian doctrine...the true teaching of the Gospel, in contrast to perversions of it.”

“Entole...denotes, in general, an injunction, charge, precept, commandment...and is used of moral and religious precepts...it is frequent in the Gospels, especially that of John, and in his Epistles.”

“Didache...denotes teaching, either (a) that which is taught...or (b) the act of teaching, instruction.”

Woodbridge

“John uses 'truth' to refer to genuineness, the opposite of falsehood, but also to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, which can be understood only by disciples through faith...Truth, when accepted, makes an impact on the believer's life and is never merely theoretical...Outside Paul and John's Gospel, the term 'truth' appears infrequently, except in the Johannine epistles. Here the usage is similar to that in the fourth Gospel, with particular emphasis on the behavior of the believer.”

Dictionary of New Testament Theology

“R. Bultmann and C.H. Dodd argue that John sees truth primarily as reality in contrast to falsehood or appearance...Other writers...underline instances in John where aletheia may possible mean faithfulness...”

“In [the Gospel of] Jn. entole and the plur. entolai and the vb. entellomai are used virtually exclusively in relation to the only Son, the revealer...The use of the terms in the Johannine epistles is essentially the same as in Jn...However, there are significant formal differences which are also significant for interpretation. In the letters it is no longer the Son himself who proclaims the commandment. Instead, there are discussions and meditations on the commandment of God or Jesus. In contrast with the gospel, the discussion is often about the 'commandment of God' or 'the Father', giving the impression that the writer is thinking simply of the command to love in the gospel.”

“Here [in Acts] didache is used for the early Christian preaching, and appears in a variety of phrases...all these expressions, in the mind of Luke, denote the testimony of the apostles to Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 1:21)...John's use of didache in Jn. 7:16f (cf. 18:19) points in the same direction. The Johannine message in the mouth of Jesus is described as teaching which comes from the Father. This message of “Jesus” becomes in 2 Jn. 9f. the didache Iesou Christou, but the content of both is identical.”

Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Development

“The word commandment (entole) is figured prominently in both 1 John and 2 John.., and in every case it appears that the commandments of God rather than Jesus are intended...The new commandment is specifically identified in 2 John 5 in terms of loving one another...and the 'truth' is centered in the gospel of Jesus Christ who truly came in the flesh (2 Jn 7-11)...John circles back to love here [i.e. vv. 5-6] because he wants to emphasize that love is the central feature in keeping the commandments. Love can never be separated from observing the moral norms...”

“In these letters certain behavior is required of believers who claim to 'be in the truth' (1 Jn 1:8),' know the truth' (2 Jn 1-2) or 'walk in the truth' (2 Jn 4; 3 Jn 3-4)...They must not hate their fellow believers (1 Jn 2:8-11; 4:2) but instead love them with their actions. They must not deny that Jesus is the Messiah (1 Jn 2:20-22) and that he came in the flesh (1 Jn 4:1-3; cf. 2 Jn 7).” All of these are vital doctrinal statements.

F.F. Bruce

“This language [in 2 John 2] is reminiscent of the words in which our Lord promises His spirit to the disciples in the upper room...(John 14.17). There is nothing surprising if what is said of the Spirit in one place is said of 'the truth' in another place...It is through 'the Spirit of truth' that He who is Truth incarnate dwells perpetually in and with His people.”

Concerning v. 4, Bruce says, “Since there is no definite article before 'truth' it may be held that 'walking in truth' here means simply 'conducting themselves in all sincerity,' whereas the article would point to the embodiment of truth in Christ..; if they conducted themselves in sincerity, they conducted themselves as befits followers of Christ and since their conduct was in accordance with the 'commandment' given them by the Father, it was as much 'walking in love' as 'walking in truth'...”

“The apostolic teaching [i.e., doctrine] could be called 'the teaching of Christ' either because it is the teaching which derives from Christ and is vested with His authority or because it is the authoritative and true teaching about Christ...”

Grayston

In vv. 1-3, 'truth means the proper religious way to believe, which is in fact to exercise love...This initial emphasis on truth, taken up in v. 4 is less to do with orthodoxy than orthopraxy [i.e. proper behavior]...Following the truth (v. 4) has the same meaning as 'follow his commandments' in v. 6.; and truth means the proper way to live.” Doctrine “in modern usage inevitably suggests a formulated christology and implies an objective genitive (teaching about Christ). But the genitive could equally be subjective (teaching given by Christ), referring to Christ's teaching about love both by his words and his actions.”

Akin

“'Walking in the truth' indicates that truth is both what we believe and how we live.” Regarding v. 6, he states, “If John is focusing upon the believer's relationship to the Father, we prove our love by obeying him (cf. 1 John 5:3). If our brothers and sisters in Christ are intended, we show our love for them by keeping God's commandments (cf. 1 John 5:2). It seems best to combine the two options... Commandments represent the broader requirements and expectations of God.”

Marshall

“Acceptance of the truth involves active love; where love is absent, it is a sign that the truth has not been accepted...Love means living according to the Father's commands...The reason why failure to abide in the true doctrine leads to loss of reward is now indicated [in v. 9]. The 'teaching of Christ' is the tradition about Christ taught by the elder himself and handed down by authoritative tradition in the church. 'Teaching' thus means 'orthodox teaching,' a phrase which the elder uses rather than 'the truth.'”

Thompson

“Truth includes matters of both faith and practice, and thus designates what Christians are to believe (v. 7; 1 Jn 4:2; 5:6) and how they are to live (vv. 5-6). Truth is the reality to which Christians are committed, and they are known by their commitment to it...The Elder goes on to explicate the truth by which they live in terms of the commandment to love each other (compare 1 Jn 3:32). In fact, love is to live in obedience to [God's] commands...The previous section (vv. 4-6) dealt with the moral aspect of truth; the present section [vv. 7-11] turns to the question of doctrinal truth and, specifically, true confession if it.”

From the above, one can readily see that we should not attempt to draw any hard and fast distinctions between the concepts of teaching, commandment, and doctrine since all three are quite tightly bound together, at least as far as John is concerned.

PITFALLS TO CHURCH TEACHING: PROBLEM STUDENTS

Pitfalls to Church Teaching: Problem Students

As if dealing with logistical issues and problem teachers in a church setting were not enough, there is still the problem caused by difficult class members. I will only mention the types I have personally run across since there are probably as many ways to disrupt a class as there are people in your church. Sometimes I have found ways to deal with such “problem children” successfully, which may prove helpful to any budding Bible teachers in my audience. By the way, quite often these class attenders may actually exhibit a combination of the behaviors described below.

Those with personality disorders

It would take a trained psychologist to adequately deal with any of these people who might find their way into your class. For example, there was one gentleman who attended our Sunday school class with his family for several years. As an amateur psychologist, I would diagnose him as having a bipolar disorder. Most of the time he just sat there staring at the pew ahead of him. However, for a few weeks in a row, he appeared to be quite excitable and was constantly interrupting the teacher by agreeing with him at the top of his voice or volunteering irrelevant information. Our regular teacher at last said to him, “Are you done talking so that I can get on with the lesson?” The man's reply was, “No, I can't tell you I am done talking.”

Well, the next week it was my turn to be a substitute teacher and, sure enough, I would express my opinion on a given verse of Scripture and he would pop up and begin agreeing with what I said in a quite excited manner. I said enthusiastically that I was so glad he agreed, and if he wanted to talk to me more after class we could have a discussion as long as he wished. Surprisingly, that seemed to quiet him down for the rest of the class, and at the end he had forgotten entirely about my offer.

Attention Seekers

There was one poor soul in our class who was not the sharpest mentally and also talked more slowly than anyone else I have even met. He was generally ignored by most of the other class members. He had a habit of interrupting the teacher and droning on and on about nothing much that was pertinent to the subject at hand. I tried an approach on him that seemed to work on similar people later on. I made sure that he was assigned to teach one of the lessons in the series we were conducting at the time. He stumbled through it trying vainly to get even the slightest idea communicated to the class and eventually sat down rather mortified at his own failure. There was hardly a peep out of him in class for over a year afterward, and it was accomplished without having to bawl him out openly or counsel him.

Monomaniacs

The same technique as above was quite successful in dealing with a man in our class who obviously came from a strongly Calvinistic background. If the concept of God's sovereignty was not mentioned at least a few times by the teacher each Sunday, he would interrupt him and point out that all-important doctrine to us each time, no matter what the subject of that week's lesson was. By assigning him to teach one week during the less-attended summer session when he couldn't do much harm, he realized how hard it was to stick to that one subject for a whole hour, especially when the Bible passage of the day did not easily lend itself to discussion of that topic. After barely making it though that one session, it was almost a full year before he mentioned his pet subject in class again.

By contrast, one of the members of our regular teaching team lost patience with this man during another session and bawled him out in front of the whole class. The unfortunate conclusion was that the man was utterly humiliated and he and his wife didn't show up again for almost a month. Also, the teacher who had acted in that maner was looked upon as a bully by many in our class.

Obnoxious Types

This description could fit a number of people I have encountered. One of them attended another church at which I was one of the leaders and was upset when his wife decided to attend ours instead. To address the situation, he tried several underhanded tricks, one of which eventually accomplished his goal:

He invited me to give a short devotional at his church. I prepared a 10-minute talk and showed up only to find out that it was their yearly find-raising dinner and I was the featured speaker at the event. I managed to escape unscathed but it is doubtful whether any of those in attendance felt they had received their money's worth. I am sure he got a good laugh out of it.

He once invited us to conduct our weekly Wednesday evening Bible study at his house, but just as our teacher began speaking, the doorbell rang and two Jehovah Witnesses walked in since they had been invited to show up that very evening by our host. Our teacher took them into another room while I had to substitute for him at the last minute.

Lastly, he convinced the elder in our small church (a friend of his) that his wife had been offended by the way my wife had treated her, which was not even remotely the case. Our elder was not swayed by our story, and we were forced to leave the church without comment to any of our friends there rather than cause a church split. In a much larger church, this sort of obnoxious person would have had a little more difficulty in accomplishing his goal.

Forceful Personalities

After living in the Northeast for years, I became quite accustomed to meeting people who would impress those from the more laid-back portions of our country as extremely rude. But I soon realized that it was just their usual way of expressing their opinions to others, and they were not at all trying to become argumentative. I have run across two of these sort in church settings in which I was a Sunday school teacher.

One such person joined the teaching team I was leading and seemed to want to take over the class entirely. He argued with almost every idea I came up with regarding the way we should deal with the coming semester. Most of the others on our team were afraid of talking back to him because they didn't want to make waves. But I had dealt with such people before so I just replied to this man's ideas in the same forceful manner, and he immediately backed down and meekly accepted my ideas without further comment.

At another church I filled in for two weeks as substitute teacher for a small Sunday school class. One of the class members immediately started peppering me with a series of test questions before I had even begun the lesson of the day. It turned out that he really wasn't interested in learning the answers; he just wanted to see if my answers agreed with his before trusting anything new I might have to say in my prepared lesson. He acted in the same way later by confronting me with a popular Christian book he had just read and gave me a copy for comment. Instead of being enthralled with this author's concepts as he hoped, I proceed with a litany of reasons as to why this author was all wet and gave him a copy of a much more trustworthy book on the same subject. After reading it, he admitted that he now saw the matter a lot more clearly.

Know-It-Alls

You will run into these personalities in practically every congregation. Often they have read one book on a particular subject and were so taken with it that they judge everyone else by whether or not they agree with it. For example, one woman in our class countered a detailed explanation I had just been presenting regarding the problems with a particular brand of eschatology. Her comment to the class was, “Well, that certainly isn't what Mr. X says!” In her mind, that settled the whole question without any further discussion needed.

In the same vein, years earlier I had been browsing in a Bible book store in our town when I overheard a customer talking to the sales clerk. She began telling the clerk all the wonderful truths contained in one of the books in the racks. The clerk gently reminded her that those truths really weren't in the Bible. The customer's reply was, “Well, I don't know much about the Bible, but you really should read what this author has to say.”

And at one congregation, I was in the middle of my lesson when a young visitor to the class stood up and began shouting, “I don't know how anyone who believes that can call himself a Christian!” He proceeded to march out of the class, never to return (thankfully).

At a third church I attended (By the way, I don't make it a habit to jump from one church to another. But over the years I have moved to different towns and have been forced to find a new one in each area.) the associate pastor started a new initiative whereby a mentor would pick one student at a time to instruct more fully on the Bible so that the student could then be capable of teaching independently. There is nothing at all wrong with that concept, but the problem in this particular case was in the man who volunteered to do all the mentoring. It turned out that he didn't even have a college education or really know much about the Bible. Since our pastor wanted me to teach some classes, he asked if I would mind first going though the new required “training” under this man. I dutifully agreed and met at this man's house weekly for about two months. I parroted back all the correct answers to the rather elementary lessons I was given until the final week when I decided to rebel a little bit. Instead of spitting back the expected answers, I told my “mentor” a more correct understanding accepted by most Bible scholars. He was so taken aback that he told our head pastor that I was totally unfit to teach in the church, an opinion which our pastor completely ignored.

After being similarly irate at a class taught by a friend of mine, this “mentor” left the church in a huff, as it turned out he was in the habit of doing on a practically yearly basis until he had pretty much run out of churches in the area to attend.

I will give only one more example, this time of a fellow chemist who worked for the same company as I did. He attended a special film series one of the members of our church brought to show on Sunday evenings. One of the episodes poked fun at scientists in a very unfair manner. My friend became so irate that he stopped attending church from that point on even though I tried vainly to explain to him that he shouldn't judge the whole church by one episode of one film series given in the evening to a small group since the church leaders probably had no concept of the content of that series.

When I saw that episode on a later occasion, I must admit that the series was not that well done or thought out and was quite demeaning toward all scientists. But I handled it by calmly pointing out to the discussion group I was in the flaws in its reasoning.

Note that several of the “know-it-alls” described above have a concomitant personality trait – they are easily offended.

Know-Nothings

That used to be the label of an early political group in America, but in this case it applies to those class members who are the exact opposite of the know-it-alls described above. These are people who are not used to thinking for themselves, but are quite willing to agree with whatever a teacher tells them. I encountered two such ladies in our Sunday school class who confronted me one Sunday after I had taught class that morning (It was a team-teaching situation). They told me that I shouldn't confuse them by giving them alternative understandings of a given subject or Bible passage. One of them (who was actually a college graduate) told me, “Don't give us more than one option; just tell us what to believe.” My reply was, “But what if I tell you one thing this week and another one of our teachers tells you something totally different next week?” Her simple reply was, “We will believe you this week and him next week.”

In other words, they had totally co-opted their right to think for themselves and were more than satisfied to follow like sheep.

To some extent this is a generational problem that is thankfully encountered less and less with time since women today tend to be more educated and better integrated into all levels of the work force than their mothers and grandmothers were.