ROMANS 11:17-24

This whole presentation by Paul has been called an analogy (Campbell), an allegory (France, Allen), a picture (Embry) and a metaphor (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery). Paul's olive tree imagery makes sense up to a certain point. Thus, some branches of the olive tree (Jewish unbelievers) were broken off due to their disbelief so that wild olive shoots (Gentile believers) could be grafted in. But then in vv. 23-24 Paul states that if these broken branches turn from their unbelief, they can be grafted back into their original tree. Both the physical picture and its underlying meaning are subject to various interpretations. Thus, these verses would probably be a good example of what Peter had in mind when he said that some things in Paul's letters are difficult to understand. (II Peter 3:15-16)

The olive tree imagery employed by Paul in this chapter is actually introduced in v. 16. The statement there is based on Numbers 15:17-21 in which the author says “If the root is holy, so are the branches.” (Link and Brown) DBI adds, “The grafting image depends directly on the OT picture of Israel as God's olive tree.” Hosea 14:5-7 is one such passage. “It also recalls Christ's own metaphor of the vine and the branches recorded in John 15.”

Embry: In v. 17f, “the olive tree stands for both the old and the new communities and there is the same root...It would be wrong to regard the 'holy root' (v. 16) as Christ as some of the early fathers did.”

Romans 11:17-22 These verses apply to the process whereby the Gentiles were grafted in to the people of God. The physical picture is not the norm practiced by horticulturalists since it is generally the cultivated branches that are grafted in to the wild plant. One prominent example is what happened in the late 1880's in France when their vineyards were infected with a blight that came close to wiping out all wine production in that country. Scientists were able to stave off this event by taking wild mustang grape plants from Texas and grafting in branches from the cultivated plants.

Something akin to what Paul is talking about here actually did occur in the ancient world whereby oleaster (wild olive) branches were purposely grafted in to cultivated trees in the mistaken belief that it would strengthen the plant. Thus, the picture that Paul utilizes would not have been totally foreign to his audience at the time.

France explains it thus: “Many commentators assume that Paul's theology is better than his knowledge of horticulture. But while modern agriculturalists would look askance at the attempt to graft the oleaster on to the olive, this is independently attested in ancient times as a device to rejuvenate an unproductive olive.”

Witmer: “He knew that grafting the wild into the cultivated was not the norm (though it was done), for later he said it was 'contrary to nature' (Rom. 11:24).”

Romans 11:23-24 Now the picture gets even more strange since Paul talks about taking the broken-off branches and re-grafting them on the original plant. Commentators weigh in on these verses also, with somewhat similar conclusions.

DBI calls this reverse of the normal order “supernatural.”

“Perhaps the tension between Paul's picture and approved horticultural practice is intended to underline the miraculous nature of this work of God which is contrary to nature.” (Embry)

Elliott states, “If ingrafting a wild olive tree is unusual, restoring branches that have been broken off is nothing less than miraculous.” But of course that is just what Paul refers to in v. 23 when he says that “God has the power” to accomplish it. As Barrett says, “He is arguing from God to nature, not from nature to God.”

Davidson and Martin: “Here Paul implies a spiritual, if not horticultural, reality; the original branches are more akin to the tree than the wild shoots and should therefore be easier to graft into the stock from which they were originally taken...Where Paul does, quite consciously, go beyond nature is his belief that after branches have been cut off, God has the power to graft them in again. This is the miracle of God's grace.

Leslie Allen says, “The very unusualness is no doubt an intended part of the allegory. God has acted in grace that transcends human custom and expectation.”

Campbell points out that the “basic process of grafting itself is unnatural only in the sense that it is an interference with the natural order, but when Paul goes on to speak of the grafting in again of branches that had been deliberately cut off, he is referring to something which has no parallel in normal oleiculture.”

Campbell draws five lessons from these verses:

    1. The branches remain only by faith, not ethnicity.

    2. The roots support the branches, not vice versa.

    3. The in-grafted branches are to share the root, not displace the other branches.

    4. Even the in-grafted branches can be broken off it they do not live in humble faith.

    5. Even the broken-off branches can be grafted back in by God – “a truly unnatural, even miraculous activity.

It is this last point that Paul will develop further in the rest of the chapter. But of that discussion, it is vv. 25-26 in particular that have caused the most division among theologians and expositors. Therefore I will discuss them in a later blog post.

 

THE PERSON, GIFTS, AND FRUIT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT: LESSON PLAN

 Books have been written on this subject, but the suggested study guide below worked for our Sunday school class when we used it years ago. I must admit that I have not provided any specific Bible references to aid you in preparing for these lessons, so it will be necessary to do a little digging. The easiest approach would be to use an Analytical Concordance (they are available on-line) to look for key words. When handled in a group setting, you may wish to make it more of a discussion than a lecture, especially the lessons on the fruit of the Spirit. I have provided a few of my blog posts that may be helpful to you.

Lesson         Title

1                 A Spiritual Quiz

2                The Spirit in the Old Testament

3                The Spirit in the Gospels

4                The Spirit in Paul's Epistles: Part I

5                The Spirit in Paul's Epistles: Part II

6                The Spirit in Other NT Books

7                Systematic Theology: Putting It All Together

8                The Spirit Throughout Church History

                  (Holy Spirit Movements)

9                Gifts of the Spirit: The “Ordinary” Gifts

10              Gifts of the Spirit: The “Problem” Gifts

11              Love: the True Test of a Christian

12              Joy: Not Just Happiness

13              Peace: The Absence of War?

14              Patience: Slow to Anger

15              Kindness: Care and Nurturing Ministries

16              Gracious Goodness: Kindness in Actions

17              Faithfulness: Trusting and Trustworthy

18              Gentleness: Meek and Mild?

19              Self-Control: Mastering the Flesh

One reliable and very readable resource that covers many of the topics above is Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God by the respected Pentacostal scholar Gordon Fee.

Lesson         Applicable Blog Posts

1                 “The Holy Spirit: Introductory Quiz”

2                 “The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament”

3                 “John 15-16”

                   “Mark 3:28-29”

                   “Matthew 3:16”

5                  “II Thessalonians 2:5-7”

6                  “Acts 1”

                    “Acts 8:14-16”

7                 “The Trinity”

                   “II Corinthians 3:17-18: The Trinity”

9                 “Gifts of the Spirit”

10              “Tongue Speaking: etc.” (several blogs with this starting title)

                  “I Corinthians 13:8-9”

UNDERSTANDING I CORINTHIANS 10:29-30

There have been two issues bothering me concerning the whole subject of dealing with other believers who disagree on certain practices for moral reasons. The first concerns Paul's conclusion to his extensive discussion, found in I Corinthians 8 and 10 on eating meat that has been offered to idols. After spilling much ink teaching that we must bend over backwards avoiding actions that might cause weaker brothers to stumble, he paradoxically reverses gears in 10:29b-30 by saying that our freedom in Christ should not be hampered by another's conscience. I was gratified to find that I am not the only one who sees a problem here. Gordon Fee calls these verses a sudden and apparent non sequitur. And Marsh says, “Vv. 29b and 30 seem to be out of sympathy with Paul's preceding statement.”

The second sticking issue concerns an apparent inconsistency in Paul's actions recorded in Galatians 2:11-14. Peter has withdrawn from table fellowship with the Gentile believers at Antioch when a group of Jewish Christians from Jerusalem arrives. In doing so in order not to offend their sensibilities regarding eating with Gentiles, he seems to be following Paul's advice in I Corinthians. But for some reason Paul bawls him out in front of the whole church instead. Again, I was pleased to see that Orr and Walther reached the same conclusion. They call the distinction between Paul's teachings in I Corinthians and his actions in Galatians “a nice one.”

Apparent Inconsistency Within I Corinthians 10

This discussion begins with the question as to how vv. 29b-30 fits within the scope of its immediate context since it appears to strike out in a new direction. Fee explains that these verses deal more with the subject of a Christian's freedom than with his voluntary limiting of that freedom to avoid offending others. In other words, it looks back to vv. 25-26. The flow of Paul's thought is thus best described as a chiasm:

A. Criterion: the good of others (vv. 23-24)

        B. Personal freedom in regard to food (vv. 25-27)

                C. Illustration (vv. 28-29a)

        B'. Personal freedom defended (vv. 29b-30)

A'. Criterion generalized: salvation of others (vv. 31-33)

This understanding is in line with the way RSV places vv. 28-29a in brackets in spite of the fact that Marsh states that “little is gained by such a reconstruction.”

Fee says that the rhetoric in verses 29b-30 “has created a notorious crux for interpreters. A variety of solutions has been offered, none of which is fully satisfactory.” He lists five possibilities offered by others to resolve the issue. I won't offer any comments on the first two.

    1. It is an interpolated passage from another author.

    2. Paul is simply quoting an objection from one of the “strong” Christians, but it does not represent Paul's own thoughts.

    3. Paul is warning the “weak” not to take advantage of the forbearance of the strong.

    4. This is a rhetorical way of stating that he who limits is freedom for the sake of others has not lost his own freedom in those matters.

    5. It is a rhetorical question meaning “What good end will be served by eating meat?”

Solution 3: Fee feels that Paul concludes his discussion of the whole subject by breaking out against those who have judged him for eating meat offered to idols in his own house. “If he eats, he does so in light of the benediction alluded to in v. 26, and he is not to be condemned by anyone.”

Solution 4: Lowery states, “A knowledgeable Christian did not need to alter his convictions to accord with the conscience of a weaker brother, but he did need to alter his behavior when in the weaker brother's presence. Otherwise the weak brother might act against his conscience and harm himself, which would bring denunciation on the strong brother.”

Grosheide: “The fact that the one may have objection to the eating of sacrificial meat has no significance for another who is strong...On the contrary such a conscience remains free, whether the person eats or does not eat.”

Orr and Walther add, “Paul is careful to make it clear that the principle of Christians freedom is not to be jeopardized. A free Christian...must not allow his own conscience to think that he is doing something evil by the mere act of eating the food.”

Solution 5: Marsh expresses this thought when he explains that hinat (“for why”) “never means 'by what right' but 'for what purpose'.” Thus he paraphrases 29b-30 as “What good end will be served by my eating under these circumstances, and exposing my freedoms to the censure of an unsympathetic conscience?”

Gundry-Volf offers a good conclusion to this issue when he says that “personal integrity is not endangered by violation of another's conscience...the conscience may give a positive verdict on a particular behavior as such, but that verdict does not suffice as a justification for engaging in that behavior...The 'strong' ignore this truth when they eat meat offered to idols in the presence of the weak...the conscience's verdict on a particular behavior in a concrete situation must be heard...before one can engage in that behavior and claim conscience as a witness to its rightness.”

Apparent Inconsistency Between I Corinthians 10 and Galatians 2:11-14

As with the previous question, scholars have approached this issue of Paul's apparent inconsistency in slightly different ways:

Donald Guthrie: “He [Peter] probably thought that compromise was the best solution, both Jews and Gentiles keeping respectively to their own customs. But Paul saw with acute penetration that this was no solution at all.”

Bruce: Cephas would have said that he was being considerate of his weaker brothers. “the trouble was, however, that Cephas' concern for the weaker brethren in Jerusalem conflicted with Paul's concern for the Gentile brethren in Antioch, who were being made to feel like second-class citizens...But for Paul the liberty of the Gentiles was endangered by their actions as surely as it was by the intrusion of the false brethren mentioned in v. 4.”

Stott: The truth of the gospel message itself was at stake here. Peter's motive for his actions is clearly stated to be fear of the delegation from Jerusalem, not love.

Orr and Walther: “Paul's encounter with Cephas at Antioch provides an instructive illustration. It might be argued that Paul did not have regard for Cephas' conscience in that encounter but Paul evidently did not think the point involved danger to the weak conscience of another but rather his own freedom.”

Jerusalem Bible: “Peter's conduct was not in itself blameworthy, and in different circumstances Paul was to do the same, Ac 16:3; 21:26; I Co 8:13; Rm 14:21; cf. I Co 9:20. But on this occasion such a policy suggested that the only true Christians were converted Jews who observed the Law, and threatened to produce two separate communities that could not even meet to celebrate the Eucharist.”

Despite some of the attempts above to excuse Peter's actions, Stott is correct in pointing out that the text clearly states that it was fear of the Judaizers which caused him to act in the way that he did. As to whether the Jerusalem Bible is correct in stating that Paul did the same thing on various occasions, here is a quick review of the passages it cites:

    Acts 16:3 – Paul has Timothy circumcised so that his evangelistic efforts with the Jews will not be hindered. However, Timothy was a half-Jew and so this was not a case of having a Gentile circumcised because that would have actually had a negative effect on their attempts to teach the true gospel of grace.

    Acts 21:26 – Paul as a Jew has no problem taking part in a Jewish ceremony. But the previous verse makes it clear that Gentile Christians, in contrast, do not need to be circumcised but only observe those laws that would hinder table fellowship with Jewish believers. This is the totally opposite situation as that in Galatians 2 where Peter's actions led to the complete table separation of the two groups.

    I Corinthians 8:13 – This teaching is in perfect alignment with all of Romans 14 and its words concerning weaker brothers. But everything depends on one's definition of strong and weak in this context, as Friesen demonstrates below.

    Romans 14:21 – Again, this passage concerns our actions toward “weaker” brothers only.

The entire last chapter of Gary Friesen's excellent book Decision Making and the Will of God is devoted to a discussion of how we are to act toward “weak Christians,” “strong Christians,” and Pharisees. His useful distinction between the three categories does much to clarify the events related in Galatians 2.

    Weak Christian: “a Christian who, because of the weakness of his faith, knowledge, conscience, and will, can be influenced to sin against his conscience by the example of a differing stronger brother.”

    Strong Christian: “a Christian who, because of his understanding of Christian freedom and the strength of his conviction, exercises his liberty with full peace of conscience without being improperly influenced by the differing opinions of others.”

    Pharisee: “He is fully convinced and proud. He has been taught, but is not open to correction. He judges or rejects me for my differing conviction and seeks to make me conform to his viewpoint. He becomes upset by my use of freedom.”

Keeping these definitions in mind, one can easily see that Paul's comments in Romans 14 are addressed to the strong Christians regarding their actions in the presence of weaker believers (converted Gentiles). In stark contrast to this situation, Galatians 2 describes the false actions of a strong believer (Peter) in the presence of both weak Christians and Pharisees (i.e. the Judaizers from Jerusalem). Peter's error in this case was to be solely concerned with how the Judaizers would view him personally whereas Paul's more appropriate concern was on the effect Peter's actions would have on the weaker brothers in Antioch. After all, there was little chance that Peter, or anyone else, could have changed the visitors' minds on the matter, and certainly not by simply giving in to their prejudices.

When I was growing up, the common teaching from the pulpit and Sunday school usually started out with the rhetorical question: “What will people think if they see you doing [fill in your own blank]?” But in every case that I can think of, their subsequent examples would always referred to the effect of our actions on non-believers. Not that I don't believe this is an important consideration, but it certainly wasn't what Paul had in mind in I Corinthians.

The behaviors that were usually highlighted back then were those such as going to the movies, playing cards, dancing, holding hands with those of the opposite sex, going swimming where boys and girls were both present, etc. However, it was obvious to me even back then that these teachers and preachers were in fact the weaker brothers and Pharisees illustrated in the I Corinthians and Galatians passages described above since they were the only ones who would have been upset with such actions that non-Christians and most other Christians would find totally innocuous.

 

JOB 19

Franks calls this the “watershed of the book.”

There is little agreement as to the number or identification of individual literary units in this chapter.

Thus:

vv. 1-6, 7-12, 13-20, 21-27, 28-29 (Hartley)

vv. 1-20, 21-27, 28-29 (NEB)

vv. 1-12, 13-22, 23-29 (NRSV)

vv. 1-12, 13-22, 23-29 (JB)

My own literary analysis breaks it down as follows, although the section division points are not really well defined:

    A. The friends' attack on Job (vv. 1-5)

            B. God's attack on Job (vv. 6-22)

                    C. Words of hope (vv. 23-27)

    A'. The friends' attack on Job (v. 28)

            B'. God's judgment on the friends (v. 29)

Unfortunately, the often quoted key center verses here are the most difficult to translate of any in the chapter, and so uncertainty must remain concerning their actual implications.

19:2-3 Job uses the plural “you” referring to all three friends, but specifically to Bildad since the question “How long?” is also the way Bildad has begun his two speeches. (Hartley)

19:3 The ancient commentator Rashi felt that the “ten times” referred to the number of speeches thus far in the story. But that is highly doubtful because it counts the speeches of Job as well. Alternatively, Pape treats it as just a figurative round number.

19:4 Milgrom: “' If indeed I sinned without knowing it, it is I who should be conscious of it, but I am not.' In other words, 'it would be unfair of God to punish me for a wrong I did not know I had committed.”

Seow: “Job is saying that the error would no doubt bring its consequences. He is confident, however, that the error is not his but God's.”

Heavenor: “...even if he has sinned, that is no business of theirs. That is a matter between a man and his God.” The friends should therefore encourage him instead of judging him.

19:6 Clines explains that “there is no one to answer him, for God himself is the oppressor.” See Jeremiah 20:7 for a similar thought.

19:7 Clines feels that “There is no justice” does not refer to the injustice of God but that God is delaying the justice due to Job.

19:8 The general thought and some of the language here are similar to Lamentations 3:2-9.

19:9 Kabod (“honor”) can also refer to wealth. Job has lost both. (Pape)

19:10-12 God has not only cut him down like a tree (see 14:7) but even uprooted him so that he cannot recover. In addition, He has erected a siege ramp against him even though he is only a tent, not a walled city. (Hartley)

19:17 However, Job's children are all dead! It has therefore been suggested that it instead refers to Job's children by concubines, his grandchildren, or Job's brothers and sisters.

19:20-26 There is an interesting threefold pattern tying together these verses:

    skin (20a)...flesh (20a)

    skin (20b)...flesh (22)

    skin (26a)...flesh (26b)

19:20 Gary Long: “The surrounding context suggests that Job has been delivered from death but in a condition where death might have been a better alternative,” unlike the modern understanding of the phrase “escaped by the skin of my teeth.”

Pape: “It is quite hopeless to arrive at any certainty as to the correct text and the exact sense of the verse...It is certain only that Job refers to his poor physical condition.” Hartley agrees with this assessment: “The explanations for this last metaphor are multiple and unconvincing.”

19:21 “Their inflexible creed would not allow them to do so [show pity]. They had to choose between their friend and their faith.” (Heavenor)

19:22 Alter: “In context, the otherwise bland verb [“sated”] produces a horrific image of cannibalism, which manages to say a great deal with awesome compression about the perverted nature of the friends' relationship to the stricken Job.”

Alternatively, Tur-Sinai feels that “to eat the flesh” may refer to the practice of sexually abusing captives taken in war.

19:23-24 K.R.R. Gros Louis says, “Job seems to separate himself from his friends; their opinions are nothing compared to Job's more important audiences – us and his God.”

19:24 Konkel feels that this may refer either to an alloy out of which a stylus was made, or to molten lead being poured into grooves chiseled into a rock. The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery and other sources add the possibility that the iron tool inscribed the words on a sheet of lead.

19:25-27 A number of commentators point to the idea of the kinsman-redeemer which appears prominently in the book of Ruth. This person was expected to come to the defense or aid of a relative who was in trouble. Schneider and Brown translate this as the wish: “Oh, that I had a redeemer!” Hubbard points out that the identity of the redeemer is not certain. Some scholars feel it is God Himself. But more recent scholars note that it makes more sense if a third party defends Job against God. Another possibility he mentions is that it is a heavenly defender such as the archangel Michael (see Daniel 10) as a counterpart to Satan as the heavenly prosecutor.

“Unfortunately the Hebrew text of this and the subsequent verses is extraordinarily difficult, so that the popular interpretation of the passage [i.e. a belief in the afterlife] can hardly be supported.” (Clines) However, this is a rather illogical conclusion given the uncertainty involved in translation. Thus, although P.S. Johnston denies that these verses express a belief in the resurrection, he admits that the translation difficulties in this verse render any final decision on the matter uncertain. (NRSV actually has five translation notes for these two verses.) However, he states that “there is bold faith here: not that Job will survive death, but that he will eventually meet God. This indeed happens at the end of the book, though with an unexpected outcome: instead of defiant self-justification by Job, there is humble contrition, and instead of condemnation by God, there is vindication.”

Schneider and Brown state, “There has been considerable debate as to whether Job 19:25f looks to a life after death and even some form of resurrection.” However, “The translation is notoriously difficult...Rowley thinks it unlikely that we shall be able to achieve only convincing reconstruction within the limits of our present knowledge.” Heavenor agrees: “We cannot be certain of the meaning.”

There are at least four possibilities concerning Job's vindication as described in verses 25-26:

    Here on earth while Job is still alive

    Here on earth after Job is dead

    In his spiritual existence in heaven

    In his resurrected body

Naude similarly states, “Divergent views exist, depending on what kind of seeing is meant: physically in his own body (resurrected or restored), in a disembodied form / bodiless spirit, or in a vision.”

Rowley summarizes the situation by saying, “Two things seem to be clear. Job is assured that his Vindicator will arise to vindicate his innocence, and that he himself will see God.” H.M. Wolf also notes: “In Job 19:26 the rendering 'without my flesh I shall see God' yields a meaning diametrically opposed to 'in my flesh I shall see God.' Yet both translations are possible, and the English reader is to some extent at the mercy of the translator.” And as if that were not confusing enough, NRSV translates v. 27 to state that Job expresses the certainty that Job will see God “on my side,” rather than “with my eyes.”

One factor some use to argue against belief in any sort of afterlife expressed here is the paucity of other OT teachings on this subject. However, there are hints of such a belief found in several other OT passages, and so that should not be the prime factor for eliminating this as a possible interpretation of these verses.

 

NOTES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

 

 John 1:13 This is like God miraculously opening wombs in Genesis.

John 1:21 also see John 6:14 and John 7:40.  The concept of the prophet in the likeness of Moses 

comes from Deuteronomy 18:15,18.

John 1:31 This answers question of 1:25 the next day. "Did not recognize" must mean "did not 

recognize him as the Christ" since they were cousins.

John 1:46 See John 7:40-42 for the possible meaning to Nathanael's statement. Philip copies Christ's 

answer in verse 39.

John 1:47 Purposeful irony since Israel/Jacob was a deceiver. Another reference to the Jacob story is 

foun in v. 51.

John 1:51 The imagery comes from Genesis 28:12. 

Jen Wilkin, CT, Nov. 2019): “The span between God and man is not horizontal, requiring a bridge, but 

vertical, requiring a stairway of miraculous length. Indeed, our stairway to heaven is not a 'what' but a 

'who.'”

John 2:1 The time was possibly counting from 1:43. It was at least a two-day journey to get to Cana. A 

6-day period is recorded by John at the start of Christ's ministry (see John 12).

John 2:6 The only known production site for chalkstone vessels was located at Einot Amitai, only a 

little more than a mile from Cana. (BAR 42 (5), p. 60) Stone rather than pottery was used due to 

Leviticus 11:33.

John 3:3-4 “Like babies in the womb, we can do nothing to bring about this new birth.” (Matthew 

Barrett CT, July/Aug 2020, p. 76)

John 3:5 Born of water = (1) physical birth (womb), (2) see John 7:30, or (3) baptism.

John 3:15 This is the first of 12 uses of the phrase “life eternal” in the gospel (ending with the reversed 

order in 17:3).

John 4 This illustrates the principles of evangelism: v. 7-make contact, take initiative; v. 10-find an 

area of common interest; v. 16-find what is blocking their response to God; v. 20-avoid getting 

sidetracked; v. 26-confront them with the person of Christ.

Paul Duke: The bridegroom is mentioned in John 2:1-11 and John 3:29. It prepares the reader for 

Chapter 4, which is almost a parody of the classic story of bride meeting groom by well (Genesis 24, 

29; Exodus 2) containing the same story elements.

Sam Chan, CT, June 2018: We approach this story through Western eyes and condemn the woman for 

being an adulteress, but in some cultures people might interpret the story to mean that she has been 

abandoned by five men unfairly and she now lives with another man for protection who doesn't even 

have the decency to marry her.

John 4:4 This contains the possible nuance of "had to", i.e. it was ordained.

John 4:7 The humanity of Christ is soon followed by an example of his divinity in John 4:17.

John 4:20-26 Jesus redirects the question about the “where” of worship to talking about who, why and 

how.

John 4:22-24 You must not only worship in spirit, but must know whom you are worshiping. Head and 

heart? 

See Psalm 47:7.

John 5:14-18 v.14. The man was sinning in carrying a pallet since he did not know who Jesus was. 

This is similar to the man who called Christ "good"without realizing his divine nature.

v. 18 See Philippians 2:6.

John 5:37 & 46 demonstrate that the Bible was written by God and by man at the same time.

John 5:39 Biblidolatry. Remember the lines of the old hymn: "Beyond the sacred page I seek thee 

Lord."

John 6:9 This was common food "not fit to eat" according to Josephus.

John 6:13 This was a test for  the apostles (v. 6) as much as for people--one basket for each apostle.

John 6:27 Parallel to woman at the well (John 4:7-15) and having water.

John 6:60 Perhaps this was made purposely hard for the Jews in order to discourage the wrong type of 

followers. See John 6:15.

This is not a proof passage for transubstantiation but refers to spiritual food provided only by Christ. 

There are numerous other instances in John's Gospel where Christ's words were wrongly taken literally.

John 7:37-39 Metzger notes that there are numerous textual variations here. They are best explained 

by an original text reading "for as yet the Spirit was not, for Jesus was not yet glorified." Since this 

statement could be easily misunderstood, others attempted to clarify it.

John 7:49 Hillel-"no ignorant person is pious..."

John 8 look at the dualistic language in this chapter.

John 8:8 What did Jesus write? Jesus was possibly alluding to Jeremiah 17:13 and was writing down 

the names of those present who had committed the same sin.

John 8:8 Only writing that was impermanent was allowed on the Sabbath. Whatever Jesus wrote, he 

was demonstrating his obedience to the law.

John 9:6-7 This was not a mere healing, but the creation of something new. The story is similar to

the creation of man in Genesis 7. Each case has dirt plus something of the divine (spit and wind/breath.

John 10:1-11 These verses apply not only to the Great Shepherd but also to us as undershepherds over 

other Christians and non-Christians.

Characteristics of shepherd are given:

    must be saved (vv. 1-2)

    communicate God's word (v. 3)

    have deep, caring relationship (v. 3)

    meet their needs (pastureland) (v. 3)

    lead by example (vv. 3-4)

    sacrificially give (v. 11)

John 11:3 see the note to John 13:23

John 11:37 "When the divine man Jesus draws near Lazarus' rotting corpse, either the divine must 

retreat from the stench or the stench must retreat from the divine: that is, death must turn into life." 

(Winn Leith)

John 11:33-38 The word in vv. 33,38 is a down-to-earth one usually applied to the snorting of horses.

It may express disgust or be an expression of another deep emotion.

v. 35. There is a parallel in Genesis 50:17("death, distrust").

John 11:49 i.e. "that fateful year," not for just one year.

John 12:1 There is a six-day period recorded by John at the end of Christ's ministry (see note to John 

 2:1).

John 12:5 Judas may have been the brother of Mary and Martha (through other scriptures) and 

therefore knew the cost of the perfume.

John 12:26a The Greek word translated “follow” means literally “together in the way.” This is parallel 

to the statement in 26b.

John 12:39-43 John's paradoxical view of glory. The quotation says that Isaiah saw glory in Jesus' 

acceptance of the way of rejection and suffering.

John 13:8 Peter's statement is emphatic in the Greek.

John 13:23 Usually this position (next to the honored guest) was occupied by the owner of the house. 

The same language is used in John 11:3 to describe Lazarus. It has been proposed that he was the 

Beloved Disciple. This would also explain why the Beloved Disciple was at the cross (John 19:26) 

even though elsewhere (Mark 14:50) the Twelve are stated to have deserted Jesus.

John 13:29 Giving alms was a regular feature of Passover.

John 14 Gary Collins: principles for dealing with stress are found in this chapter such as recognizing it 

will occur, understanding the cause, accepting the help of the Holy Spirit, etc.

John 14:4. "and mine is not the word which you hear" = "that which Christ teaches is not realized or 

served by the individual words alone, butr rather in the context of the Word before all words, the 

configuration of God's full discourse with humanity." (David Jeffrey)

John 14:8b equates Christ with the Holy Spirit

John 14:12-14 Not just a magic formula (see the story in Acts 19:14). Compare John 15:16-17. Look at 

who is doing what and compare discrepancies.

John 14:16 "another" = allon; not hetero-- of the same sort = deity.

John 15:1 "takes away, cut off" is literally "lifts up" in the Greek.

John 16 Look at the various predictions in this chapter: 

    vv. 1-6 persecution,

    vv. 7-15 Holy Spirit

    vv. 16-24 Jesus' Second Coming

    vv. 25-33 God's continuing love.

The Trinity is contained in these last three elements.

John 17 provides a good pattern for our own prayers:

    vv. 1-5 prayer for himself

    vv. 6-15 prayer for the Twelve

    vv. 16-26 prayer for the church

John 17:3 There have been eleven mentions of “life eternal” up to this point, beginning at John 3:15. 

This verse ends the series of twelve with the inverted order: "eternal life."

John 18:1 This is a reference to the Garden of Eden and mankind's sin, which is now going to be 

atoned for.

John 18:37 This is the only time Jesus talks about his birth.

John 19:15 The priests’ response is a parody of “We have no God but the God.”

John 19:26 see note to John 13:23

John 19:28-30 Andrew Wilson (CT, Nov. 2020, p. 32) points out that in these three verses, John uses 

the word fill or fulfill five times, each one signifying something different. “John, it seems, wants us to 

see Christ's death not merely as a conclusion, but as a culmination.” The first one looks back to the 

previous verses where Jesus joins the Beloved Apostle and Mary in what could be called the beginning 

of the church. Fulfilling the scriptures refers specifically to Psalm 69:21 but also to the fulfillment of 

all the promises in the OT. “Full of sour wine” (2x) harkens back to the cup in John 18:11 that Jesus 

must drink. And the final example summarizes that all Christ's work on earth has been accomplished.

John 19:31 Day of Preparation and High Day do not fit normal Saturday Sabbath observances and

may refer to the 15th day of Nisan, a day of rest during Passover observance. This occurred on Friday, 

giving rise to two Sabbaths and thus allowing three full days and nights for Christ to be in tomb. .

John 19:34 See Evidence That Demands a Verdict, p. 206 for a pathologist's point of view.

John 19:38 There is a supreme irony here of two secret followers coming out in the open while his 

open followers were in hiding. Remember Jesus' story of two sons: one says he will obey but doesn't,

 and the other one does the reverse.

John 19:39-40 We can read these verses as a lack of faith in the resurrection or as an act of extreme 

devotion like the woman with the perfume.

John 20:1-18 begins and ends with Mary Magdalene going somewhere and "seeing."

John 20:15 Jesus appears as a gardener, being an image of the second Adam, “back on the job where 

the old Adam failed – dressing and keeping the garden. His invitation to us in the Bible's last chapter is 

to keep his commandments, so that we can meet him at a tree – the Tree in Life before God's throne, 

with branches that bear fruit in every season and leaves that heal the nations.” (Matthew Sleeth, CT 

Oct. 2018, p. 56)

John 20:22 Here is a new creation as in Genesis 2 when Adam is made alive by breath.

John 20:29 There is a parallel in I Peter 1:8.

John 21 Jesus revives Peter's faith by repeating the scene (recorded in Luke) of Peter's calling.

John 21:1-9 This best fits what is called the veranda method, in which one boat forms a barrel of mesh

with a net while a second boat lays out a trammel net on the water's surface which is kept afloat with 

reeds. This explains Peter diving in the water.

An ancient mosaic has been uncovered showing two men in a boat fishing in the nude. Verse 7 says 

that Peter was gymnos (i.e. nude).

John 21:23-24 Some have proposed that this refers, not to John, but to Lazarus.

BOOK OF JOB: STUDY GUIDE OUTLINE

Job is a very hard book to study in a verse-by-verse manner due to the repetitious nature of the debates between Job and his friends. Here is a basic lesson outline that I have used in the past. It is short enough that you and your audience will hopefully not have time enough to get bored with the subject. And I have previously posted articles on most of these individual lessons which you may use as a resource.

Lesson      Subj                                                        Post Title

1               General Introductio                               Book of Job: An Introduction                                  

                                                                                Book of Job Date

2              Job as Literatture                                    Book of Job as Literature

                                                                                Book of Job: Introduction to the Literary Structure

3             The Main Players                                    Book of Job: Main Players

4             The Debates                                            Book of Job: The Debates

                                                                               Job 15

5             Elihu's Contribution                               Job 32:1-2

6            Job's Progress                                          Job's Progress

7            Questions Raised                                     Questions in the Book of Job

8           God's (Non-)Answer                                 Job 38-41

                                                                               Taunt Songs

9           Theodicy                                                   Theodicy: The Problem of Evil

10          Conclusion                                               Job 42:5-7

                                                                                Lessons from the Book of Job

 

KING JEHU (II KINGS 9-10)

Jehu's reign over Israel lasted from 841-814 BC and overlapped with those of Athaliah and Joash in the Southern Kingdom. He was founder of the longest dynasty in Israel. There is also a brief parallel account found in Chronicles, but the Chronicler shows only minimal interest in what transpired in Israel in order to concentrate on events in Judah instead.

II Kings 9   In 1993-4 excavations at the site of Dan, portions of a stone monument were uncovered that confirm Jehu's rebellion described in this chapter. These fragments have been dated to the approximate start of Jehu's reign. (Gilmour)

9:1-10 “...here is violence that judges but does not heal. Only at Calvary did fierce judgment of sin bring restoration and health for sinners.” (Charles Martin)

9:1-3 “Elisha simply triggers the political action. He makes a gesture and speaks a word which sets things going with the inelucability of a machine. He is literally the finger that presses a button and the whole mechanism starts functioning. But then Elisha does not intervene again. He has no part at all in the political actions.” (Ellul)

9:3-6 Jehu is anointed king with a whole bottle of oil as Saul was earlier.

9:7-10 Note that the young man adds his own words to what Elisha had told him to speak. So we have a distancing from Elisha to the young man to Jehu. Each adds his own words. Ellul points out that this is typical of what happens in the church.

9:13 The “bare steps” (gerem) “may refer to some now lost architectural feature.” (Martin)

9:14 The famous Black Obelisk pictures Jehu submitting to Shalmaneser II of Assyria, probably in order to enlist his help against Hazael. (Waite)

9:17 “Is it peace?” is a question that will be repeated in vv. 18, 19, 22, and 31.

9:23 Joram's shout “treachery” is like Julius Caesar's “et tu, Brute?”

9:24 The word male' (“set”) only appears in relation to archery here and in Zechariah 9:13. Boda translates the verse as “he filled his hand with the bow.” Others say “he bent the bow” instead.

9:27 There are two different manuscript versions of this verse: (1) “Kill him also! They wounded him” and (2) "Him too! And they shot him.” (Martin)

9:29 appears to conflict with 8:25. Either the Syrian version is correct in reading “12” at 8:25 or perhaps the Aramaic form of “12” was there originally and misread as the similar appearing “11.” (Cogan and Tadmor)

9:30-37 Jezebel puts on her make-up either because she had no clue what was going to happen or, more likely, she wished to die looking her best. Her actions in sitting at the window that way are more fitting for a prostitute of the time rather than a queen (see Jeremiah 4:30; Ezekiel 23:40). She meets her fate exactly as predicted earlier by Elijah.

9:31 By calling him Zimri, she is comparing Jehu to another traitor who killed his master, the king (see I Kings 16:8-20) suggesting that his reign will be just as brief as his was (i.e. one week).

9:34 Jehu nonchalantly goes in to eat.

II Kings 10:1-11 Hosea 1:4 condemns Jehu for ending Ahab's line even though God had told him to do so. T. F. Williams suggests that either (1) it was only the severity of Jehu's massacre that God condemns or (2) it was a warning that Jehu's line was eventually going to be put to an end in the same manner because of Jehu's wicked behavior. “He [Jehu] fulfills prophecies, but he is condemned for doing so. He is a man of God, but he uses all the methods of the devil.” (Ellul)

Anderson and Freedman note that some scholars suggest “that this statement in Hosea represents a dramatic turnaround from the days of Elijah and Elisha, and reflects a more penetrating insight into the nature of God's dealing with people. Far from approving the bloodbath at Jezreel, Hosea establishes a higher and morally more sensitive standard of evaluation and judgment.” Anderson and Freedman reject this explanation.

10:6 Several commentators point to the purposeful ambiguity of Jehu's request since “take the heads of Ahab's sons and come to me” can simply be interpreted as a request to bring the sons before him so that he can choose which one will inherit the crown.”

10:8-11 Jehu admits to the people that he has been guilty of killing Ahab, but then turns all the guilt for the deaths of Ahab's sons on the elders and has them executed.

10:12-31 Waite summarizes these verses by saying that Jehu's actions “went beyond the terms of his commission and are difficult to justify...His true character showed itself in his toleration of the corrupt worship of Yahweh linked with the bull images of Dan and Bethel.”

“He is similarly clever and deceitful when he gathers the various followers of Baal together with the promise to make a great offering to Baal." Of course, they will be the human sacrifices he offers. This brings up “the question whether all means are good if used to do the will of God (or propagate the gospel).” (Ellul)   In that respect, we should remember the words of Jesus who said “I never knew you” to those who actually accomplished great deeds in his name (Matthew 7:21-23).

10:14 Ford notes that the number 42 also appears in II Kings 2:23-24 in the context of violent killing.

10:15-17 Jonadab ben Rechab was the founder of the Rechabite clan who vowed to live a simple semi-nomadic life much as the earlier patriarchs (see Jeremiah 35). Ellul suggests that “behind the cruelty of Jehu he discerns the inflexible justiciary of divine law, a man like himself, unyielding and ascetic. He also perceives the same concern for purity and singleness of heart in God's service.”

10:25 Jehu practices “terrifying single-minded fanaticism that keeps no faith with heretics.” (Martin) In other words he felt that there was nothing wrong with lying to them since they were the enemy.

10:26 II Kings 3:2 had described how this “pillar” had been previously removed. Some have a problem with the fact that a stone pillar cannot be burned, but (a) the word can apply to any standing object, including a wooden one and (2) you can destroy a stone object by heating it in a fire and then throwing water on it. (Wakely)

10:28 “Sinful men are intemperate agents of divine judgment.” (Martin)

10:30 God's approval of Jehu is quite limited compared to the promise given to David that his sons would reign forever.

 

NOTES ON THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

Luke 1:3 Title “most excellent” indicates that Theophilus was probably not a believer – formal Roman

 title. The situation may have changed by time of writing of Acts. See Acts 1:1.

Luke 1:31-35 Three phrases in this passage (will be great, he will be called Son of the Most High, and 

he will be called Son of God) appear in Dead Sea Scroll fragment from Cave 4 in a messianic context.

Luke 1:37 An early NIV edition is literal (For nothing is impossible with God) while a later one reads, 

“No word from God will ever fail.”

Luke 1:38 Our pastor noted the similarity of "Mother Mary" with the lyrics of “Let I Be.” 

Luke 1:78-79 The Trinity

Luke 2:2 Probably different from the later census under Quirinius in AD 6 which caused a revolt led

by Judas (Acts 5:37). Some feel "Quirinius" should be "Saturninus," known to hold this position in 6-8 

BC (stated by Tertullian). However, an inscription in Antioch indicates Quirinius was also governor of 

Syria around 7 BC.

"First" may also mean "that prior to the". Papyrai do show a 14-year enrollment cycle instituted during 

Augustus' reign. The proclamation from the AD 104 enrollment reads: "Since the enrollment by 

households is approaching, it is necessary to command all who for any reason are out of their district to 

return to their own home, in order to perform the usual business of the taxation." (Wilson's New Light 

on the Gospels)

Luke 2:8-14 contains terms applied to Caesar Augustus and his reign: good news, savior, and peace.

Luke 2:9 Bethlehem was on of the main areas near Jerusalem where sheep were raised for the

sacrifices in the Temple. (Bible Review)

Luke 2:15-20 Concentrate on the verbs for our proper response to God.

Luke 3:1 As in Acts, Luke uses the correct titles for all officials. Herod is given an honorary title 

"king" by his Jewish subjects (Matthew14:9 and Mark 6:14). Lysanias, Tetrarch of Abilene, left an 

inscription which may be the one referred to in this passage.

Luke 3:11-14 The three groups are equivalent to the independently wealthy, self-employed, and 

salaried. “Jesus had a different application of the gospel for different audiences. To the crowd, John 

said to share food and clothing; to tax collectors, stop cheating; to soldiers, stop extorting money and 

accusing people falsely.” Sam Chan, CT, June 2018

Luke 3:27 Lysanias is mentioned in a recently found temple inscription of that time. It dates between 

14-29 AD, compared to 27 AD for the start of John the Baptist's ministry.

Rhesa means prince. It may be Zerubbabel's title instead. Zerubbabel is the only ancestor also in 

Matthew's list. See Haggai 2:23.

Luke 4 vv. 10-11were fulfilled in vv. 29-30. There is a similarity between verses 9 and 29.

Luke 4:20 Parallel to Israel's testing in the wilderness for 40 years. Jesus' replies to Satan are from the 

part of Deuteronomy dealing with this time period.

Luke 5:5 Fishing with nets was only done at night,

Luke 5:28 Levi left everything, except his old friends--these he introduced to Jesus.

Luke 8:3 See Romans 6:7.

Luke 9:12 The apostles disavow responsibility to feed and lodge the crowd even though they had just 

finished being on the receiving end of the same (vv. 3-4).

Luke 9:46 Possibly caused by feelings of superiority by those who were at the transfiguration and 

feelings of inferiority by those who could not cast out the demons (v. 9).

Luke 9:49-56 These two stories both deal with feelings of moral superiority. The setting is the apostles'

comments in vv. 46-48. Similar to Luke 11:14-23 directed toward the Pharisees. Endings are similar.

Luke 9:61 look at contrast in Elijah given in 1 Kings 19:20-21.

Luke 10:1 Jewish tradition: there were 70 nations in the world and the Torah was given in 70 

languages for all mankind. Symbolism in this case suggests that Jesus' message should be heard by 

everyone, not just Jews.

Luke 10:25ff  Sadducees are perhaps trying to discredit idea of bodily resurrection, but in Jesus' 

response he utilizes the Pentateuch that they consider holy and also discredits the Pharisees' idea of a 

resurrected body just like the old body.

Luke 10:29 Neighbor is not to be defined but to be discovered (Hollie Atkinson). "Justify" may refer 

to their own failings or why they had asked such an obvious question in the first place.

Luke 10:29-37 Contrary to often quoted opinions, (a) the law about contacting corpses does not apply 

to Levites, and (b) the priest was going away from the Temple, not toward it. Also, Mishnah teaches 

that the priest's first duty would be to try to save a life, even if it did lead to ritual impurity. So neither 

party had an excuse for their actions. Realistic touches in story include the fact that Jericho was home 

to many Levites and the fact that the road was notoriously dangerous.

Luke 10:38ff Martha's problem—she is not really serving the Lord by her hospitality, but is more 

concerned with herself.

Luke 10:38-42 “To be fair to Martha, I believe she does serve as an encouragement to us to use the 

talents God has given us in order to serve Him. Total passivity is not God's design. However, we 

should take warning when our busyness squelches the development of a deeper relationship with Him.” 

(Kay Applewhite)

Luke 10:39 Greek has kai (also) which is in KJV but not in many other translations. It may mean that 

Martha also sat at his feet or Mary served and also sat at his feet. The first is obviously wrong. (George 

L. Miller, The Book of Ruth).

Luke 10:42 According to Stedman, it refers to feelings of self-worth (not based on works but on our 

position with Christ).

Luke 11:14 see note on Luke 9:49.

Luke 11:27-28 Jesus contradicts the idea that the only use of women is to bear children. Like the Mary-

Martha contrast.

Luke 12:17-19 Ccount the number of first person pronouns.

Luke 13:3-4 Archeologists believe they have recently (2009) found the remains of this tower, which is 

not a watchtower, since it is located close to the valley floor. Instead it is a columbaria, or dovecote, for 

pigeons with niches on the inside, no opening at ground level, and plastered on the outside to protect 

against snakes, etc. They were raised for food and to collect the accumulated manure as fertilizer.

Luke 14:26 "This test is profitable only to those who read it with horror. The man who finds it easy 

enough to hate his father, the woman whose life is a long struggle not to hate her mother, had probably 

best keep clear of it." C. S. Lewis

Luke 15:3 George L. Miller (Book of Ruth) notes that it says “parable” rather than “parables.” 

This indicates that the three stories in this chapter are really only one.

Luke 15:11-32 100 North American students read it and were asked to retell it. Only six mentioned the 

famine. By contrast, 42 of 50 Russian readers mentioned the famine.

Luke 15:22 "But," not "thus." The father's acceptance is not dependent on the son's repentance.

Luke 15:30-32 note pronouns--"your son" and "your brother"

Luke 15:34. The tense indicates that Jesus was pleading over and over.

Luke 16:1-3 It has been suggested that there was no set salary for stewards and that they made their 

money through commissions (like tax collectors of the time). Therefore the steward may have been 

discounting all or some of his own commission on his master's debts and not cheating his master at all.

Luke 16:19-31 In support of the idea that we retain our own selfish behavior in Hell and really prefer 

to be there are the observations that (1) the rich man has no name since the only identity he had died 

with him, (2) he never asks to be released from Hell and be in God's presence, and (3) he is still 

treating Lazarus as his personal slave. (Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, 77)

An article in BAR, May/June 2019 demonstrates that in the ancient Near East and the Roman world, dogs were not looked on as mere scavengers. In fact, this parable shows a rich man keeping them as pets. In addition, the Roman world, going back to at least to inscriptions from the 4^th cent. BC, felt that dog saliva had healing powers. The cult of Asclepius kept dogs in their temple for that very purpose. Therefore, this parable does not picture Lazarus as so pathetic that he can't shoo away mongrels who are abusing him. The dogs have taken pity on him and are trying to comfort him. The author sees irony in the dogs wetting Lazarus with their tongues and the rich man pleading for water to wet his tongue.

Luke 17:11-13 This is analogous to our separation from God due to sin--no fellowship, can only cry

for mercy

Luke 17:15 Two proper expressions of gratitude: praise God and thank those in their lives

Luke 18:1 This was a radical thought since the Jews were taught not to pray more than three times a 

day lest they disturb God. 

Luke 18:7 Pray intensely ("cry") and regularly ("day and night").

Luke 18:9-12 chiastic arrangement A. self righteous, B. look down on others, B'. look down, A'. self 

righteous

Luke 18:18-30 Compare the fate of this nameless man with the parallel case of Matthew who is well 

known even today.

Luke 19:8 Conversion results in a change in giving and in business practices.

Luke 19:40 Allusion to OT stone monuments which were witnesses to God's work.

Luke 20:21 "Show no partiality" Etymology: "do not look in a person’s face," i.e. to figure out what he 

wants to hear.

Luke 21:2 Two leptons was the smallest acceptable offering according to the Talmud.

Luke 22:42 the cup = God's wrath. Jesus prays for removal of his trial but instead is given the strength 

to face it.

Luke 22:43-44 not included in older texts. Words unusual to Luke are also present. It also disrupts a 

chiasm: a. 40, b. 41a, c. 41b, d. 42, c'. 45a, b'. 45b, a'. 45c-46 by the shifting emphasis away from a 

prayer of acceptance and to Jesus’ agony.

Luke 23:26 is a concrete example of Roman practice of soldiers commandeering citizens to carry 

things for them. Allusion in Matthew 5:41. Parallels in Mark 15:21 and Matt. 27:32

Luke 23:43 Antitype of Joseph in jail with two law breakers, only one of whom will be pardoned.

Luke 23:44 Darkness because (1) light of the world was leaving (John 1:1-4; 8:12), (2) judgment 

for the sins of world (Isaiah 13:9-11; Amos 8:9-10), and (3) hallmark of the devil (Luke 22:53).

Luke 23:50 Joseph and Barnabas are the only two people in the NT called “good.”

Luke 23:56-24:1 Why was a second preparation with spices needed? The women wanted to do it 

themselves, and the men may have done it hastily since the sabbath was approaching.

Luke 24:2 The stone was rolled away not so that Jesus could leave, but that man could enter

Luke 24:13 There are nine possible contenders for the site of Emmaus, eight within a 7-mile radius of 

Jerusalem, but one strong contender, Emmaus-Nicopolis, is 18 miles away – consistent with a textual 

variation cited by NRSV.

Luke 24:31 Only one of the travellers is mentioned by name. Cleopas may be the Greek name for 

Clopas (Joseph's brother). His companion may have been Clopas' wife, Mary, since the gender of the

second traveller is not stated.