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.

 

PITFALLS TO ADULT EDUCATION IN THE CHUCH: PROBLEM TEACHERS

Almost every congregation which offers adult Sunday school classes will have difficulty finding qualified teachers to conduct them. About the only exception to that rule is a tiny start-up church in which the pastor himself will likely take on that role. For many decades I have either taught such classes in a number of churches or attended adult Sunday school classes taught by others. From such experience, I would like to say that I have personally experienced just about every sort of mistake such teachers can make in conducting these classes, but I am sure that there are plenty of additional horror stories others could tell.

Let me start out describing the variety of such problem teachers (including myself) before going on to possible correctives to the situation.

The “spiritual” teacher We had one such self-appointed leader in our adult class who looked down on the rest of us as being totally beneath him in every way. On occasion he would deign to lower himself to our level and lead our class. But since the only preparation he bothered doing before class was to go into a private room with a like-minded friend and ask for guidance from God, it is no accident that every lesson was centered around his insights into life he received while gardening in his back yard that week. And then after a few weeks of that he decided not to cast his pearls among swine any further and just stopped showing up for class without any comment.

The consensus “teacher” Rightly speaking, such a person is not a teacher at all, but merely a moderator. Such an approach to teaching adults is not bad in itself because it encourages class members to add their own insights into an overall discussion. But discussions in Sunday school need some sort of control over them or they can run amok quickly. Therefore they must always be prefaced by the teacher first setting the scene and clearing up any vital points regarding the Bible passage such as its genre, dating, author, intended audience, translation issues, and setting within the biblical book in question. It is only with that sort of background that any intelligent discussion can start taking place. And certain passages pose so many difficulties that there may be little time left for audience participation.

Against that background, consider one Sunday school class I attended while looking for a church home. In the first place, the sole adult class available met in the large main auditorium but consisted of only six members. That was my first tip-off that something was drastically wrong, and I soon found out what it was.

The “teacher” told us what the passage for the day was, and so all seven of us turned to it in our Bibles. He then read the first verse, out of the King James Version of course, and turned to the first person in our pew asking, “What does that mean to you?” After that person's reply, he asked the same of each one of us in turn, while tabulating the results on a piece of paper. Then he would summarize the results by saying something like “Two of you voted for X as the meaning, three chose Y, and two picked Z.”

At that point, we were free to go on to verse 2 in the passage and repeat the same procedure.

I am afraid that I rebelled against this nonsense at one point by saying that each individual verse meant very little if it was considered alone in the absence of the immediate context, let alone the overall context. The “teacher” patiently explained to me that my approach broke all the rules he had set for his class and that I would have to abide by them. The obvious problems with a consensus approach to the Bible are that it often results in merely polling the ignorant and it results in coming to no conclusion whatsoever as to what the passage meant.

The teacher who thinks on a different plane from the rest of humanity From that title alone, it might seem as if I am again describing the “spiritual” teacher, but what I have in mind is a much rarer specimen. To explain, I co-taught with one man with whom I became good friends. But his thought processes were always quite strange to me; perhaps a psychologist could explain them. Like me of late, he just couldn't turn off his mind at night, and ideas kept whirling around in his head. But the problem was that he couldn't make rational sense out of them in the daytime.

For example, our teaching team usually had about two weeks to divide up teaching responsibilities for the new semester, and I would present them with the verses for each week as well as some notes on possible ways in which to approach each lesson along with appropriate resources to use. But this teacher wasn't at all concerned with any practical issues such as a looming deadline. Instead, he would start bringing up several ill-conceived ideas as to how each lesson should be totally coordinated with each other ahead of time so that we didn't contradict or confuse the class during our presentations. In addition, he wanted each teacher to prepare a detailed outline for each of the classes for which they were responsible along with appropriate discussion questions. These were to be handed in to him and he would compile it all into a small book to be given out at the start of the semester. He somehow expected this to be done in the next two weeks. I gently but firmly pointed out that this might possibly be accomplished in about two months time but all we had was two weeks.

And then when it came his turn to teach, his many quirks continued. In the first place, he rarely stuck to the verses he had been assigned since he always had problems with the previous speakers in our team who hadn't, in his mind, done a thorough enough job with their own assignments. So he would re-teach their class to correct misconceptions he felt needed correcting, leaving no time left for the verses he was supposed to be teaching.

In addition, he would break every rule in the book on how to lead a discussion. When posing a question of the class, he only had two modes. The first one was to play guessing games in which only he had the “correct” answer, which was usually so off-base that we couldn't have guessed the answer he wanted if we had been at it all day. Then when we failed that test, he told the class that it looked like he would have to lower his expectations for us in the future. He would then kick into his second mode – asking questions that were so blatantly obvious that no one wanted to bother answering them for fear of looking like teacher's pet. As one example, he would read a passage such as “God is love,” and then ask the class “What is God?”

One-note teachers Fortunately I never personally ran into this sort of teacher in any classes I co-taught or attended, but I know they are out there. For example, one person at our church was deeply involved in missions, and so he taught a small class for years on that same subject. Another class had as its sole subject the raising of children according to biblical principles. And a third one was designed as a basic introduction for those who had recently become Christians.

Actually, there is nothing at all wrong with any of these teaching concepts, and such classes can be very successful in accomplishing their individual goals. But note that each one of them is designed to instruct class members for a limited amount of time only before those members move on to classes which teach on a variety of necessary subjects. Thus, do you really need to attend a class on raising children for people after their children have grown up and left the nest? And how many years should one devote to the rather limited subject of missions before attending a class that will give you a better foundation in Bible understanding, without which mission and evangelism efforts will be fail?

Lastly, a class designed to give the basics of belief to a new believer is only helpful if it is in preparation for the members to take their place in a more general Sunday school class where they can participate along with the others on a more or less equal basis.

The teachers in these examples are obviously well intended; the failure lies in failing to recognize that once a group of church members bond together over a common concern, they become extremely reluctant to “leave the nest” and go out into the broader world.

Teachers who are bullies This is perhaps the worst possible type of Sunday school teacher. I have fortunately only encountered a few of them in my life. It often occurs when that teacher is also one of the pastors of the church since in that scenario he can act just about as obnoxiously as he wants without serious consequences to himself. For example, my wife and I visited a small country church which also doubled during the week as a “seminary” run by the pastor, who in addition taught the only adult Bible class on Sunday. One of his students asked a rather innocent question regarding a Bible passage only to be screamed at by the teacher-pastor who said, “You've been reading Catholic literature, haven't you!!!” The poor teenager hung his head in shame after weakly denying the accusation, and no one else dare ask another question. Sometimes, it must be admitted, there are problem members of a class who need occasional correcting, but that will be the subject of the third and last post of this series.

Cult leaders I have known of two occasions at the same church in which a particular Sunday school class went rogue due to its teacher and began to form a church-within-the-church. One such extreme example before I joined that congregation was led by a teacher who felt that the church needed to get back to all the Old Testament teachings and practice Jewish rituals. Then later when I had belonged to that congregation for some time, a Sunday school class for men only was begun by a man who was a management coach. He convinced the young married man in his class that they should take over leadership now and not wait until they got any older. That class caused absolute havoc in our congregation when our senior pastor turned in his resignation to pastor another church.

There are several other notable types of problem teachers, but that should give you a taste of what I mean. The real problem comes in when trying to eliminate such class “leaders,” or preferably avoiding the situation in the first place. That can be done by simply vetting potential teachers in advance. Thus, at one congregation I began as one of several teachers along with others who had been in the church longer than I had. Apparently I passed the test since I soon taught a class on my own.

At another church, I volunteered to teach a limited series of lessons in the evening on a particular subject. That time it was the pastor himself who attended the whole series before deciding that I didn't need a babysitter any longer. And later on two different occasions that same pastor asked me to be the one to check out church members who wanted to begin teaching a new class under the guise of possibly team-teaching with them. My opinion was a firm NO both times since one potential teacher had quite obvious heretical beliefs and the other one was only planning to use the class as an excuse to check out some half-baked sociological theories of his.

But on occasion one is stuck with a problem teacher and it is hard to get rid of him gracefully. That is why I strongly recommend whenever possible having multiple teachers for each class. It is a lot easier to gently shove a poor teacher aside by adding new people to the teaching team while assigning that person fewer and fewer sessions to teach. The use of team teaching is also an excellent way to test out potential new teachers by giving them one or two sessions to teach during the summer. Depending on how they do, they either can or won't be asked to rotate teaching assignments during the more populated sessions of the year.

PITFALLS TO ADULT EDUCATION IN THE CHURCH: LOGISTICAL PROBLEMS

Years ago I posted three short essays on the general subject of the various venues for teaching adults in the church. These may be found on this site under the titles “How to Lead Bible Discussions” and “Advice to Sunday School / Bible Study Teachers, Parts 1 and 2.” I would like to revisit this subject (and repeat a few of those observations and recommendations) in another short series of posts. I won't say that I am the world's expert on this subject, but I have learned a lot about what does and doesn't work after attending and teaching in a number of congregations over the years.

Back in the dark ages when I was first attending church with my parents, it was the general norm for a the opportunities for adult education at church to take the following pattern:

    One hour of Sunday school for both children and adults, with the adults divided by sex into two classes, one taught by the pastor and the other by the pastor's wife.

    One hour of worship containing a 20-minute sermon by the pastor, generally along topical lines.

    A two-hour Sunday evening service with a sermon taught by the pastor.

    A Wednesday night service led by the pastor which contained more teaching than preaching, with the Scripture passages read by volunteers in the audience.

You may see a certain trend here in that the pastor and his wife were the only ones felt to be competent to interpret the Bible for adults. And in practice, it turned out that all of the teaching opportunities above consisted more of preaching than actual Bible exposition.

Moving ahead in time a few decades, we now come to the point where most congregations have realized that new church buildings must be constructed with more space specifically designated for adult teaching. But as time went by, available land for construction became pricier and pricier, and so for many new congregations they just could not afford to purchase enough space for future growth and found themselves land-locked with little or no room for expansion.

That is partly why many modern church buildings today have been constructed with a large stage to put on special musical and dramatic events; separate rooms to accommodate a nursery and Sunday school classes for children through youth; and probably a separate kitchen to prepare, store, and serve food for social occasions. Generally, last on the list in terms of priorities are separate spaces in which adult classes can meet. I feel that it is this scenario which poses the greatest barrier to providing churches with the sort of Christian education which is sorely missing in many cases (although there are certainly others which I will address in subsequent posts).

There are many ways, enumerated below, in which congregations who have such limited space can deal with such a situation and still provide adults more opportunities for adequate training in the Scriptures.

    1. One common solution is to utilize the church auditorium itself for teaching space. I even attended on church for years who placed a high premium on adult teaching but who got by until they were able to expand their campus by putting up portable barriers to divide the auditorium into three different Sunday school classes. I taught in one of those situations and it worked out reasonably well except for the fact that those seated right next to a barrier could almost hear the neighboring class talking as well as their own teacher. And another problem was that those barriers had to be put up and taken down and the seats rearranged after every hour in order to allow for worship services to proceed.

    2. A second approach is to camp temporary air-conditioned and heated buildings or trailers on church property and use them for classes. One problem with such a makeshift solution is that such buildings are seldom designed for teaching purposes in mind, which makes it awkward to arrange chairs so that a speaker can face all the audience and the seating won't block the sole entrance and exit to the trailer. Another difficulty is that depending on the size of the church property, some of these off-buildings may be closer to the main auditorium and parking than others and cause disputes as to who gets the “best” ones. At one church I regularly attended and taught, our own teaching venue was periodically moved from one end of the campus to the other in order to give all of the adult classes an equal chance for a choice location. This caused endless confusion for the attenders of those classes who might go on vacation for two weeks and come back having no idea where their class had been moved.

    3. One additional solution is to build one giant building equipped with built-in movable floor-to-ceiling dividers which can be easily opened and closed to yield anything from one large teaching venue for special occasions to four separate classes all meeting at the same time. Such dividers do provide more sound barriers from class to class unless one class happens to be rather noisy. I remember conducting our own class in such a setting and beginning with a rather solemn and quiet time of prayer just the teacher in the neighboring class decided to tell a series of jokes to his class. It didn't do us any good in trying to set the proper mood.

Another bone of contention came in when we realized that the whole building had only a limited number of AC vents and one temperature controller located in our particular quarter of that building. Thus, as I was teaching one day, a member of the neighboring class opened the portable barrier separating us and went over to the controller in order to adjust the temperature so that it would be more comfortable for them, although not at all for us.

Also, as you might guess, each of the adjacent classes had to adhere to a strict schedule of starting and stopping at the same time to avoid interrupting each other's class at an inopportune time. And you can also imagine the chaos caused by those class members who inevitably came in late every week and had to walk through one class in order to get to the one they wanted.

    4. A fourth option is to devote Sunday morning to worship service only and provide adult teaching during another time-slot. There are an number of ways in which this can be done successfully. One is to devote Sunday evenings or mid-week to adult classes. A major problem with either possibility is what to do with any children since nursery services or separate classes for them must be also provided. This is of course doable but it is generally hard enough finding volunteers to do such duties on Sunday morning alone.

    5. A similar set of problems ensues when a related solution is employed, namely to only conduct special educational series on irregular occasions in the evening at the church so that if people want to attend they can make their own arrangements for babysitters in advance. Alternatively, providing paid babysitting at the church at such widely spaced intervals would be no great burden on a church's budget. And if money is no object to the congregation, then such evening classes can be conducted on a regular basis. At one church I attended, we went on for years offering three or four teaching options at the same time. The problem there is that generally there is a dearth of teaching talent within a given congregation (to be dealt with in a subsequent post).

    6. Continuing with options for providing adequate opportunities for Christian training within the church, one solution has been adopted by a number of congregations – home Bible studies. I have attended and taught in several of these over the years. The plus sides are many: it is a setting in which people tend to be much freer to ask the sort of questions that are really on their mind than in a more formal church setting; you get to become much closer to others in your congregation; it is sometimes easier to invite friends and neighbors to such a meeting than to a an actual church service; and you can pray more intelligently for one another's problems.

But the downsides are just as numerous. These include: it is generally harder to get people with busy schedules to commit to such extra time during the week; it only takes one “problem child” in the group to destroy it completely; it is hard to dig up adequate teachers for such regularly scheduled events; and often such groups devolve into mere gripe and gossip sessions without strong leadership to keep them to task.

    7. Lastly, by a process of elimination, some churches have resorted to the easiest solution of all. Instead of 20-minute sermons each concentrated on a particular subject perhaps correcting or heading off particular problem areas in the congregation or giving evangelistic appeals to the audience, an approach to the Sunday morning sermon giving has often been adopted which is not subject-orientated but concentrates on a verse-by-verse exposition of a discrete chunk of Scripture such as part or all of a given chapter. Such sermons are usually as part of a long series lasting anywhere from several months to a few years and covering a complete book of the Bible.

Such an expository approach has the advantages of continuity, much more complete coverage of all that is in the Bible rather than a piece-meal treatment of only selected passages, and it meets the needs of Bible knowledge training than a subject-oriented sermon does.

The disadvantages are just as great, however. The first is that the pastor must have enough time to present a careful interpretation of the meaning of each passage as well as finding an appropriate application lesson in it as well. Both goals can rarely be accomplished in less than an hour or 90 minutes. And if a pastor is going through, for example, the book of Romans, that means that his congregation will not get specific teaching regarding any other part of the Bible for several years at a time.

For those reasons, some churches have taken a combination approach in which either (a) the expository series can be interrupted for shorter subject-orientated sermons at important times in the church calendar appear (such as Christmas and Easter) or (b) the pastor does not feel compelled to cover all of a particular book of the Bible at one time, but can be somewhat selective as to which passages in it will be of most use to the congregation.

Other Logistical Problems

In addition to the above limitations of space and time, there a myriad of other more specific issues which can pose barriers to a teacher being able to adequately present what he or she wishes to convey during Sunday class time. I have personally encountered so many of them over my years of teaching that it was not unusual for me to have a variation of the nightmare well recognized by psychologists and called the Examination Dream. In that sort of dream, one shows up for a final exam only to search in vain for the right room in which the exam is being held; he realizes that he has misread the time of the exam and it is almost over; the exam is written in a foreign language; it covers material that was never part of the class curriculum; he forgot to put on clothes when leaving the class; etc. etc.

I had the same sort of nightmare only applied to the teacher instead of the class members, and often such nightmares came true in reality. For that reason, I always arrived quite early to church and made sure that any required audio-visual equipment was working well, I had a lectern large enough to accommodate my notes and my Bible, I came equipped with a hard copy of any lecture notes as well as overheads on a drive to plug into the projector, and had an extra battery in case the one on my pointer was dead. I found out through experience that every one of these precautions was necessary at one time or another.

Who knows what other problems one might unexpectedly encounter in trying to teach in a church setting? In one small church I attended, we rented our building on Sundays from the local Masons. But once a month that same building was rented by a Scandinavian social group on Saturday night for one of their periodic dinners. When we would arrive Sunday morning to set up chairs downstairs for Sunday school, it was not uncommon for us to have to air out the fishy smell of the room, clean up the glasses on the tables containing stale beer, and try to kill as many flies in the room as we could.

And it turns out that logistical problems are actually much easier to deal with than the other situations one might encounter in a teaching situation at church. They will be the subject of the next two posts.