MARK 4: ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURES

As one who has a fascination for the various forms of symmetrical arrangements of material found throughout the Bible, which can almost be looked upon as God's fingerprints, I find it interesting to come across a biblical passage in which many scholars see unmistakable marks of the sort of mirror-image parallelism called a chiasmus, or a chiasm.

Snodgrass reviews several such proposed chiasms for Mark 4, a chapter roughly centered around the parable of the sower and the seed. He first alludes to commentators who have suggested a five-part chiasm to this chapter. He himself sees a more elaborate seven-part symmetrical structure, as shown below:

                                             Figure 1: Snodgrass's Analysis of Mark 4

A. Narrative Introduction (4:1-2)

        B. A Seed Parable (4:3-9)

                C. General Statement on the Purpose of Parables (4:10-12)

                        D. Interpretation of the Sower (4:13-20)

                C'. General Statements Applied to Parables (4:21-25)

        B'. Two Seed Parables (4:26-32)

A'. Narrative Conclusion on the Use of Parables (4:33-34)

By contrast, my own early and even more detailed nine-part analysis is presented in Figure 2:

                                                       Figure 2: My Analysis of Mark 1

A. Many things taught in parables (4:1-2)

        B. Parable of the sower and seed (4:3-8)

                C. 'Let anyone with ears hear' (4:9)

                        D. Secret given to the disciples only (4:10-13)

                                E. Parable of the sower explained (4:14-20)

                        D'. Secrets revealed (4:21-22)

                C'. 'Let anyone with ears hear' (4:23-25)

        B'. Two parables of kingdom growth (4:26-32)

A'. Many such parables (4:33-34)

These two proposals are not quite as different as first appears since I chose to break out the same key phrase which appears in vv. 9 and 23-25 from the passages to which they were connected in order to highlight the reverse symmetry more strongly. However, at the same time I realize that there is an inclusio with the word “listen” in vv. 3 and 9 which ties my sections B and C together.

The first reality check on these alternative analyses (which we will refer to as 1 and 2, respectively) is to see where various English versions and commentaries chose to place their paragraph divisions:

vv. 1-2; 3-9; 10-12; 13-20; 21-23; 24-25; 26-29; 30-32; 33-34; 35-38; 39-40; 41 (TEV)

vv. 1-2; 3-9; 10-12; 13-20; 21-25; 26-29; 30-32; 33-34;...35-41 (NEB)

vv. 1-2; 3-9; 10-12; 13; 14-20; 21-25; 26-29; 30-32; 33-34 (Lane)

vv. 1-9; 10-12; 13-20; 21-23; 24-25; 26-29; 30-32; 33-34; 35-41 (JB)

vv. 1-9; 10-20; 21-25; 26-29; 30-32; 33-34; 35-41 (RSV, NRSV)

vv. 1-9; 10-12; 13-20; 21-25; 26-29; 30-32; 33-34; 35-41 (NIV)

vv. 1-9; 10-12; 13-25; 26-29; 30-32; 33-34; 35-41 (AB, Mann)

vv. 1-12; 13-20; 21-23; 24-25; 26-29; 30-32; 33; 35-41 (AB, Marcus)

From these data, (rejecting the outliers) one can roughly obtain the consensus below for the major divisions within the chapter::

vv. 1-2; 3-9; 10-12; 13-20; 21-25; 26-29; 30-32; 33-34; 35-41

Also,only the NEB and NRSV see a more major demarcation after v. 34, indication that the vast majority of scholars feel that verses 35-41 must be incorporated into the overall structure of this passage, which both Figures 1 and 2 fail to do.

Strengthening that view considerably is the fact that there are no less than four specific verbal parallels between vv. 1-2 and vv. 35-41, demonstrating without a doubt that the two passages, or at least parts of them, act as an inclusio (i.e. a pair of bookends) for the whole chapter. These key words are “crowd,” “boat, “sea,” and “teach(er).” So to fine-tune Structure 2 even more, I would amend it to the eleven-part one shown in Figure 3:

                                           Figure 3: Final Proposed Structure of Mark 4

A. The crowd is taught many things by Jesus seated in a boat (4:1)

        B. Many things were taught, but only in parables (4:2)

                C. Parable of the sower and seed (4:3-8)

                        D. 'Let anyone with ears hear' (4:9)

                                E. Secret given to the disciples only (4:10-13)

                                        F. Parable of the sower explained (4:14-20)

                                E'. Secrets revealed (4:21-22)

                        D'. 'Let anyone with ears hear' (4:23-25)

                C'. Two parables of kingdom growth (4:26-32)

        B'. Many such parables were taught (4:33-34)

A'. Jesus words to the disciples while they were in the boat (vv. 35-41)

As you can probably tell from this brief account, doing such structural analysis on a biblical text is often more of an art than a strict science, and sometimes many iterations must be investigated before reaching what looks like the best fit. But in the end, the result can usually yield some valuable dividends in terms of insights into the main intended thought of a passage (often located at the center or at the two ends) as well as locating parallel passages that help to interpret one another. And if it does nothing else, it also should instill in the reader a sense of awe at all the hidden gems the inspired Word contains which seem to be utterly beyond the capability of unaided human authors to achieve.

By contrast, some time if you are interested you should look at the rather pathetic attempts of the Mormon scholar John W. Welch to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon contains just as much hidden symmetry as one finds in the Bible.

However, of much more utility are John Breck's The Shape of Biblical Language and The Literary Structure of the Old Testament by David Dorsey, in case you want to become more familiar with this phenomenon. Or view some of my past blogs on this site with the general title “The Literary Structure of [insert the name of the biblical book in question].”

 

I PETER 4:17-18

In this chapter concentrating on the subject of suffering (see verses 1a, 1b, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19) and judgment (vv. 5, 6, and 17), there is the interesting passage of verses 17-18 in which Peter expresses his thoughts in v. 17b, which turn out to be a slight paraphrase of Proverbs 11:31 LXX (i.e., the Greek Septuagint version), as given in v. 18. Allen Ross points out that this is one of ten times that a quotation from Proverbs appears in the NT. The similarity between the two passages can be seen below:

    “If it [judgment] begins with us,

                what will be the end for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” (17b)

    “If it is hard for the righteous to be saved,

                what will become of the ungodly and the sinners?” (18)

And for comparison sake, here is the sort of parallelism present in the original Proverbs saying:

    “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life,

                but violence takes lives away.” (30)

    “If the righteous are repaid on earth,

                How much more the wicked and sinner!” (31)

As Goppelt puts it, “This passage [i.e. v. 18] says for the author in different words what he himself has formulated in v. 17b. The parallelism between vv. 17b and 18 makes clear how the author intended that his OT quotations be understood.. He views these OT expressions from the perspective of the gospel, but he wants, thereby, to let them express precisely their original intention. Therefore, 'the just one' is, in accordance with the OT, one who does justice to his or her relationship to God This happens in the OT through conduct in accord with the covenant of law, here through a life in accord with the gospel, i.e., speech and deed on the basis of faith (cf. 3:12).

Whenever I encounter a place in the NT in which an OT passage is quoted or alluded to, the first resource I turn to is generally Beale and Carson's Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. There I found the following comments by Carson:

“In words largely borrowed from Ezek. 9:5-6; Zech. 13:9; and Mal. 3:1-3, Peter in 4:17 insists that it is time for judgment to begin at God's household. The context of 1 Pet. 4, however, shows that this is referring to what his Christian readers are currently suffering at the hands of pagan oppressors. Their suffering is unjust. So how can this be thought of as in any sense a mark of God's eschatological judgment, which is what Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Malachi have in mind? For that judgment is utterly just, and if it brings punishment, such punishment is deserved. Could Peter really be saying that his Christian readers actually deserve the oppression that they are forced to endure at the hands of pagans?”

Carson's solution to this problem is to posit that it is not eternal judgment which is in mind here, but instead a period of testing for believers not at all the same as the sort of punishment in mind for those who do not obey God's will. He concludes: “To say that salvation is difficult for the righteous is not to say that God finds it terribly difficult to save them (though one should never downplay the cost of the atonement) but rather that God's people, in line with Jesus' own instruction, enter the narrow gate (Luke 13:23-24) and face opposition of the world from which they have sprung (cf. Matt. 10; Mark 13:20). Implicitly this is a challenge to Peter's readers to follow through to the end, to persevere to the end...It is difficult to overestimate the importance, especially in the NT, of establishing one's priorities on the basis of an eternal perspective that never forgets that God is the final judge.”

Raymer says, “The vicissitudes of life are a part of God's constant care, yet from a human perspective discipline is always 'hard.' Peter is not teaching that salvation is earned through personal trials or works, but simply that those who are saved are not exempt from temporal disciplinary judgments which are the natural consequences of sin. The writer of Hebrews also supports Peter: 'Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons' (Heb. 12:7).”

“The concept that judgment begins with the family of God derives from such passages as Am. 3:2; Jer. 7:8-15; 25:29f.; Ezek. 9:6. It implies that the persecutions and afflictions of Christians are part of the displeasure of God at sin, but they come upon them rather to refine away the evil than to condemn (cf. 1:6f.). Similar teaching is found in Jn 15:2; I C. 11:31f.; 2 Th. 1:3-8.” (Polkinghorne)

I like Eugene Boring's perspective on these verses: “The temptation of a minority religious community suffering harassment and discrimination is to demonize its opponents and to assume a stance of self-righteous indignation that excludes itself from the judgment of God. First Peter resists that temptation, adopting the Old Testament view that election is not for privilege but for responsibility (Amos 32), that to belong to the elect and holy people of God does not mean exclusion from God's judgment which begins at the house of God

And Reicke states that the “ill will of the heathen toward the Christians in reality shows that the last judgment has already begun, vs. 17a. For the current slander and suspicion are only anticipatory of the judgment as it pertains to the Christians. The judgment is to begin with God's house the church, but the final judgment of the opponents will be much worse, vs. 17b...it is further stated in vs. 18 that the severity of the divine judge toward the righteous indicates that the godless must soon face a far sterner punishment. Here the reader might well think of Jesus' words about the narrow and the broad ways (Matt vii 13), and the comparison between the green and the dry tree (Luke xxiii 31).”

“While God's coming to possess His people is assured, it cannot be realized without preparatory judgment and purification. A prophetic indication of this prior necessity is given in Ezk. ix (especially verse 6) and Mal. iii. 1-6, 17, 18, iv. 1. The same prophets also make plain that, after God has thus delivered His people by judgment, and made them fit for His presence, He will deal with sinners in judgment to destroy them from before His face, to banish them to outer darkness, to give them no more standing in His sight....Peter thus repeats with a new emphasis truths stressed before, namely, that those who share in God's judgment on sin here will find salvation hereafter, whereas those who live here in ungodliness and sin must face terrifying final judgment hereafter. While there are brevity and reserve in what he says, it at least suggests that, in so far as those who become Christians need purgatorial cleansing before they can share the heavenly glory, it is meted out to them , not in some intermediate state, but in this life.” (Stibbs)

Keener: “Some see the judgment in 4:17 in terms of expected end-time suffering before the Lord's coming...But whether Peter thinks of a final tribulation here or not (and as far as Peter knows, any near tribulation may be the final one), he can draw on the familiar understanding of end-time sufferings for the righteous... In this case, we may think of the sort of prophetic rhetoric that appears often in OT prophets, in which nearer judgments foreshadow a more ultimate day of the Lord (cf., e.g., Isa. 13:1, 6, 9-13; 34:2-6; Joel 1:15; 2:1, 25)...Peter reinforces the point of 4:17 with a verbatim quotation of 4:18 ...In the context of 1 Peter, the difficulty with being saved seems to be the suffering they endure (4:16-17), which requires perseverance in the face of hardship (2:20; 5:8-10). If God's own people suffer now, how much more can we expect God to punish the wicked?”

Concerning Proverbs 11:31 itself, Waltke writes: “The section on payments is drawn to a conclusion with a climactic assertion that crime does not pay...This is the first time the form of climax (i.e. how much more!) occurs. If (hen) presents the premise in verset A to the conclusion introduced by 'how much more' in the B verset, an a fortiori argument from the lesser to the greater...Here it functions as a legal term to denote achieving compensation and satisfaction for damages...the phrase ['in the earth'] denotes the historical realm, the sphere of humanity's time and space, where the principle of divine justice is worked out for the righteous...The verset [i.e. B] probably implies a distinction between the present remedial punishment of the righteous 'in the earth' and the future penal punishment of the wicked, the theme of this section. The preceding proverbs leave no doubt that their eternal death is in view.”

JOHN 8:34

 

John 8:34

When Christ spoke to the Jews who had believed in Him, He told them them how they could become free, but they angrily responded that as Abraham's children they had never been slaves. At that point he reminded them that as long as they were in bondage to sin they remained slaves. Here is what a number of scholarly sources say regarding Christ's reply.

But first to deal with is a textual issue since a number of early manuscripts do not contain the phrase 'of sin' (hamartia). Metzger and others feel this was a move to stylistically improve the original text by either (a) eliminating it in view of the fact that the same word had just been used a few words earlier or (b) to strengthen the connection with the following expression.

Raymond Brown agrees with this assessment, saying “The evidence for omitting this phrase is found in a strong combination of witnesses [i.e. manuscripts] from the Western family and Clement of Alexandria...there are parallels of thought between these Johannine verses and Paul's argumentation in Galatians and Romans, and so it is possible that a scribe may have added the phrase 'of sin' from Rom vi 17, 'You were once slaves of sin.' Outside of John and Romans the picture of men being slaves of sin is found in the NT only in II Pet ii 19.”

Despite these arguments, most English translations retain the phrase 'of sin.' Moving on to the actual meaning of v. 34, let me start by quoting from several anonymous essays found in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery:

“Entry into slavery was accomplished by birth to a slave mother, by surrender as a captive in war or by self-sale. These last two modes provide substance to such texts as John 8:34, 1 Corinthians 7:23, Galatians 5:1 and especially Romans 6:16-22.”

“While the literal versions of bondage and freedom in the OT often shade off into the metaphoric and spiritual meanings, with Jesus the primary frame of reference is spiritual.” Quoted in this context are Luke 4:18; John 8:31-32 and John 8:34, 36.

“As Peter points out, 'A man is a slave to whatever has mastered him (2 Pet 2:19; also see Jn 8:34). Judgment awaits those who falsely assume that redemption is self-mastery rather than the freedom to chose God as master (Ps 12:4).”

“The reason Cain is warned not to let sin have mastery (Gen 4:7) is that sin is a slave driver. The psalmist took the hint and prayed that sin would not rule over him (Ps 119:133). Jesus warned that 'everyone who sins is a slave to sin' (Jn 8:34). Paul could vouch for the bondage of sin from his own experience as a man 'sold as a slave to sin...a prisoner of the law of sin' (Rom 7:14, 23; cf. Rom 6).”

“One of the first places in Scripture the word groan is encountered is Exodus 2:23: 'The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out, and their cry for help because of their slavery went up up to God' (NIV)...Yet the Bible repeatedly makes the case for a deeper, more fundamental form of slavery that affects each human person regardless of the form of government or current social institution that happens to be in force during their lifetime...Sin is the great slave master, and we are born under its tyranny. When this fact becomes clear to us.., we respond with deep, soul-wrenching groans.”

Additional comments from scholars are given below:

Dennis notes that “sin, the world and the devil are closely connected in this Gospel (Jn 1:10; 8:34, 41, 44; 12:31; 14:30; 16:8-11).”

Culpepper says that “those who did not accept Jesus misunderstood him.” He cites Vouga's listing of such misunderstandings to include the following passages involving the Jews (2:19-22; 3:3-5; 7:33-36; 8:21-22; 8:31-36; and 8:56-58).

“In John's Gospel 'amen' always appears in doublets, often in the midst of important teachings of Jesus where the term is used twice or three times within a singular topic...Other instances of the term occur in sayings that respond to challenge (Jn 8:34, 51, 58)...” (Carey)

Blum: “Three times in this chapter (vv. 34, 51, 58) Jesus said, I tell you the truth. The very act of committing sin reveals that the one doing the act is under the power and authority of sin. Sin is personified as a cruel master. Paul used the same illustration (Rom. 6:15-23).”

Guthrie says, “The appeal to Abraham is considered sufficient to justify their claim to freedom. But this showed that their concept of freedom was deficient in moral content. In answer, Jesus makes a comment to which He attaches great importance, as the introduction formula ['verily, verily'] shows. He proceeds to show the true nature of moral slavery, in order to bring out the true nature of freedom.”

“First, he attacked their confidence in escaping the bonds of Gehenna by issuing another double amen ('I tell you the truth') announcement that called into question the fundamental rabbinic concept of freedom. He judged that they were slaves because they were sinners. Their confidence in their sense of internal liberty had been misplaced because being Jews and not Gentiles was no guarantee that they could avoid condemnation by God for their sinfulness. Yom Kipppur (the Day of Atonement), which had just passed, should have reminded them that they too were sinners.” (Borchert)

Morris adds, “Jesus is not saying that every individual act of sin represents slavery (though in a sense that, too, is true). What he is saying is that very man who continues in sin, who is a sinner, is thereby a slave.”

YOUR CHURCH IS TOO SMALL: PART 2

The Church of Works I know that there are a number of fundamentalist churches who teach or strongly imply the idea that you must constantly earn your salvation since it can be lost otherwise. This leads to a highly insecure believer who is constantly guilt-ridden. But paradoxically, there is a variation of this syndrome in the most liberal churches as well. I may have mentioned in a much earlier post that I was once part of an ecumenical study group which was charged with coming up with doctrinal statements which would be satisfactory to those of any Christian denomination.

I found myself part of a small committee in which there was a sincere young man from a much more liberal denomination than my own. At one point, out of the clear blue, he confessed to the rest of us that he had been doing his best to follow the teaching of his church to be involved in helping others in need. That included serving at a food bank, driving the elderly to appointments, etc. But he told us that he had no idea why he was doing these things or what in the world it had to do with Christianity or the church or the Bible. There was a total disconnect in his mind because the Bible was very rarely taught from the pulpit.

Divided Church Leadership I have already mentioned some of the ways in which this problem evidences itself in church life. But I will give just one more example. When my wife and I first moved to a new city, we visited the worship service of the largest congregation in town. At the end of the service but before we were dismissed, the pastor mentioned that there would be a vote that evening regarding a proposal that the deacons had come up with. The pastor then said something like “I don't know why they feel the need to come up with this idea because I for one am certainly against it, but suit yourselves.” That statement didn't exactly give me warm vibes as to the harmony present within that congregation.

The Overreacting Church For about a year before we moved out of one town we had been living in for quite a while, we were members of a congregation which is generally considered very fundamentalist. Thus I did not have very high expectations when we first visited, but was pleasantly surprised with the servant hearts that I saw everywhere in the actions of the teenagers, the pastoral staff, and the elders. Their customs were a little new to us, but there were no red flags at all, and I could go on and on with the loving and self-sacrificing attitude of everyone I met. The only real thing I could fault them with involved their attitude toward the Old Testament.

I had a frank talk with the Pastor of Adult Education after observing that of the four or five adult Sunday school offerings I could see at the time, not one involved the OT. The pastor somewhat sheepishly admitted that their denomination was widely characterized as exceedingly works-oriented and rule-keeping. So in reaction to that trend, the purposeful decision was made by the leadership to ignore the Old Testament entirely rather than perpetrate that stereotype in their own congregation. I had to applaud their motive but privately felt that they had thrown out the baby with the bath water in their quest to combat a works-oriented mindset.

The Liturgical Church Many church denominations follow a rather rigid church calendar in which the passage for the week is dictated from on high. And this is also true of those churches who go strictly by the Sunday school material supplied by their denominational leaders for each week. I know there is a rationale behind such rigidity, but it all too often leads to sermons and teachings which are not at all geared to address the current problems and concerns which an individual congregation may have and to which only a head pastor might be privy. Of course there is the opposite problem which occurs when a pastor or Sunday school teacher is totally free to preach or teach on any subject or Bible passage he wishes. Under such a situation, it is all to common for one to regularly attend the same church for decades and never even know that there are large chunks of Scripture which have never even been mentioned for fear it might confuse the congregation or contradict the official doctrine of that church. Thus it is very important that churches go out of their way to teach the whole counsel of God, not just their favorite passages.

The Church within a Church I have run into or heard of variations of this phenomenon more than once in my life. It comes about generally when a Sunday school class or small Bible study group within a congregation begins to take on a personality all its own and starts to consider themselves the only true believers there. The first time I encountered it was in New York state when I accompanied a Catholic friend of mine to a meeting of a rather large mid-week gathering of charismatic Christians who held a worship service in the facilities of a Catholic church. It was very loosely overseen by a small leadership group who was only there to keep some modicum of order if one speaker tried to monopolize the microphone. There was some very beautiful spontaneous singing in tongues by the whole congregation and a few well chosen words of wisdom. I really wished them well, but eventually the local Roman Catholic leadership closed the meeting down because the “revelations” spoken there had become totally beyond their control.

A similar thing happened in one Southern Baptist congregation before I began attending when apparently a run-away Sunday school group meeting downstairs during worship hour started adopting a Jewish model of worship instead. And at an earlier church of which I was a member, there was even a group of two young men of semi-Pentacostal persuasion who considered themselves the only true Christians in the whole congregation.

The Flip-Side I am afraid these two posts may only confirm the feelings of some Christians that the worse thing about the church today is the people. And I will agree that it is all too easy to give up on worshiping with others for fear that the inevitable conflicts will arise. So let me quickly try to reverse that opinion by reminding you that the same could easily be said regarding in one's workplace or one's biological or adopted family. You don't immediately distance yourself from those people just because you don't agree in lockstep on every issue. The closer you get to anyone else, even if you feel that you are sympathetic souls, the more you will begin to see the sometimes quite drastic ways the two of you view life. And that occurrence only multiplies exponentially with the more people you begin to know on a close basis.

The sooner you begin to recognize that universal fact, the sooner you can become reconciled to it and try to take advantage of all the differences human beings have and learn from them. If you do that you will start of see how many believers, despite or because of their different make-ups, can band together under a common umbrella of beliefs and goals. One way of starting that journey might be to study how the prominent New Testament apostles as well as Paul and his companions approached their common faith from entirely different backgrounds, butted heads on occasion regarding specific issues, but still managed to continue working together to accomplish the common goal of spreading the Gospel throughout the world.

 

YOUR CHURCH IS TOO SMALL: PART 1

 Decades ago J.B. Phillips wrote a slim but provocative book titled Your God Is Too Small. In it he exposed our often inadequate and distorted view of God in 17 chapters. Just to outdo him, I have come up with 19 ways I have personally observed over the years in which our church congregations so often fall short of the model Jesus gave us. I will admit that I am probably in a rather down mood at the present time and am using this post and a companion post as a means to unload some of my frustrations.

But the first thing to point out is an old saying I have heard: “If you ever manage to find the perfect church, don't join it or it will no longer be perfect.” It seems to be all too often that any time people get hold of something designed by God, they go out of their way to change it to meet their own personal needs and desires rather than His.

The Accommodating Church By this I mean that there are times when we try to be all things to all people and end up satisfying no one. I attended a very small start-up congregation years ago in upstate NY where almost everyone in the area was either Roman Catholic or Jewish. But local industry had a way of transferring in a few people from other parts of the country who could be characterized as Bible-believing Protestants. Under those circumstances, it was common for those few people to band together and attend any church that was even remotely like the ones they had left behind.

Our small church was a sort of haven for those outcasts, but it took a constant effort on our part to maintain unity and minister to everyone equally. It actually worked fairly well for a while even though our Sunday morning song service was a bone of contention since we had both “high” and “low” church attendees. During the more old Gospel hymn singing, there was at least one person who scowled through the whole song and pointedly refused to join in unless the hymn came straight out of the early Reformation. But others in the congregation were wanting to sing even more of these devotional and emotional songs and took to meeting at one person's house during the week to have a sing-fest around a piano. This self-appointed unofficial leader of our church found out about what they were doing and demanded that I (who was church chairman at the time) tell them to stop immediately. When pressed, he could give no coherent justification for his demand other than the fact that they were somehow going around his authority.

The Social Club For a couple of years my wife and I attended another small congregation in New York. The Sunday sermons were not at all bad although the denomination was a little more liberal than I was used to. The main problem came in with the people in the congregation. We became somewhat friendly with one couple, who proceeded to let us in on all the wife-swapping which was taking place behind the scenes.

And the adults obviously did not set a good example at home, as I found out when I volunteered to teach the high school Sunday school class for a while. I wanted to teach something they would be interested in so I gave them an anonymous questionnaire to fill out on our first meeting. It included several potential subject to choose between, and I also included a probing question which simply said, “If you had your choice, would you rather be anywhere else on Sunday morning than church?” Their unanimous response to that one was a resounding “Yes.” So I leveled with them the next week and told them that we were stuck together so we might as well make the best of it. That attitude was found in the adults as well, as we learned when Summer came around and the only adult class that was offered was on gardening.

Church as a Mere Tradition One man in our car pool while in New York attended a mainstream Protestant denomination in which he was always heckled as he left his car to walk into the church building carrying a Bible. The men standing outside openly jeered at him and asked, “Who do you think you are? I suppose you feel you are holier than the rest of us.” My Roman Catholic roommates in graduate school told similar stories about growing up in congregations where the adults routinely made fun of Catholic practices in rather sacreligious ways.

A Weekly Dose of Preventative Medicine I once attended a rather large congregation (I won't mention the denomination) as a guest of a friend at work. I was a little shocked to see that a large proportion of the attendees milled around the large anteroom during service talking to one another until it was announced that the taking of the Eucharist was beginning. At that point they charged through the door to be the first in line and then left as soon as they could. That may sound extreme, but I have belonged to other churches where some of the people would never miss a Sunday, but on the other hand seemed to get very little out of the service other than to satisfy themselves that they had done their weekly duty.

The Casual Church There was a small independent start-up congregation only a few blocks away from our house in another city. The people seemed friendly and I was impressed when the pastor took time before the main service to ask if there were any prayer requests from the congregation. He then started his sermon, but at a certain point right in the middle of a thought, he looked at his watch and abruptly said, “Well, I guess that's enough for today. Perhaps I'll finish it up some other time.” I got the distinct impression that he was sort of winging the whole thing.

The Unfriendly Church My wife and I had moved to a new town and were trying out congregations in the area. We showed up ahead of time and milled around without anyone saying a word to us. Then we sat down for the service, which included at one point an invitation for everyone to greet one another. Not a single person even looked in our direction. After the service was over and we were leaving I noticed that there was a folding table set up in the entryway with a sign saying “Visitor's Center” and a woman seated behind it. We waited and waited for her to pay attention to the fact we were standing there, but she was gabbing with a friend and couldn't be bothered. Needless to say, we never came back.

The Cowed Church I only visited my wife's old church once and that was more than enough. The problem was not with the members of the congregation at all. They impressed me as sincere, blue collar working people who were deeply religious. The problem was with the guest speaker they had that week. He ran an independent “Bible college” and had a weekly radio program. He drove up in his new Cadillac and parked it at the side of the church so that it wouldn't be damaged by any of the older model cars in the parking lot. He spent his whole “sermon” literally berating the congregation for not being as devoted to Christ as he was as well as scaring them to death with a horror story of a young boy who played hooky one Sunday morning to fly a kite. The kite supposedly got caught in some overhead electrical wires and the boy was electrocuted. At the funeral, the grieving mother came up to the speaker and asked for assurance that her boy was in heaven. His prompt reply to her was, “Your boy is rotting in hell this very minute!”

At that point, I was on the verge of walking out and would have if my wife hadn't held me back. I don't know what angered me more: the absurdity of the made-up story or the fact that he would brag about his own totally depiccable part in it. In either case, the sermon ended up, as expected, with a demand for a love offering for his ministry while shaming the audience for them “not having the guts” to follow God the way he did.

The only similar experience I had was when on vacation in New Hampshire. We happened upon a medium-sized church when Sunday school was starting. I guess my wife and I looked young enough at the time to fit in with the young adults class, taught by the pastor who also ran a “Bible college” during the week. I believe the subject was out of Jude, and one of the young men in the audience raised his hand and asked about a particularly difficult verse concerning the afterlife. Instead of addressing that question, which I doubt the pastor could have done in any case, he jumped all over the poor young man yelling, “You have been reading Catholic literature, haven't you!!” We didn't bother staying for the main service.

The Political, Self-Centered, Business-Modeled, Head-in-the-Sand, Rigidly-Doctrinal, Flawlessy Conducted Church Somewhat surprisingly, the congregation in which I spent the most number of years as both an attendee and Sunday school leader / co-teacher tops the chart as the one which demonstrated at least six major deficiencies all at the same time. There were two main reasons my wife and I stuck it out as long as we did. One was that the members of our long-running Sunday school class were uniformly friendly and devoted Christians who became like family to us. And as long as the official leaders of the congregation did not take to take the time to bother with us, we could pretty much run the class the way we wanted without undue interference. With that said, let me rant a little bit concerning the above listed deficiencies I saw in that church.

Politically-oriented We were in Texas at the time, which is not exactly noted for its flamingly liberal political views. But a group of influential women at our church became scared to death that the Democrats were right on the edge of actually electing someone of their party to office, which of course would mean the total death of conservative Christianity in our state. They formulated a plan by which those in the congregation would overwhelm all the local political caucuses with our numbers to get themselves elected to the national convention. I did not make friends with any of them when I openly reminded them that it was the meek Christian behavior of early believers under unbelievable persecution which won over the Roman Empire, not by them raising an army to take over the government. I even made the modest proposal that instead we should hope and pray for government persecution since that might change the hearts of those presently unsaved. My idea was received with shocked unbelief.

Self-Centered This attitude came clearly to the forefront when the church leadership decded to eliminate the positions of pastors in charge of mission support and of pastoral care. The decision came about not because the offerings had begun to drop off, but because it was felt that we shouldn't waste our time and resources on supporting those in other parts of the country or those elderly and sick in our own congregation who couldn't pay us back.

At the same time, they fired the music minister since he liked to pick songs that would appeal to both the older and younger members of the congregation. The feeling was that the elderly were unlikely to be able to pay their own way in terms of tithes and offerings whereas the younger members were just beginning to hit their peak earning power.

Business Model All but one of the nominated and elected elders in the church during most of the time I attended were independent businessmen, and that was precisely why they were chosen. Even two of the education pastors over the years told me that they were more than a little lacking in the basics of biblical knowledge. And at one elder's meeting one of them kept referring to the families in the church as “giving units,” since that was really all they were to him. As a matter of fact, I know of none of them who attended an adult Sunday school class. And the only time they even deigned to teach a class themselves was when they got excited over the popular “book-of-the-month” book which made a mountain out of a molehill over one very obscure verse in the Old Testament. Three of them were so excited, in fact, that without any warning they kicked out the class that had been meeting in one of the rooms for quite a while and left them to fend for themselves. And after teaching on this subject for a little more than a month, those elders departed just as quickly as they had come without warning any of the attendees of their plans. The Adult Education Minister subsequently wrote a scathing expose' of that particular book's reasoning and presented it to the elder board. He didn't last much longer at that job.

I knew the Adult Education at the time, and he later filled me in on the utter religious cluelessness exhibited by these elders, who also once invited in a visiting speaker from the outside to expose all the lies spread by scientists over the years in order to justify their rejection of God. That “expert's” total resume consisted of a large portrait of himself posing with President Reagan as well as his own self-proclaimed academic title of “PhD in Science.” After the extremely well-attended talk, which was full of utter nonsense which some of the more educated people in the audience poked holes in during the following Q and A session, I went up to the speaker and asked him where he had gotten his so-called degree.” He stuttered and totally turned his back on me in order to strike up a conversation with the next nearest person.

Rigidly-Doctrinal Although, as I said above, the elders at the time I was attending this church knew next to nothing about the basic tenets of Christianity, they swore by the detailed, 20+ doctrinal list to which all new members had to subscribe. I eventually fell afoul of them when I announced that I would not be putting in my official membership because I had doubts regarding two of their doctrinal points and definitely disagreed with another one which would have excluded most of world-wide Christianity from membership. Since I was a Sunday school leader at the time, the elders convened what amounted to my heresy trial. It took the efforts of one of the more enlightened junior pastors at that church to defend me and strike a compromise in which I would agree not to speak on those particular disputed subjects in church. And a little later, another associate pastor had to carefully explain to the elder board that they had not even understood what that most disputed point in their doctrinal statement meant or even implied.

Perfection in Everything This was the time period in which Tom Peters was the business guru every major company (including the one I worked for) followed. His goal was the pursuit of Excellence, to be carried out using a variety of means, one of which was to seek feedback from our internal and external customers on how we could improve ourselves as a group. Since the majority of our elders were businessmen, they immediately latched on to this idea and had a questionnaire sent out to all regular attendees with a variety of questions on it.

I was amazed when they announced their results on a Sunday morning and said that the majority of those in the congregation desired above all a church service executed absolutely flawlessly. I polled all the people in my Sunday school class and none of them had even thought of that as a goal, much less the primary goal, of our church. I highly suspect that the elders came up with their own conclusions before the poll had even been conducted. The results were rather disastrous as every ministry in the church was asked to conduct their work without any mistakes. It even led to the point where (a) our head pastor was dissatisfied with his performance in preaching a sermon because he was suffering from a cold at the time. Thus, he preached the exact same sermon a few weeks later when he felt he could do it more justice. And (b) when our preemie grandchild was fighting for his life in the hospital and we asked an elder for prayers from the congregation when he gave announcements, it was not done because (we believe) it would have set the Sunday morning time table back by a minute or two.

The Worldly Church This was the church in which I grew up. And although there were some periods when we had a reasonably well educated and articulate preacher as well as good Sunday school and youth group leaders, there were much longer stretches in which the only joy in attending church services was the chance to meet pretty girls and to inwardly laugh at the faux pas which often came from the pulpit. This was strictly a blue collar congregation composed of very nice people who were more than content to leave the theology in the pulpit and not let it unduly affect their normal lifestyle. Some of the pastors we ended up with would have been utterly horrified to learn that many of the most loyal attendees enjoyed smoking, drinking, gambling, and going to the movies on a regular basis.

That's enough letting off steam for now. I will continue in a companion post which will also include some positive church models to emulate.

IS THE BIBLE A MYSTERY STORY?

I was struck the other day as to how many writers turn to mystery writing later in life. For example, Dickens' last book (unfinished on his death) was The Mystery of Edwin Drood, the proposed ending of which still is an item of debate among literary critics. Jane Austen is best known for her romances, but her last published novel was Northanger Abbey, a send-up of the gothic mystery. Or we could look at H.G. Wells' The Cricket Player, Melville's The Confidence Man, Hawthorne's The Marble Faun; Waugh's Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold,Twain's Mysterious Stranger and Tom Sawyer, Detective, Thornton Wilder's Bridge of San Luis Rey, Virginia Woolf's Haunted House, London's The Star Rover, and Melville's The Confidence Man. And I mustn't neglect James Joyce, who radically changed genres with each new book, ending up with Finnegans Wake which remains largely a mystery to most readers today.

Then there are the somewhat lesser known genre writers who have turned to mystery writing later in life. Thus, we have the example of Ray Bradbury who began writing horror stories, switched to more lyrical fantasy and science fiction, and ended up with several novels starring a Southern California detective. Georgette Heyer is best known for her Regency romances, but she also produced an impressive number of mystery books as well. Then there is the humorist Patrick McManus who is best known for his very amusing stories mainly involving hunting and fishing. He switched genres drastically before his death to produce a series of detective novels, still humorous in places, starring a small town sheriff.

I am not entirely sure what attracts both authors and readers to these 'Who-done-it's. But I am sure that part of their appeal lies in unraveling the mysterious, coupled with the satisfaction we get when the guilty parties get their just deserts.

The same appeal is present in the Bible, which sets forth a series of events which are not entirely resolved until the Book of Revelation. And even there, the resolution is stated in such a confusing and ambiguous manner that trained theologians still argue among themselves as to even the basics of the happenings of the Last Days. We can see that demonstrated over and over again in the conflicting opinions of the Pre-, Post-, and A-millenialists; Dispensationalists; and those liberal scholars who don't even attempt to make coherent sense out of the book.

One very enlightening book that may be of aid to those who are really interested in the subject is by G.K.Beale and Benjamin L. Gladd titled Hidden But Now Revealed: A Biblical Theology of Mystery.

I won't even attempt to cover the same ground they do, but instead present my own rather naive view of things.

Even if we look at the Bible as a whole and coherent book by one master craftsman, it must be admitted that it often seems to work up to an expected resolution, only to be left in mid- air instead as a new genre of writing takes its place. For example, The long book of Genesis begins with a quandary as the first human couple falls from grace and is expelled from the Garden. Then their progeny seem to go from bad to worse until the whole world is destroyed with water and God makes a fresh start. But even that is not enough, as the remaining people refuse to be scattered to populate the earth and instead band together to build a tower as a monument to themselves and a so-called threat to God. God forces them to disperse, which they do, and then He concentrates on one single family descending from Abraham.

Abraham's twelve children seem to be no better behaved than those who built the Tower of Babel, so God concentrates on Joseph only, and he soon falls out of favor with his brothers who sell him into slavery.

But God uses even this treacherous action to eventually reunite all twelve and Abraham in Egypt where they are treated well by Pharaoh. You all know the rest of the extended narrative in the Pentateuch in which Moses eventually leads a new generation of people out of Egypt. There is another cliffhanger ending in which it seems certain that the Egyptian army will wipe out the Jews. But they are saved and led right up to the border of the Promised Land. The people prove faithless again and refuse to take it over. It is only after many years that their descendants agree to try again, but it is obvious that they face a daunting challenge.

At this point, we encounter a different type of genre in the biblical writing in which warfare takes over. It seems that the Jews are facing overwhelming odds, but God supernaturally helps them and the books of Joshua and Judges demonstrate their success in taming the land. However, that is only the beginning of their problems since the tribes begin turning against one another at the same time that powerful neighboring nations begin to attack.

The books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles take us through a series of mishaps for the Jews ending up with most of them finding themselves in captivity. But just when all seems lost, the Babylonians are defeated by the Persians, who are much more amenable to the Jews and their cause. Thus, eventually the Jews are allowed to return to their native land. However, the latter Historical Books of the OT demonstrate that they still have powerful and treacherous enemies around them. But again the faithful Jews under Ezra and Nehemiah are successful in establishing again a stronghold in the Promised Land., although it remains problematic at that time whether they will ever accomplish their goal.

The books of Ruth and Esther also appear among the Historical OT writings, and they serve in a more intimate way to show how faithful Jews are taken care of even when away from their land and point to a rather veiled hope for the future.

The poetic and wisdom books of the Bible follow and are listed in chronological order according to the respective authors or protagonists. They start with Job and reveal some of the secret events taking place in heaven which are not revealed to Job himself, move on to the emotional outpourings by the Psalmist who remains faithful to God even when he does not fully understand His actions, come to the theological uncertainties expressed in Ecclesiastes, and conclude in a rather strange way with the allegorical outpourings in Song of Solomon which couch their underlying meaning in mystery.

The Major Prophets constitute the next large section of writing in the OT, and they again conclude in the often bizarre visions and enacted parables of Ezekiel and Daniel which appear to predict eventual victory under God for His people.

Then after a series of fairly forthright pronouncements to and by the so-called Minor Prophets, we come to the final two: Zechariah and Malachi. Zechariah concludes in Chapter 14 with a series of “on that day” pronouncements talking about a distant time when the people of the world will all come to Jerusalem to worship. And on the flip side, Malachi concludes with a grand judgment on the earth heralded by the reappearance of the prophet Elijah, which, as Jesus explains, refers to John the Baptist.

Moving on to the NT, we first come upon the four Gospel accounts, the last of which hints at the eventual fate of Peter. And considering Luke-Acts as one coherent account, it ends with another mystery regarding the fate of Paul.

The Epistles begin with the orderly essay of Romans but end up with what some would characterize as the more undisciplined rants found in Jude in which hints are given as to the ultimate fate of the fallen angels who are now being kept for judgment and those human beings “for whom the deepest darkness has been reserved forever.”

Jude prepares us for the final book of Revelation, which for the first time in the Bible appears to deal almost entirely with the mysteries of the Last Days. The book is titled “revelation,” but in fact is probably the most mysterious of all the books in the Bible, so much so that even Bible scholars are still arguing about what it means.

 

ULTIMATE PITS IN THE BIBLE

 The prevalent occurrence of natural or purposefully dug pits in biblical times gave rise to their use metaphorically as standing for the place of death or damnation (often capitalized in translation as “the Pit”). Thus we have the following Scripture references:

Job 33 contains no less than five mentions of the Pit (vv. 18, 22, 24, 28, 30) which act as a sort of recurring chorus in this extended poem. In three of these cases (vv. 22, 28, 30) it is seen to be listed in poetic parallelism to death itself. And in one case (v. 18) it parallels the expression “crossing the River.” As Seow notes, “In Mesopotamian mythology the dead cross the river Hubur; in Greek myths, the Styx.” In addition, there is Job 17:13-16 in which the terms Pit and Sheol are seen to be synonymous to one another.

Five places in the Psalms (vv. 28:1; 30:3; 40:2; 88:4,6; and 143:7), the Psalmist cries that he is on the brink of death, called the Pit. As Kselman explains, The Pit in these poetic references is another designation for Sheol, the Hebrew place of the dead where all hope and communication with God is cut off and souls live a sort of shadowy existence.

We find two references to the Pit in the Book of Proverbs, one toward the start of the book and one toward the end. The first occurrence is clearly to the place of death:

        “Like Sheol

                let us swallow them alive and whole

                like those who go down to

        the Pit.” (Proverbs 1:12)

And in Proverbs 28:18 we read: “And one who walks in integrity will be safe, but whoever follows crooked ways will fall into the Pit” (NRSV) This verse is a little more ambiguous since it is doubtful that the author really felt that it was possible to escape the snare of death entirely. We also have the evidence of the Hebrew and Syriac manuscripts which both read “will fall all at once.” in place of “will fall into the Pit.”

Isaiah contains a number of references to pits, mostly of a metaphorical nature. Thus, in Is. 14:15, 19 we have what is known as a taunt song describing the fall of an unnamed king of Babylon. Blenkinsopp's opinion, which one can choose to accept or reject, is that this poem “draws on a Canaanite myth of the gods Helel and Shahar (Morning Star and Dawn), who fall from heaven as a result of rebellion. In Christianity the myth reemerges as the fall of Lucifer and his attendant angels (cf. Lk 10.18).”

Then in Is. 24:17-18, 22 we read an apocalyptic passage in which the people of the earth tremble as God's judgment begins on them. At this time, both the kings of the earth and the angels will find themselves subject to ultimate punishment. The Pit in this case is compared to a snare and a prison.

But in contrast, in Isaiah 38:17-19 the prophet describes his own situation in which his sins have been cast behind God's back and he is restored to full life of praise to Him. Similarly, Is. 51:14 promises that the oppressed will be released from the threat of death and the Pit.

Moving on to the book of Ezekiel, we come across vv. 19:4,8, a highly poetic description of two lion cubs representing Jehoahaz who was taken captive to Egypt and Zedekiah who was exiled to Babylon. There is an interesting literary parallelism found between verses 4 and 8b-9:

        “he was caught in their pit;

                and they brought him with hooks to the land of Egypt” (v. 4)

        “he was caught in their pit.

                With hooks they brought him to the king of Babylon.” (vv. 8-9)

In another taunt song reminiscent of Isaiah 14, Ezekiel in chapter 28 prophesizes against the Prince of Tyre, saying “They shall thrust you down to the Pit, and you shall die a violent death in the heart of the seas.” Similarly, Tyre herself receives her judgment notice in chapter 26:19-21 where the Pit is equated to the land of the dead.

In Ezekiel 31 we read more of the same as Egypt's fate in predicted. Verses 14-17 demonstrate the identity of Sheol as the Pit. And in the following chapter the two concepts are further equated. The total alternations between these words are summarized as follows:

Chapter 31: Pit (v. 14); Sheol (v. 15); Sheol (v. 16a); Pit (v. 16b); Sheol (17)

Chapter 32: Pit (v. 18); Sheol (v. 21); Pit (v. 23); Pit (v. 24); Pit (v. 25); Sheol (v. 27); Pit (v. 29); Pit (v. 30)

Most significantly, the Pit (generally capitalized) does not show up again until the Book of Revelation, Chapter 9. The first eleven verses of that chapter are presented in an orderly manner as follows:

1. A fallen star is given the key to the bottomless pit (abyss) (vv. 1-2)

        2. Locusts like scorpions appear (vv. 3a)

                3. They are given authority to torture people for five months (vv. 3b-5)

                        4. Reaction of the people (v. 6)

        2'. Appearance of the locust-scorpions (vv. 7-10a)

                3'. Their power to torture people for five months (v. 10b)

1'. The king over the bottomless pit (v. 11)

As far as the five-month period is concerned, Ruiz explains that “although this may be a reference to the life cycle of locusts, which are hatched in spring and live until the end of summer, the likely significance of this time period is symbolic, indicating the limited time span of this plague.”

As a sort of contrast to the events of Revelation 9, we have another appearance of the Pit in Chapter 11. This time it is two prophets who are given authority by God. After giving their witness, the Beast in the Pit is allowed to make war on them and kill them. However, God raises up their dead bodies, striking fear in the hearts of the people, much as the people reacted earlier in Rev. 9:6.

Lastly, the bottomless pit appears in Revelation 20 as the angel of the pit seizes the personified forces of evil and imprisons them for 1,000 years while peace reigns on earth. But they are released temporarily and allowed to wage spiritual warfare against the people. However, that is only allowed for a short period of time, after which Satan and his cohorts are cast into the lake of fire as their final punishment.

I will not attempt to wade through all the literature of the Pre-, Mid-, and Post-millennialists as well as Dispensationalists to try and pin down exactly what will happen in those last days of earth. You should feel free to consult your favorite resource for that answer as long as you keep in mind that many sincere and educated believers may totally disagree with whatever scenario you have been taught.

ELEMENTS OF WORSHIP

 

Elements of Worship

There was a well-known preacher of a previous generation named A.W. Tozer who wrote a slender pamphlet titled Worship:The Missing Jewel of the Evangelical Church. Below are a few quotations from that book regarding the elements which go into true worship of God. There is also a full-length book on that same subject and with a similar title, Worship: Recovering the Missing Jewel by Allen and Borror. I would recommend it for those who wish to go into the subject in more detail.

But I would like to stick to a few comments by Tozer, who begins introducing the subject with a few general thoughts:

    “Worship is a moral imperative.” He references Luke 19:37-40 in regard to that statement.

    “We have almost everything, but there's one thing that the churches, even the gospel churches do not have: that is the ability to worship.”

    “It's an attitude, a state of mind, a sustained act, subject to degrees of perfection and intensity.”

    “...worship is capable of running from the very simple to the most intense and sublime.”

    “If there is one terrible disease in the Church of Christ, it is that we do not see God as great as He is. We're too familiar with God.”

Regarding that last statement, I remember feeling highly uncomfortable in church singing the old hymn “In the Garden” with its lyrics:

“I come to the garden alone
while the dew is still on the roses,
and the voice I hear falling on my ear,
the Son of God discloses.
Refrain:
And he walks with me, and he talks with me,
and he tells me I am his own;
and the joy we share as we tarry there,
none other has ever known.”

I had always assumed it had been written by some overly sentimental, repressed old maid until I found out that the author was in fact a man. At that point, it felt downright creepy to be singing those words. In any case, the hymn certainly does not portray the sublime and perfect God of the whole universe or His Son, but instead an intimate romantic lover.

Of course, there is always an equal but opposite fault present in the Church, and that is often found in the high churches – denominations coming straight out of the Reformation who could be often characterized as “the frozen chosen” to use a favorite phrase of a friend of mine who considered himself one of them.

Getting back to Tozer, he next sets out the necessary elements he feels need to be present in worship:

Boundless Confidence

“You cannot worship a Being you cannot trust. Confidence is necessary to respect, and respect is necessary to worship. Worship rises or falls in any church altogether depending upon the attitude we take toward God, whether we see God big or whether we see Him little. Most of us see God too small...You can't make God big, But you can see Him big.”

In that regard, I highly recommend a little book written in the 1960's by J. B. Phillips titled appropriately Your God Is Too Small. He exposes many of the mistaken and woefully inadequate conceptions people have about the nature of God. And such misconceptions were rife in the pagan world for millennia in their stories of deities who had totally flawed personalities and could be easily tricked by mere mortals.

Such misconceptions are alive and well today in the “Name It, Claim It” and Prosperity Gospel schools of preachers who show their parishioners the techniques they can use in order to get God to do their bidding. One such budding preacher was in a Sunday school class I attended. And he even taught us that if you can find the proper verse in the Bible that contains an appropriate promise, simply claim it for your own and God has no choice in the matter but to give you whatever you desire.

Admiration

As Tozer goes one to say, “Man is better qualified to appreciate God than any other creature because he was made in His image and is the only creature who was...The God of modern evangelical rarely astonishes anybody. He manages to stay pretty much within the constitution...He's a very well-behaved God and very denominational and very much one of us...The God of the modern evangelical isn't a God I could have much respect for.”

At one church I attended and taught Sunday school at for years, I only heard a preacher once point out the obvious by warning that we had better not become so in love with our “perfect doctrine” and “perfect method of church leadership” that we leave no room for God to come along and interfere with it. Unfortunately, I saw no indication that the eldership of that congregation ever paid any attention to that warning in subsequent years.

Fascination

Tozer defines this as being “captivated and charmed and entranced. Excited, not with how big you're getting or how big the offering was. Not with how many people came out to church. But entranced with who God is...” I have honestly seen very little of this element in any church I have attended over the years, and actually it appears that most church leaders, at least outside the pulpit, would be more than a little upset if God came down and brought a sudden end to all their worldly plans and ambitions for their congregation.

We each have our own way of being fascinated by God's work. For some it is found in the way He has guided and superintended their lives over the years, and for others it is found in the contemplation of the wonders of nature. My personal fascination is primarily with the perfect manner in which His Word, the Bible, is constructed.

Adoration

Again, quoting Tozer, he explains this means “to love God with all the power within us. To love God with fear and wonder and yearning and awe. To yearn for God with great yearning, and to love Him to a point where it is both painful and delightful...I think God is disappointed because we make Him to be no more than a source of what we want. Even our Lord Jesus is presented too often much as 'Someone who will meet your need.'...Well, He is that indeed; but ah, He's infinitely more than that.”

Conclusion

Each of us is constituted differently with a different make-up in terms of the three aspects of personality: intellect, emotion, and will. Therefore I find it interesting that to a certain extent the various branches of Christianity tend to appeal more to one or another of those three. To grossly oversimplify, we might say that the Pentecostal wing has a somewhat greater attraction for the emotional believer; the liberal churches stresses the importance of the will in terms of doing good works; and the High Churches stress the intellectual aspect in terms of teaching and maintaining perfect doctrine and appealing to those who hold to a proper reverence for God and His ordinances.

LITERAL PITS IN THE BIBLE

I have previously posted two short essays titled “A Pit of One's own Making” illustrating the principle that traps one sets for others often backfire on the plotter. But I would now like to turn our attention to some more literal pits that are mentioned in the Bible as well as (in a subsequent post) ultimate pits.

There are a variety of Hebrew and Greek words translated as “pit” or some equivalent terms in English. These include beer, bor, pachath, sheol, shuchah, phrear and abussou. Of these, at least the last one may sound familiar since it is the basis for the English word “abyss.” Between all of them, one can count roughly 50 references in the Bible to pits of one sort or another. Let's concentrate on the literal pits only in this present post.

Genesis 14:10 In this obscure passage we are told of the attempted rebellion of a coalition of Canaanite kings against their overlords led by Chedorlaomer. The Canaanite kings flee for their lives but the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah accidentally fall into tar pits. Their property, as well as Lot himself, are taken by Chedorlaomer. I am well aware of the danger of falling into such death traps, having visited the LaBrea Tar Pits in Southern California on several occasions and viewed the large variety of ancient animal bones recovered from such death traps. This event also presages the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and narrow escape of Lot and his daughters narrated a few chapters later in Genesis.

Genesis 37:20-27 This is perhaps the most famous story in the OT involving a pit. As you no doubt recall, Joseph the dreamer has raised the ire of his brothers and they put him down in a pit in the ground before deciding what to do with him. Eventually, of course, they sell him to a band of traveling merchants and Joseph ends up as a captive in Egypt. This story illustrates another use of pits in biblical times, as a jail. We must keep in mind that other than much later when the Romans were in charge of Israel, there were no handy jails around for prisoners to dwell in until their ultimate fates were decided. Thus, we are told in the NT of the several such secure holding tanks in which Christians such as Peter, Paul and Silas were kept captive.

II Samuel 18:17

This illustrates a different sort of pit in that it is a burial pit. After Absalom had been killed during his attempt to usurp David's throne, Joab's men throw his body in a pit and cover it with a mound of rocks. As McKenzie says, “this kind of burial was reserved for a cursed person (Josh 7.26).”

Jeremiah

There are four references to literal pits in this prophetic book. The first is found in 2:6 where God reminds the people how He had led them out of Egypt and brought them safely through all sorts of dangers in the wilderness, including deserts and pits.

Then in Jeremiah 38:6-13 is narrated the story of Jeremiah himself being lowered into a pit and left there. It is uncertain if the intent was merely to confine him until his fate was decided (as with Joseph much earlier) or whether they were just hoping he would eventually die there, but fortunately he was rescued from that fate.

Next comes Jer. 41:7,9 with its description of Ishmael (of the royal seed of Judah) and his traitorous act in murdering Gedaliah and the inhabitants of Mizpah and filling up an empty cistern (i.e. pit) with their bodies. And finally there is the prophecy in Jeremiah 48:43-44 concerning the coming judgment against Moab who will face “terror, pit, and trap.”

Zechariah 

Zechariah is the last prophet in the OT to mention a pit, in 9:11. Boda has much to say regarding this verse but I will just share a few of his words. “The place of imprisonment in 9:11 is a cistern in which there is no water. Such a cistern (bor) as a prison is described at several points in the OT (see Gen. 37:20, 22, 24, 28-29; 40:15; 41:14; Isa. 24:22; Jer. 38:6-13; Lam. 3:53), which explains why the phrase bet habbor ('house of the cistern') refers to a prison (Exod. 12:29; Jer. 37:16). Some see the lack of water as positive, since water could have drowned them, while others treat this as a negative feature, since such a pit would lack drinking water. More likely, the water is not the issue, since it is probably a stereotypical phrase for a pit designed or available for imprisoning someone.”

STONING IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Stoning in the New Testament

There are many questions readers have in coming across those occasions in the Bible in which the punishment of death by stoning is either prescribed in the Old Testament or attempted (or actually carried out) in the New Testament. Examples in the NT include the attempted stoning of Jesus, the proposed stoning of the woman caught in adultery, stoning to death of Stephen, and Paul's being stoned and left for dead. Below are comments from the scholarly literature divided roughly according to which aspect of the action is discussed.

How was this type of capital punishment actually carried out?

To begin an answer in a rather strange way, I would like to point to the introduction to Cole Porter's still popular song “Anything Goes,” which goes:

“Times have changed
And we've often rewound the clock
Since the Puritans got a shock
When they landed on Plymouth Rock.
If today
Any shock they should try to stem
'Stead of landing on Plymouth Rock,
Plymouth Rock would land on them.”

Interestingly, the above lyrics actually combine the two concepts of falling on a rock and having a rock fall on someone. And that combination fairly accurately describes the most common biblical occurrence of the corporal punishment known as stoning. Most people do not realize that stoning in biblical times was apparently often carried out by first throwing the offending party off of a high spot, assuming that one was available nearby. If he was still alive after that, then the crowd would throw stones on him from that same height until he was dead. That first optional step in the procedure is generally passed over in most NT passages except for Luke 4:28-29, in which the hostile crowd's intent in regard to Jesus is made quite obvious.

As Cradock says, “The synagogue, now a mob, attempts to stone Jesus. Hurling a person against stones was as acceptable a form of stoning as was hurling the stones against the person.

Bruce provides more justification [although somewhat later in time] for this view: “In the second century A.D. this [i.e. Deut. 17:7)] was interpreted as follows in the Mishnah...The drop from the stoning place was twice the height of a man. One of the witnesses pushes the criminal from behind, so that he falls face downward. He is then turned over on his back. If he die from this fall, that is sufficient If not, the second witness takes the stone and drops it on his heart. If this cause death that is sufficient; if not, he is stoned by all the congregation of Israel.' (Sanhedrin vi. 1-4).”

And as another early witness to this procedure, we have the account of the stoning of James the brother of Jesus as recorded by Hegesippus: “Then they seized him and threw him down and began to stone him, since he did not die from his fall.”

What were the offenses deserving of stoning?

Borchert: “The claim of Jesus...was clearly recognized from Jesus' perspective to be a blasphemous statement they could not tolerate. Accordingly, they again made their judgment call, and their verdict implied death by stoning (John 8:59; cf. Lev 24:11-16; 1 Kings 21:10-13).”

Neil says that ”stoning to death outside the city walls (i.e. outside the camp) was the punishment for blasphemy (Lev. 24:10ff).”

Were the New Testament examples legal or illegal actions?

“Since the Romans had taken away the Jews' right of capital punishment, it seems that Stephen's stoning was more a mob lynching than an official execution. Yet it had a small semblance of justice, since according to the law [Deut. 17:70], the first to begin stoning the condemned person must be 'the witnesses', which means his accusers, whether in Stephen's case these were the false witnesses of [Acts] 6:13 or Sanhedrin members.”

Craddock feels that in Stephen's case, “this is far from official procedure; it is angry mob reaction. “Even so, it foreshadows not only the trial and death of Jesus but also the fate of many of his followers.”

“It is not clear whether Stephen's death was the result of judicial action by the Sanhedrin or of mob violence. The Sanhedrin would presumably have to be ratified by Pilate as head of state; Pilate, however, would be at Caesaera and not in Jerusalem, and if he eventually heard that one more Jewish trouble-maker had been dispatched by an angry crowd he would not be too concerned.” (Neil)

Bruce says, “There is some doubt about what happened next. Did the crowd of bystanders take the law into their own hands and lynch Stephen?...The reference to the witnesses suggests that Stephen's stoning was carried out as a legal execution...But if it was a legal execution, how are we to account for its being carried out on the spot, without the authorization from the Roman governor which was required in the case of Jesus?” He concludes, as did Neil above, that “Pilate could be relied upon to turn a blind eye on occasion.”

Turning to Jesus' experience, Marshall says, “The act envisaged is not a formal execution but lynch law – and on the Sabbath at that. It may have been intended to stone Jesus (cf. John 8:59; Acts 7:54ff....) Since the attempt did not succeed, it is hard to guess what was intended.”

What about the story about the woman caught in adultery? (John 7:53-8:11)

Then there is this story in which the Jewish leaders ask for Jesus' opinion regarding the fate of a convicted adulteress. The main problem with this narrative is that practically all commentators are in agreement that this does not belong in John's Gospel at all. Concerning the textual evidence, Metzger says, “The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming.” And Comfort states, “The passage, which is clearly a later addition, came from an oral tradition. It does not belong in John's Gospel as part of the original text.”

However, that by no means imply that these words are to be discarded as unhistorical. In fact, a healthy proportion of Bible scholars running the gamut from fundamentalists to liberals treat this narrative as a free-floating authentic story which was attached to John's Gospel at a later date rather than to have it lost to posterity.

With this background, the incident appears as yet another attempt by Jesus' enemies to trick Jesus by forcing him to chose sides, either option of which was likely to put him in a bad light with the Roman authorities or the Jewish people. Jesus' way out of the quandary was to put the onus on the Jewish leaders themselves instead and make them confront their own sinful ways. But he did not let the woman in question off scot-free either. As Morris says, “She is to make a clean break with sin. Jesus does not refer specifically to adultery, though there cannot be any doubt that that is primarily in mind. His words are perfectly general. He is calling the woman to amendment of life, the whole of life.”

 

JOHN 7:1-52 (PART B)

You may have noticed in Part A of this series that several scholars alluded to the Old Testament background of some of John's comments in this chapter. In this post I would like to share some additional thoughts on that phenomenon.

Verse 24

“An ideal human judge imitates God's righteousness (Lk 12:57; Jn 7:24) but does not attempt to usurp God's role as the final judge (Deut 1:7)...Scripture lends grandeur and finality to images of judgment because God is held as the ultimate authority, the ultimate justice. As the psalmist declares, 'The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple' (Ps 19:7).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Verses 26-31

“Many studies of the Jewish messianic hope omit one of the most important sources: the Gospels themselves. When one reads them to find the hope entertained by the Jewish people, one finds a hope similar to that reflected in the Psalms of Solomon [a book in the OT Apocrypha]. It is quite clear that the people expected a messiah to appear (Jn. 1:20, 41; 4:29; 7:31; l K. 3:15)...There was a tradition that he would suddenly appear among the people from an obscure origin (Jn. 7:26-27)...The Messiah was expected to remain hidden until he would suddenly appear on the scene (7:27), but Jesus was a well-known figure.” (Ladd)

Similarly, Bird states, “Christos is an adjective signifying 'anointed [with oil]'; it is used in the LXX [Greek Septuagint] to translate the Hebrew word masiah, designating a person appointed by God for a specific role...The Lord intends to raise up a 'righteous scion' to usher in the salvation of Judah and Israel (Jer 23:5-6) with a reinstitution of the Davidic throne and a rebuilt temple (Jer 33:5-6). The new Davidide will be a shepherd to the house of Israel (Ezek 34:22-24)...Finally, in Daniel there is a vision for God's kingdom to crush all human kingdoms (Dan 2:44-45)...In sum, there is an incipient messiahship in the OT through the idealization of the Davidic kingship configured in light of eschatological hopes for the restoration of Israel...We find in John 7:25-44 that Jewish speculations are set in juxtaposition to the messianic identity of Jesus...there is some doubt among the crowd about Jesus because no one is supposed to know where the Messiah is from (Jn 7:26-27). Then again, the signs that Jesus does are regarded by the crowd as clear evidence of his messianic credentials (Jn 7:31)...”

Verse 35

R.E. Brown explains that the term 'Diaspora' in v. 35 “refers to the Jews living outside the Holy Land; the expression 'Diaspora of Israel' occurs in LXX [the Greek Septuagint] in Isa xlix 6; Ps cxlvii 2.”

Verse 36

Leon Morris: “From Deut. 16:13 it would appear that the feast at one time went for seven days, but Lev. 23:36 makes it plain that there was also an eighth day (even though it is mentioned separately from the seven). It is not quite clear whether it was the seventh day or this eighth day which was the climax of the whole celebration, and of which John speaks as 'the great day of the feast'.

Verses 37-38

These two verses “draw our attention to one of the most memorable parts of the Festival of Tabernacles, the seven-day water ceremony and the prayers for rain. On each of the seven days prior to the final day.., priests drew water from the Pool of Siloam and carried a golden pitcher full of the water to the temple and then around the altar with the high priest leading the way. As the priests neared the water gate, the shofar was blown, and then the psalms of praise and thanksgiving were sung to God for the harvest (Pss 113-118). As the ceremony developed, the Pharisees, who were primarily urban dwellers, insisted that a significant emphasis should be placed on the petition for rain because by this time of year (the fall) their cisterns would be nearly empty after the dryness of summer. Such symbolism carried the meaning beyond the emphasis of the desert experience, and the harvest symbolized in the citrus symbols that were raised in thanksgiving to God for the recently gathered fruits (cf. Zech 14:16-19...).” (Borchert)

Kostenberger states, “The narrative depicting Jesus' first teaching cycle in chapter 7 builds toward the climax of 7:37b-38, where Jesus issues the invitation to all who are thirsty to come to him and drink, so that believers would, once the Spirit had been given, become sources of 'streams of living water.' Thus, in keeping with the theme of Tabernacles, 'With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation (Isa 12:3), the prophetic vision of Isa. 58:11 would be fulfilled.'”

Ladd: “A contemporary Baptist scholar understands the word about birth of water and of the Spirit [in John 3:5 and 6:54] in sacramental terms...If this is Jesus' meaning, it is easy to see how the later church interpreted these words in terms of Christian baptism. However, it is equally possible that birth of water is no reference to baptism at all. Water and Spirit are linked with a single preposition and both seem to refer to the life from above. Water is coordinate, not contrasted with the Spirit. Elsewhere John uses water as a symbol of the life-giving operation of the Spirit (4:14; 7:38).” He then quotes Dunn as saying, “In the Old Testament water is a symbol of God's activity in quickening men to life (Isa. 55:1-3; Jer. 2:13; 17:13; Zech. 14:8; Ezek. 47:9) and is often linked with the eschatological re-recreation and renewal to be effected by the gift of the Spirit (Isa. 32:15-17; 44:3-5; Ezek. 36:25-27; 39:29; Joel 2:28). The reference to water, then, far from being a literal reference to the sacrament of baptism, is a symbol of the spiritual cleansing effected by the Spirit. Rather than expressing a sacramental view of baptism, John seems to be challenging any sacramentalism which he assumes on the part ot his readers.”

Verse 38

Brown spends a great deal of time suggesting various OT Scriptures as the closest background to the comments in v. 38. Possibilities he mentions include Deuteronomy 8:15; I Samuel 1:15; Psalm 42:1-2; 105:40-1; 114; Proverbs 18:4; 20:27; Isaiah 29:8; 43:11, 20; 44:3; 48:21; Zechariah 14:8; and Ezekiel 47:1-11.

“Since Jerusalem had no river flowing through it.., the river the psalmist pictures as flowing through Jerusalem (Ps 46:4) must be a symbol of God's presence, and a similar reading is likely for Ezekiel's vision of a river flowing from the temple (Ezek 47). Similarly, Jesus speaks of a spritual reality when he says, 'Out of the believer's heart shall flow rivers of living water,' by which he meant the Holy Spirit (John 7:38-39).” (DBI)

Verses 38, 42

Grant Osborne notes: “John's pattern of quotation follows that of his Gospel as a whole. In the Book of Signs (chaps. 2-12) they are introduced with some form of 'it is written' (1:23; 2:17; 6:31, 45; 7:38, 42; 8:17; 10:34; 12:14) while in his passion narrative (chaps. 13-20) they are introduced by 'in order that it might be fulfilled'...In John 7:38 he is the source of the living water of the Spirit (possibly Is 12:3), and in John 7:42 he fulfills Micah 5:2 as well as 2 Samuel 7:12-16, Psalm 89:3-4 and Isaiah 9:7 in his origin as the Davidic Messiah.” Alternatively, Kostenberger feels that v. 38 may refer to Psalm 78:15-16 and Zechariah 14:8.

“And, while it is true that it is hard to find an Old Testament passage which unambiguously prophesies that rivers of living water will flow from the believer, it is also true that it is harder still to find one which says this of Christ. Exod. 17:6; Ps. 105:41; Ezek. 47:1 and Joel 3:18 are adduced, but a good imagination is required to see in any of these a prophecy that Christ would become the source...” (Morris)

Verse 39

Concerning this verse, Kostenbrger says, “The crowd continued to debate Jesus' identity. Some saw Him as the Prophet mentioned by Moses (Deut. 18:15, 18). He would speak God's words to people but not in the awesome display of Mount Sinai from which Moses spoke. Jesus is indeed that predicted Prophet (Acts 3:22), but many rejected Him as such.”

Verse 42

“The objectors back up their case with an appeal to the Bible. 'The scripture' usually refers to a specific passage, but there is no place where the Old Testament says precisely this. It seems that here it is the general tenor of several Old Testament passages that is in mind (e.g. I Sam. 20:6; II Sam. 7:12ff.; Ps. 89:3f.; Mic. 5:2, etc.). The expectation shows that the Exile was not held to have put an end to the possibilities of the Davidic line. In due course, when God sent His Messiah, He would be of that line, and, indeed, come from the very town of Bethlehem...The verse is another example of the Johannine irony. How strange that these people were citing as an objection to Jesus' messiahship just that fact that they required to attest it, had they but known the facts of the case.” (Morris)

Verse 49

This verse refers to “this mob which knows nothing of the Law.” Brown says, “The poor who were ignorant of the Law were already a problem in Jeremiah's time – see Jer v 4 where Jeremiah seeks to excuse them.” Brown adds that the curse in this verse “may be associated with passages like Deut xxvii 26, xxviii 15; Ps cxix 21 which curse those who do not conform to the law.”