II CORINTHIANS 4

One can divide these verses into three paragraphs: vv. 7-12; 13-15; and 16-18. The major theme of this passage is clearly expressed in v. 7 – it is the tremendous contrast between our present imperfect physical and spiritual existence and the future glory waiting for us as believers. This is emphasized using various contrasting images in the first and third portions of the passage.

clay jars                                      treasure                                          (7a)

power from us                           power from God                              (7b)

the death of Jesus                      the life of Jesus                                (9)

given up to death                       we live                                             (11)

 death at work in us                   life at work in you                           (12)

outer nature wasting away        inner nature renewed                       (16)

momentary affliction                eternal weight of glory                     (17)

what can be seen                       what cannot be seen                        (18a)

the seen is temporary                the invisible is eternal                     (18b)

Language and concepts tying together the three sub-units include “afflicted” (8) / “affliction” (17), “for Jesus' sake” (11) / “for your sake” (15), “glory” (15, 17), and “visible” (10) / “what can be seen” (10, 18).

II Corinthians 4:7-12

verse 7 “Nothing is more conspicuous in excavations of ancient cities than the omnipresent ostraca, broken pieces of pottery...” (Inch and Bullock)

vv. 8-9 Compare this list of Paul's hardships with II Corinthians 6:4-10; 11:23-27; 12:10; Romans 8:35-39; I Corinthians 4:11-13; and Philippians 4:12.

“The Stoics used catalogs of hardship to demonstrate their indifference to adversity, but for Paul adversity demonstrates the unworthiness of the vessels, and the overcoming of adversity documents the surpassing power of God.” (Wan)

vv. 10-11 Stott explains that “he seems to be saying that now in our mortal bodies (which are doomed to die) there is being 'revealed' (twice repeated) the very 'life' of Jesus (also twice repeated). Even when we are feeling tired, sick and battered, we experience a vigour and vitality which are the life of the risen Jesus within us.” (Stott)

II Corinthians 4:13-15

In this central unit, Paul abandons most of the imagery found in the opening and closing sections and expresses his idea literally instead. It is prefaced with a quotation from Psalm 116:10: “I believed, and so I spoke.” Some of Bella's thoughts concerning Paul's use of the OT here are well worth repeating:

    1. Although only a short passage from the psalm is actually quoted, there are further allusions to the rest of Psalm 116. For example, verse 10 follows a recitation by the Psalmist of the dangers from which God had rescued him, just as II Corinthians 13-15 follows Paul's catalog of hardships in 4:8-9.

    2. Paul pointedly stops his quotation before the Psalmist tells what he had said, namely, “I am greatly afflicted.” By truncating the quotation, Paul is able to put a more positive spin on it to explain that he believed and thus he was able to share his witness with others. However, Paul is not being untrue to his OT source since Psalm 116 similarly ends on a very positive note.

    3. “It is of great significance that Paul uses a quotation from the OT in order to emphasize his faith is in line with the faith of his ancestors...However his faith is also faith in Jesus Christ.”

Inch and Bullock compare “I believed and so I spoke” to Descartes' famous pronouncement “I think, therefore I am.”

II Corinthians 4:16-18

verse 16 “So we do not lose heart” repeats his statement from v. 1.

verse 17 The phrase “weight of glory” may be a pun on the Hebrew word kabod, which can either have the meaning of “weight” or “glory.” It is also the title of a sermon delivered by C.S. Lewis at an Oxford church in 1941. Perhaps the most memorable words out of that talk are as follows:

“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or another of these destinations.”

HOW ACCURATE IS YOUR BIBLE TRANSLATION?: DEUTERONOMY 32:43

This is a companion post to one I wrote on the New Testament. But moving from the Greek to the Hebrew presents different problems in translation. In one respect, it is easier since the scribes who preserved the OT text over the centuries had such a high regard for the letter of the holy Word, that they took special care to ensure that every letter was copied accurately. This is in contrast to those who prepared copies of the NT. They often were not well trained and made careless “typos.” And even if some of them were skilled at the trade, they often felt free to add their own comments in the margins, which sometimes ended up in the text itself when others subsequently copied their manuscripts.

But working in the opposite direction, there are certain factors actually adding to the difficulty of producing an accurate OT text compared to the NT. For one thing, whereas the earliest manuscripts we possess of the NT date from decades to a few hundred years after the original writings, the gap in time for the OT is much longer. “In fact, we do not have any Hebrew manuscripts of the entire Old Testament written earlier than the tenth century [AD].” (Wurthwein) This is millennia after the time of the original writings. In addition, since the Hebrew writings are so ancient, in a number of cases we do not really know what some of the words mean and have to guess from the context or by comparing the Hebrew with similar sounding words in other ancient Near East languages.

I chose Deuteronomy 32:43 from the Song of Moses as a typical example to discuss. A word-for-word translation of the Hebrew text reads as follows:

“Rejoice, O His peoples of nations for the blood of His servants he shall avenge and vengeance shall render to His adversaries, and will atone for His land, His people.”

Compare this with the King James Version:

“Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: or he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.”

The italics were used to indicate that those particular words do not appear in the original, as you can see by comparing it with the literal rendering above. They therefore indicate one possible way that you can make sense out of the Hebrew text according to the KJV translators.

Another point to note is that being “merciful to” appears to be quite at odds with “atone for.” And in fact, a quick look at any analytical concordance will show that even in the KJV the Hebrew word in question, kaphar, is translated as “be merciful” only one other time and as “make atonement” or an equivalent phrase almost 100 times. Thus, it is not surprising that later translations, such as RSV below, use the more accurate rendering:

“Praise his people, O you nations; for he avenges the blood of his servants, and takes vengeance on his adversaries, and makes expiation for the land of his people.”

You can also see that the translators of the RSV made two other changes in the KJV. In the first place they eliminated the need to add the word “with” in order to make sense of the verse. And they rendered the final phrase a little differently by adding the word “and” instead of KJV's “of.” The reason for this particular understanding of the text becomes apparent from the textual footnote to that final phrase in the Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha. It reads, “Gk Vg: Heb his land his people.” Deciphering that shorthand notation, it explains that their rendering of the last words is based on the reading found in the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate versions in contrast to the Hebrew manuscripts.

The Septuagint is felt to be a valuable witness in many cases to an earlier Hebrew variation than is preserved in the standard MT (Masoretic text). The Septuagint is actually a family of translations produced during the few centuries preceding NT times, and the translation of the Pentateuch appears to have been completed by around the first half of the 3^rd century BC. The earliest complete, or almost complete, copies of the Septuagint that we possess date from the 4th-7^th centuries AD. Early versions of the OT such as the Septuagint, the Syriac (Aramaic), or the Latin Vulgate, etc. are especially valuable in translating passages where the Hebrew text does not appear to make sense as it is written.

Keeping within the same tradition of translations, we next have the NRSV, quoted below. You will see that it reads quite differently from its predecessors.

“Praise, O heavens, his people, worship him, all you gods! For he will avenge the blood of his children, and take vengeance on his adversaries; he will repay those who hate him and cleanse the land for his people.”

The major departures from the Hebrew text are primarily due to rejecting a portion of it in favor of the readings found in the Dead Sea documents, the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate. All of these early witnesses to the text possess a line missing from the MT. And the Dead Sea manuscripts are especially valuable since they were written in Hebrew and dated to about the time of Christ, 1,000 years earlier than the MT.

But why should these two Hebrew versions read so differently? Wurthwein explains that the MT is a demythologized version of the original. Levinson agrees that the standard Hebrew text probably removed all you gods “because of the conflict with monotheism” even though the phrase no doubt refers to the angelic council of Psalm 29:1. But all the early versions quoted above happened to preserve the original wording, and so it has now been used as the basis of other recent translations.

So one can see that The New English Bible reads very much like NRSV. And whereas NIV obviously utilizes the MT exclusively for its translation, it does provide a footnote giving the alternative reading from the Dead Sea scrolls. Finally, the Jerusalem Bible follows the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew, but strikes out in a fresh direction to give an entirely different and rather loose rendering of the text:

“Heavens, rejoice with him, let the sons of God pay him homage! Nations, rejoice with his people, let God's envoys tell of his power! For he will avenge the blood of his servants, he will give his foes as good again, he will repay those who hate him and purify the land of his people.”

One should expect to see these ancient translations of the OT to be employed by scholars more and more in the future alongside the MT in preparing future translations, although I am sure that interpretative trend will remain controversial in the eyes of some more conservative Christians.

 

CONTRADICTIONS IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

The following pairs of verses come out of a listing by Aaron Wilson giving “paradoxes” in the Bible. In fact, they are much more accurately labeled as apparent contradictions that Christians should be aware of so that they can be answered intelligently if you ever run across them in atheistic writings.

“My yoke is easy.” (Matthew 11:30)

“How difficult the road that leads to life.” (Matthew 7:14)

This pair of scriptures is very challenging to understand. But with a little help from competent commentators, it can be done. But before resorting to that, let me first make an uneducated stab at a possible way to resolve the issue.

If you read all of Matthew 7:13-14, it appears that the “road” metaphor can be taken in one of two ways. On the one hand, the road may start only after one has entered the “gate.” If that is the intended picture, then the contradiction remains, assuming that entering the gate is equivalent to accepting the salvation only available through Christ's sacrifice. However, if the road leads up to the gate, then that means that finding out that Christ is the way may be a very long and arduous journey for most seekers since all other roads they try are ultimately dead ends. But once they have entered the gate (i.e. accepted Christ as their savior), from that point on they take on the easy yoke of Christ he has promised his followers.

I was pleasantly surprised to find that the very first source I consulted happened to have this same basic understanding. In his book entitled The Sermon on the Mount, James Boice remarks that if the “road” is in fact the road a Christian is on, that would mean that he or she must be very careful to keep on the path or risk of losing their salvation. On the other hand, if the road is one for unbelievers to travel on until they enter the gate to salvation, then “you must not stop short of salvation by imagining that you can simply continue along the same path you are following. If you are not on the way to Christ, you are on the way from Him.”

In addition, R.T. France notes the ambiguity I detected in Jesus' picture when he says, “The relationship between gate and road is not made clear: is the gate at the beginning or the end of the road?” William Hendricksen echoes that uncertainty when he asks, “Which is first, the way or the gate? Does a person enter the gate in order to be admitted to the way, or does he follow the way in order to reach and go through the gate?” Although Hendricksen ultimately opts for the gate coming first, in contrast to Boice, in the process, he lists a third possibility. “Gate and way mean substantially the same thing, namely, the obedience demanded by Christ. Viewed as a unit this obedience can be called a gate; considered in its multiplicity, a way. Therefore one should not even ask, “Which is first, the gate or the way?”

David Hill offers an entirely different way out of the impasse to the originally proposed contradiction. He points out that the words translated as “hard” and “easy” in the Matthew 7 passage really have the respective meanings “crowded together” (because it is so narrow) and “broad” (with plenty of room for everyone to walk.) In that regard, you should realize that it is only an accident of some English translations that makes the “easy” of Jesus' yoke in Matthew 11:30 appear to be the same as the “easy” road to destruction of Matthew 7. They represent two entirely different Greek words meaning “light” and “broad,” respectively. And therefore, the “hard” of Matthew 7 is in no way the opposite of the “easy” in Matthew 11:30.

“Let your light so shine before others, so that they may see your good works.” (Matthew 5:16)

“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them.” (Matthew 6:1)

Wilson is being rather devious in making these two passages appear to contradict one another. But that is okay if he is just trying to spark a discussion among Christians. And you will often run into atheists or false teachers who do the very same thing for entirely different motives, so it is best to be on the lookout for such obvious deceptions.

The answer to this “contradiction,” as anyone at all acquainted with the gospels is aware, is that the first quotation in this pair does not include the whole sentence of Matthew 5:16. In fact, it purposely stops before the words “and give glory to your Father in heaven.” This final phrase is actually the key to the meaning of the whole verse since it explains what our overall motive should be in letting our light shine before others – so that God is the one glorified, not ourselves. And this is also the meaning in Matthew 6:1, where it is expressed in the negative: We are not to do these things in order that we may be seen. If we do, then our “righteousness” is actually “self-righteousness.”

To add to this understanding, keep in mind that the “light” we are to shine is not the light of our righteousness, but the light of Christ living in us. Just look at the same image at the start of Revelation where the church is pictured as a lampstand while Christ is the light that shines from it.

“Give to the one who asks you.” (Matthew 5:40-41)

“Don't toss your pearls before swine.” (Matthew 7:6)

This is like comparing apples a oranges since the first situation concerns giving physical aid to someone who is in need while the second one is talking about trying to impart spiritual wisdom to those who are obviously so dead-set against the gospel message that you will just be wasting your valuable time and resources that could be better spent on those who are willing to hear. This contrast is emphasized by the difference between the two verbs involved: “give” and “toss.” In the latter case, you are just throwing away something that others more worthy and prepared will treasure.

 

HOW ACCURATE IS YOUR BIBLE TRANSLATION?: HEBREWS 12:18-19

 

Many Christians make a big deal out of their favorite translation being the most accurate, by which they often mean “the most literal.” Just to demonstrate that the most literal is not always the most reliable for an English reader, I chose a random example out of the New Testament – Hebrews 12:18-19. (I will do the same thing for an OT passage in another post.)

The first obvious step in a translation is to look at the Greek original of the text in order to have something to translate. I won't subject you to the actual passage in Greek, but here is the word-for-word “literal” translation based on the Textus Receptus (“received text”) of 1624 used as the basis for the King James Version.

“For not ye have come to being touched mount and having been kindled with fire, and to obscurity, and to darkness, and to tempest, and trumpet's to sound, and to voice of words; which they that heard excused themselves but to be addressed to them word.”

If that has too much obscurity for you, here is another literal translation, this time based on the revised Nestle's Greek text of 1904:

“For not ye have approached being felt and having been ignited with fire and to darkness and to deep gloom and to whirlwind and of trumpet to a sound and to a voice of words, which the hearing entreated not to be added to them a word.”

I am not sure that this rendering is any more understandable than the first. So right off the bat, we must all admit that the Greek language does not lend itself to be easily rendered “literally” into English. That fact will not be surprising to any of you who have mastered a second language, whatever that language might be. Word order and grammatical rules are quite different in each language. So it takes a real knowledge of Greek to be able to attempt an accurate translation of the NT into English.

There is a second thing to point out after comparing the two word-for-word renderings of the Greek texts above. The meanings of some of the individual words differ somewhat in these two versions. Thus, which is the more accurate translation: kindled or ignited, obscurity or deep gloom, tempest or whirlwind, excused or entreated? Some of the differences in wording are a matter of sheer preference and do not appreciably affect the meaning of the text. In other cases, however, the differences may be due to quite diverse understandings of the meanings of the Greek words. Again, only a translator who is thoroughly familiar with the ancient usage of the original words within and outside of the Bible would be able to make an educated ruling.

A third point that you may have picked up on already is that at the start of the passage there seems to be a completely different Greek text behind the two examples above. Thus, the Received Text (the term was coined as a marketing ploy by the Dutch firm that first published this Greek version) has the word “mountain,” which is not even present in the Nestle version. And, in fact, if you compare the two Greek texts, you will see that the latter does not contain the word for mountain. Some of you may suggest at this point that we should just consult the original Greek text of the Book of Hebrews kept in the Vatican to see who is correct. It is not that simple.

This brings up the whole issue of textual criticism. The fact is that the Vatican does not have the original document and neither does anyone else. But we do have hundreds of copies of copies of the original to compare with one another. They do not all agree 100% with one another because of the myriad of small accidental or purposeful mistakes that cropped up over the years. So textual scholars have needed to study each one of them and make value judgments based on their knowledge and experience to come up with the most accurate Greek text.

Getting back to the two literal translations of the Greek text that I started with, when the first one was compiled 500 years ago scholars had not yet uncovered all of the ancient Greek manuscripts that were found later and so they were working with limited data. Secondly, they pretty much stuck with the majority readings to put together their standard Greek text. By contrast, the more recent Nestle Greek text took advantage of the added manuscripts at hand. And in addition, it gave a much heavier weight to the older manuscripts than the more recent copies. This was a valid move since the later the copy, the more likely that additional errors would have crept in.

Now, to demonstrate how the above factors and others influence English translations of the Hebrews text, let us look at various versions for comparison.

KJV: “For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, not unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest. And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more.”

This is certainly more readable that the literal word-for-word version. And you can see that it adheres fairly closely to the Received Text. The modern reader might be a little put off by the misspelling of “entreat,” the use of the archaic “ye,” and the seeming duplication of thought between blackness and darkness. One might also ask what was the “word” that they didn't want spoken to them anymore. But the translation is basically understandable (if a bit clunky by today's standards) and literal as long as one agrees that the Greek text upon which it was based was the closest to the original (which in this particular case is doubtful).

RSV: When this translation first came out in 1952 it was subjected to major fire from pulpits across America as being communistic, demonic, liberal, heretical, etc. etc. I can barely remember those controversies, but I do know that our church continued to staunchly adhere to the KJV. And because of that, I recall that more than half of each sermon had to be devoted to explaining what each passage meant in terms that we could actually understand. That left little time left to delve into any possible applications of the words to our lives. Here is how RSV renders Hebrews 12:18-19:

“For you have not come to that which may be touched, a blazing fire, and darkness, and gloom, and a tempest and the sound of a trumpet, and a voice whose words made the hearers entreat that no further messages be be spoken to them.”

You can see that, for the most part, the wording in the RSV actually adheres quite closely to that in KJV wherever possible, with a little updating to make it much more understandable to modern audiences. The major sticking issue for KJV aficionados is that we now have an English text that utilizes the Nestle Greek Text rather than the Received Text. You can see that in the fact that “mount” is no longer present. If you want to know why “that” is the preferred translation, you would have to look at Bruce Metzger's book A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. In it, he explains that “mountain” is not found in the oldest available manuscripts or in the early Aramaic and Coptic translations. And when that word is present, it is placed in various locations within the verse. All this is strong evidence that “mountain” was added to the text by an early scribe in light of verse 22.

Jumping ahead a number of years, see how the NRSV reads:

“You have not come to something that can be touched, a blazing fire, and darkness, and gloom and a tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that not another word be spoken to them.”

Little has been changed from the RSV. One can see that “something” replaces “that” and “beg” is used instead of “entreat” in order to update the language slightly. In addition, “word” at the end of the passage in place of the earlier “messages” actually returns to the more literal rendering found in the KJV. But the major improvement of the NRSV over RSV is the inclusion of textual footnotes at the bottom of each page. In the case of Hebrews 12:18-19, there is a note attached to the word “something” reading “Other ancient authorities read a mountain.” This gives a nod to the Greek text underlying KJV so that the reader can make up his/her own mind which text to follow. The above changes should have endeared KJV devotees to the NRSV, but instead they were up in arms concerning some of the “feminist” language in the new version, which in fact was put in to more accurately render the meaning of the Greek of NT times. For example, on occasion and only when appropriate, NRSV will use the translation “others,” “humanity” or “men and women” in place of “men.”

The three above translations are all reasonably “literal,” as are NAS and ESV, for example. Now moving on to versions that do not adhere as rigorously to the exact Greek wording, look at two popular modern translations, starting with the New International Version.

“You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm, to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them.” (NIV)

Concerning NIV, you can see that in this case (but certainly not in other passages where the translation is a little freer), it reads the same as NRSV, except that except that it puts “mountain” into the text, as was true in KJV. So why did even a modern translation such as NIV put that word in when most scholars feel it was not in the original? Probably in order to make it more obvious to the reader what the “something” or “that” referred to. Next we have the New English Bible.

“Remember where you stand: not before the palpable, blazing fire of Sinai, with the darkness, gloom and whirlwind, the trumpet blast and the oracular voice, which they heard, and begged to hear no more.” (NEB)

In this case, the translators have gone out of their way to explain to the reader what the author of Hebrews is referring to, namely the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai. But to do this, they have added the phrase “remember where you stand” and the word “Sinai,” neither of which appear in any ancient manuscript at all. That is not to infer that it is an heretical or even a poor translation, since there is no attempt to mislead the reader, only to make the passage more clear to the reader. However, since it is a translation prepared in England and one made suitable for reading in liturgical settings, the language employed is somewhat more “highfalutin'” than our American audience is used to seeing – witness the words “palpable” and “oracular.”

In stark contrast to the elevated verbiage of the NEB is Today's English Version (also known as Good News for Modern Man). It was originally designed for general reading by those of any education level, and so it purposefully avoids vocabulary that might not be understood by everyone. It is not really a paraphrase, because it adheres fairly closely to the Greek original whenever possible. In the case of the model passage we are considering, its version of v. 19 is practically indistinguishable from the NRSV or NIV, but v. 18 starts out a little differently:

“You have not come, as the people of Israel came, to what you can feel, to Mount Sinai with its blazing fire, the darkness and the gloom, etc.”

Here it is abundantly clear to all that the giving of the Law is the background to this passage.

So much for what might be called actual translations. Now we move into the area of the paraphrases where the comprehension of the modern reader is the prime consideration, even if it means departing quite a bit on occasion from how the Greek original reads. I will quote from three examples:

“You have not had to approach things which your senses could experience as they did in the old days – flaming fire, black darkness, rushing wind and out of it a trumpet blast, a voice speaking human words. So terrible was that voice that those who heard it begged and prayed that it might stop speaking.” (J.B. Phillips translation)

“You have not had to stand face to face with terror, flaming fire, gloom, darkness and a terrible storm, as the Israelites did at Mount Sinai when God gave them his laws. For there was an awesome trumpet blast, and a voice with a message so terrible that the people begged God to stop speaking.” (The Living Bible)

“Unlike your ancestors, you didn't come to Mount Sinai – all that volcanic blaze and earthshaking rumble – to hear God speak. The earsplitting words and soul-shaking message terrified them and they begged him to stop.” (The Message)

Besides the obvious fact that none of these paraphrases feels the need to adhere woodenly to the Greek text in order to get the same message across, note how much more vividly these accounts are worded than actual translations. Because of that factor, they have more power to fully engage the reader. For that reason alone, they certainly deserve to be read even if one has to take some of their interpretive license with a grain of salt.

For example, you may have noted that J.B. Phillips implies that it was the loud sound of the voice that caused the Israelites to want it hushed; The Living Bible says that it was what the voice was saying that caused them to be alarmed; and finally, The Message states that it was both of these factors. In addition, The Message appears to attribute the fire to volcanic activity, which may or may not have been the case.

RECOGNIZING BAD BIBLE INTERPRETATIONS: A STUDY OUTLINE

It has been often said that the best way to identify a counterfeit bill is to become well acquainted with the real thing. I would not argue with that approach, but I have found that when it comes to Bible interpretation, the opposite method is also effective. Thus, besides the number of posts on this site attempting to give examples of sound hermeneutics (interpretation), I have also included examples where faulty understanding of a Bible passage has been presented. In this way, the sincere student of Scripture can get a fuller grasp on what it means to rightly discern the Word.

Below is a suggested outline for an individual or group study on the subject along with the titles of posts that may be helpful.

Minor Errors in Interpretation                              “Scripture Twisting: Minor Errors”

Commonly Misunderstood Passages                  “Commonly Misunderstood Bible Passages”

A Treasure Trove of Biblical Misinformation    “A Treasure Trove of Biblical Misinformation”

Adding and Subtracting                                      “Adding and Subtracting from the Bible”

                                                                            “Matthew 6:12: Forgive Us Our Debts”

Combining Different Passages                           “The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation”

                                                                            “Ezekiel 38: A Chain of Reasoning”

                                                                            “Preterism”

                                                                            “The Deity of Christ”

                                                                            “Psalm 82”

                                                                            “Ezekiel 4"

Other Creative Techniques                                 “Creative Ways to Twist Scripture”

Motives of Scripture Twisters                            “Motives of Scripture Twisters”

                                                                            “Spiritual Silos”

Techniques Used by Twisters                             “Scripture Twisters: Their Techniques”

Proof Texts                                                         “Apartheid in the Bible?”

                                                                           “I Corinthians 15:33”

Technical Issues                                                 “Annihilationism”

                                                                          “Book of Revelation (14:9-11, etc.)”

Discerning Faulty Hermeneutics: OT              “Job 42:5-7”

Discerning Faulty Hermeneutics: NT              “Hebrews 10:19-22”

 

TITUS 1:12-13a

“One of their own people, their prophet, said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.' This testimony is true.” This is perhaps the basis for the famous “false speaker” paradox: You meet a man from another country. If he says that everyone where he comes from is a liar, then should you believe his statement? Whichever way you decide, you run into a logical contradiction. But Paul apparently believes that we should believe him.

There is great uncertainty to start with concerning the original source of the above quotation. Ancient writers seem to be divided between two options. The majority opinion is that it originated with Epimenides, a Cretan poet living around 650-500 BC, but we do not have any copies of the original play from which it was taken. Another possibility is that the quote came from Callimachus (300-240 BC), who however only has the first part of Paul's cited statement – “Cretans are always liars.” – and was himself probably quoting the much earlier Epimenides. Another variation on this theme is that Paul cited it from a collection of famous sayings to which he had access. For convenience sake, we will just consider that Epimenides was the source.

The first interesting point is that Paul treats the author as if he were a prophet even though he was not a Jew. The only other time in the Bible a non-Jew is called a prophet is the OT case of Balaam. God does talk to Balaam, but that “prophet” does not at all typify genuine prophets of God in his actions. Paul is probably only referring to the great esteem in which the ancient Greeks held Epimenides. One commentator even suggested that Paul points to his elevated reputation in order to claim him as one of the two witnesses needed in the OT law in order to convict a person. Paul with his own experiences of the Cretans was the other witness.

But the major sticking point with this passage remains the apparent paradox that it offers. Here are seven different approaches used in attempts to resolve it satisfactorily, and there may well be others also:

1. Orr and Walther take the easy way out by stating that Paul did not write the Epistle to Titus at all, or at least not this particular passage. Their stance is based on the fact that nowhere else in Paul's writings does Paul so harshly criticize a whole ethnic group. Knight replies to this line of reasoning by saying, “Paul is not making an ethnic slur, but is merely accurately observing.” As a matter of fact, the universally poor opinion the Greeks had of Cretans is typified by their coining the verb “to cretize” as a synonym for lying. Another possible answer to Orr and Walther's position is given by Lea and Griffin, who say, “Paul evidently applied this quotation to the Cretan false teachers, not to Cretans in general. Litkin agrees with this assessment when he states that “Paul's own experience was that the 'false teachers fit the Cretan stereotype.” And, finally, Quinn feels that Paul's criticism comes from the fact that “the Cretan churches that had dead-ended into Judaism were warning examples of what happened to Christians who rejected Paul.”

2. Thistleton makes the rather overly subtle (to my mind) proposal that Paul is not endorsing the statement when he says, “This testimony is true.” Instead he is saying that it is true that wasting time in endless philosophical discussions regarding this paradoxical statement “constitutes a valid example of the kind of profitless controversy described above, which makes truth a merely theoretical matter.” However, Ward says that “Paul would not have the patience to consider the fallacy involved, even if he had thought of it.”

3. Knight points out that since Callimachus was not a Cretan, if he was the source of the quote then the paradox disappears. However, in that case, one has to explain why Paul said that the “prophet” was one of their own.”

4. Since Paul was probably not quoting directly from Epimenides, he may have been unaware that it originally was part of a play written in verse, and those words were placed on the lips of one of the characters in the play and didn't actually reflect Epimenides' own feelings. (Quinn)

5. Towner takes yet another tack: “There was no evidence of any awareness of a logical paradox in this use of the material. The force is that of self-condemnation, reflecting a lack of bias and therefore (especially given the authoritative status of one to whom the saying is attributed) to be taken as weighty.” In other words, Epimachus is humbly considering himself in that negative description of his people.

6. Quinn notes that “Huxley...suggests that the line is in fact an oracle from Delphi that replied to Epimenides' criticism of the claims of that shrine.” But if that is so, then Paul was very mistaken in saying that it came from a Cretan.

7. But the most common opinion expressed by the sources I consulted (and the most likely answer, my own opinion) was that “by Paul's day the saying had become a proverb.” Similarly, Quinn calls it “a proverbial line” and Guthrie labels it “a proverbial saying.”

 

EXODUS 14:30-31: ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

Many have questioned the historical veracity of the defeat of the Egyptians during the Exodus since there was a noted lack of references to the people of Israel during that time period.

The first obvious thing to point out is that “Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.” Archeologists are totally dependent on whatever relics they may happen to uncover while the vast majority of historical information still lies buried or has been destroyed by natural or human causes over the years.

Secondly, it was not at all uncommon for ancient cultures to be very reluctant to admit their defeats in public monuments, etc. The Jews were one notable exception in that regard. The writings of both the Old and New Testaments are filled with embarrassing failures on the part of both the nation and its leaders. This alone is strong evidence of their truth.

Lastly, we do have evidence that a number of public monuments erected in Egypt, especially by the Semitic Hyksos rulers, were purposefully defaced by later pharaohs in attempts to erase all traces of their reigns.

Despite all of these factors, there is one piece of early evidence in Egypt attesting to the existence of the Jews at a very early time. This is the stele (stone monument) of Pharaoh Merneptah, which has been dated to 1220 BC, close to the proposed time of the Exodus. The inscription on it reads in part, “Plundered is Canaan with every evil, carried off is Ashkelon, seized upon is Gezer...Israel is laid waste, his seed is not.” This may be one of the first recorded examples of “fake news,” which is not entirely false but certainly misleading. Indeed Israel's seed was not – at least not in Egypt anymore!

But one interesting point about this inscription is that it shows Israel listed among other powerful nations in the Middle East at a very early period in history. In addition, the hieroglyphics of the names of the other nations all contain a symbol indicating that a geographical region is intended. By contrast, the symbol accompanying the name of Israel is a different one which indicates a nation or people. This is consistent with the biblical story in which Israel was recognized as a powerful people group (through God's help) but one which had not yet settled in a particular geographical area.

This provides us with one piece of evidence helping to approximately date the time of the Exodus and the Book of Joshua.

 

JACQUES ELLUL: AN INTRODUCTION

If someone were to ask us to describe ourselves using a string of nouns, we would probably respond with an answer including our sex, age, profession, position in a family, hobbies, etc. And sometimes those descriptors might seem to be in conflict with one another or at least not quite fit together in a single person. For example, I could describe myself as a chemist, inventor, painter and amateur Bible scholar. To some people's viewpoint, those pursuits might seem to be incompatible with one another.

It is just as hard to characterize in easy terms a Christian author that most of you have probably never heard of before: Jacques Ellul. He was a leader in the French resistance during WWII and later a professor of history and sociology who died in 1994. Some terms that he used to describe himself or that others have attached to him include: Bible commentator, Calvinist, philosopher, existentialist, socialist, anarchist, and universalist. Despite his lack of solid evangelical credentials, or perhaps because of that fact, several of his books are definitely worth considering.

Most of his books in one way or another warn the reader against the evils of political power, economic power, materialism, technology, nationalism and scientism. And thus, Ellul is probably best known for his sociological and theological writings, the most well known of which include The Technological Bluff, The Subversion of Christianity, and Money & Power. But I have personally gotten the most out of his Bible commentaries listed below. That is not to say that I agree with everything he says, but he always has a unique slant on every text that he tackles.

The Politics of God & The Politics of Man (II Kings)

Here the author zeroes in on the stories of seven major characters, both good and bad, found in II Kings. As Geoffrey Bromiley says in his introduction to the book, “It is not an academic work in the accepted sense. Although based on biblical passages, it is not a scientific commentary...It simply consists of readings and meditations in the Second Book of Kings...it is doubtful whether any academic work could present a more authentically radical discussion of theology and politics than what we have with such deceptive simplicity in these pages.” This book is definitely worth reading.

The Judgment of Jonah

If you think that the Book of Jonah is just an interesting, if somewhat improbable, fable, then you need to read this book by Ellul. Although he does cover all the events in Jonah's career that we are told about, he does it through a lens that seriously treats Jonah as a type of Christ, as stated in texts such as Matthew 12:39-41.

If You Are the Son of God: the Suffering and Temptations of Jesus

Part One of this interesting 100-page essay starts with Isaiah's prophecy of the coming Suffering Servant and demonstrates how Jesus experienced suffering in his life. Part Two starts with the temptations by Satan in the wilderness and reviews the Gospel accounts showing the continuation of these three types of temptations to which he was subjected throughout the rest of his life. Ellul manages to cover a lot of biblical ground in very few pages.

The Meaning of the City

Ellul traces the concept of human civilization as typified by the city all through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation in order to demonstrate that God took an institution originally designed by mankind to make him self-sufficient apart from Him and eventually blessed it (in the concept of the cities of refuge, see Numbers 25) and transformed it entirely into the final image of God's dwelling place with man on a renewed earth (Revelation 20-21).

What I especially liked about this book, besides his actual ideas, was his approach to Scripture by taking one simple concept or theme and tracing its occurrence throughout the whole Bible to look for trends that reveal God's working in human history. When it appeared in English in 1970, Time magazine said it was “Perhaps the most important theological book of the year.”

An Unjust God? (Romans 9-11)

This slim volume tackles these three difficult chapters by Paul dealing with the future of Israel. Whether you are a dispensationalist who feels that all of God's plan for humanity revolves around the ethnic Jews or a successionist who feels that Israel's role as God's people has been totally supplanted by the church, you will find your ideas challenged by the the concepts in this book.

Apocalypse (The Book of Revelation)

I would not pick up this book to read if you are looking for insights into the exact details and timing of end-time events. Instead Ellul takes what has been called an Idealist approach to Revelation. Thus, he treats the sometime bizarre events in the book as symbols of forces operating throughout time that act in opposition to God and His people. He is certainly not the first author to discuss Revelation in those terms, but he is one of the best. It is another one of my favorite books by Ellul.

In summary, if you are tired of reading only devotional study guides on the Bible or have begun to feel that scholarly commentaries are too mired down in detail to deal with larger issues, you might give the above books a try.

 

NOTES TO EZRA AND NEHEMIAH

Ezra 1:1-3a This is a duplicate of II Chronicles 36:22-23. It was common practice to do this for 

multiple scrolls meant to be read continuously.

Ezra 1:1,5 God stirs up the people's spirits.

Ezra 3:3 Compare different translations. It can read either "for" or "despite" the fear of enemies.

Ezra 3:12 The cause of weeping was remorse over last 70 years of exile due to disobedience.

Ezra 8:21 straight way = safe journey.

Ezra 8:33 An Iron Age sanctuary at Arad contained ostraca (pieces of broken pottery) inscribed with 

names of priestly families, including Meremoth (also in I Chron. 9:12). They were probably used for 

the assignment by casting lots of temple duties.

Ezra 9:3 "Appalled" has the nuance of speechlessness.

Ezra 9:4-5 This is similar to the time when Job's friends sat with him before he finally spoke.

Ezra 10:18-44 What a way to be remembered for all time!

The Book of Nehemiah Only Esther and Nehemiah were unrepresented among the Dead Sea Scrolls 

until 2011 when fragments of the latter were published.

Neh. 2:10, 19, etc. An official named Sanballat appears in a Samaritan papyrus dating to 50 years prior 

to Nehemiah's time. Nehemiah's Sanballat appears in an Elephantine papyrus. He was governor of the 

province of Samaria in 445 BC when Nehemiah arrived. By 410 BC he was too old to serve, and so his 

son acted in his name.

Tobiah is a Hebrew name ("Yahweh is good"), but Nehemiah does not consider him Jewish. A rock 

inscription in Aramaic found east of the Jordan mentions the same name, indicating the existence of a 

Tobiad dynasty in the region of Ammon. Probably they were of Jewish ancestry but not considered 

fully Jewish because of where they chose to live.

Neh. 2:13 Gihon Spring is called Dragon's Spring in this verse. In the mid-19^th century AD, nearby 

Arabs felt that a dragon lived beneath the cave in which the spring is located which caused the spring 

to stop flowing at times.

Nehemiah 3:1 Note the variety of workers from high priest to perfumer to women. There is no

difference in the church between having walls with no gates or walls with open gates. Neither is 

healthy. We need boundaries instead with controlled access to the outside.

Nehemiah 6 The enemy's tactics include deceptive calls for a sham conference (1-4), smear tactics 

(5-9), attempts to force Nehemiah into a religious compromise (10-14), and the pressure of naive 

friends (15-19)

Nehemiah 8 These events take place during the Jewish New Year.

Neh. 8:13 This ends the Hebrew Bible in the earliest manuscripts. It is an appropriate conclusion since 

it contains the words Elohay (a variation of Elohim) and tovah (good), which are both found in Genesis 

1. David Noel Freedman believes that Nehemiah was responsible for compiling all of the Hebrew 

Bible and that this ending indicates that he saw the compilation as equivalent to the creation of the 

world.

 

II CORINTHIANS 3:1-4:6

In attempting to outline this rather dense passage, the best way is to look at how Paul repeats several key words within it. That leads to the following suggested division into smaller units:

A. 3:1-7a “letter” – 6 appearances

B. 3:7b-11 “glory” – 10 appearances

C. 3:12-4:6 “veil” – 7 appearances

These three images are put to service by Paul to express to the reader the contrast between the new covenant (3:6) and the new covenant (3:14). Thus, the letters in which the OT law was written (Section A) are actually letters of death compared to the living letters written on human hears. Similarly, the glory (Section B) that Moses experienced when God gave him the commandments pales in comparison to the glory of the ministry of justification. And lastly, the veil (Section C) that blinds those still adhering to the old covenant from seeing the truth can only be removed in Christ.

Tying together the whole of this passage are the full designations “Spirit of the living God” (3:3) and “Spirit of the Lord” (3:17) located near its start and finish. In addition, the key verb translated as “fade away” or “set aside” appears at the start and conclusion of Section B (3:7b,11) and the start of Section C (3:13-14). As two sets of verbal bookends for II Corinthians 3:1-4:6, we have “we commend ourselves” at 3:1 and 4:2, and “hearts at 3:2 and 4:6. The seven appearances of “Spirit” also act to unify the whole unit.

This is not an easy passage to decode, as shown by this comment from Brevard Childs: “The difficulties of understanding II Cor. 3 are so many that one hesitates to enter the arena...Unfortunately, there has emerged nothing which even begins to resemble a consensus of opinion among New Testament scholars in spite of considerable attention to these problems within recent years.” If a noted commentator of Childs' stature is hesitant to approach this chapter, I am certainly not going to attempt it on my own. Therefore, the following comments gleaned from the literature were ones chosen that even I could understand.

II Corinthians 3:1 Letters of recommendation were a means of introducing visiting missionaries to a congregation (see Acts 18:27 and Romans 16).

3:3 The new covenant doesn't cancel the law, but “indeed now provides the means of fulfilling it, through the power of the risen Christ within the believer (Rom. 10:4f.).” (Hillyer)

“The Spirit, however is the link term connecting Paul's gospel of divine righteousness to his exercise of diakonia [ministry].” (Martin)

3:5 “Paul's sufficiency as an apostle is based on his call according to the pattern of the call of Moses as portrayed in Exodus 4:10.” (Hafemann)

3:6 The designation “new covenant” appears only here in the whole NT. The Greek word employed is kainos (meaning new in quality or essence), not neos (new in time). You should compare different translations here since some capitalize both appearances of “Spirit” and others do not.

There is some controversy concerning the meaning of “the letter” in this verse:

    Morris treats “the letter,” in contrast to the spirit [no caps], as follows: “A woodenly literal, flesh-dominated manner of looking at Jesus' words that will not yield the correct interpretation.”

    Hafemann says, “The 'letter' (gramma) of 2 Corinthians 3:6 is therefore the Law apart from the power of the Spirit.”

    “It had become a covenant of letter (a merely written code of laws requiring obedience) leading to death...” (Fee)

    R. Mayer treats the whole discussion of 3:1-6 as dealing with the “contrast between the Jewish use of Scripture [i.e., the Old Testament] with the reality of life in Christ and the Spirit.” In demolishing his opponent's position, Paul made it look “as if the common ground from which both originated, now emptied of its value, is the property of the opponents alone.” But, in fact, Paul “presents a state of continual tension. On the one hand, it emphasizes strongly the authority of the Hebrew Bible. On the other, it allows this authority to almost disappear before the claims of the new gospel.”

    Martin notes that 6b “is capable of several esoteric interpretations.” He opts for the idea that the “letter” refers back to the “letters of recommendation” that the Jewish-Christian opponents of Paul provided the Corinthians as credentials.

II Corinthians 3:7-11 This passage is almost impossible to understand without first reading Exodus 34:29-35.Hillyer notes that “Paul makes three contrasts between the dispensations: letter and Spirit (vv. 7,8); condemning and justifying (v. 9); passing and permanent (v. 11).” These verse contain the “highest single concentration of glory vocabulary in Paul's letters...” (Griffin)

Here Paul utilizes the common rabbinical method of arguing from the lesser to the greater. Thus, note the form “if...much more,” which appears three times in these verses.

3:7-18 Hafemann calls these verses “one of the most complex passages in the Pauline corpus.”

3:7 R.P. Martin treats the concept of ministry as “the central theme of the chapter.”

3:11 Kaiser feels that “what was fading away is neither the law nor the religious system based on the law, but it is rather the service and ministry that Moses rendered is passing away...”

3:12 Van Unnik notes that the Aramaic equivalent of the Greek word for boldness literally means “to uncover the face.”

3:13 Martin says that “the aura of splendor that illuminated Moses' face lasted only briefly in contrast to the radiance of the Spirit that is ever-increasing [see v. 18]...”

Although Exodus 34 does not mention that the glory was fading away from Moses' face, it can be deduced from Exodus 40:35, and it was the belief of later rabbis. (Childs)

3:14 “Old Covenant refers not to the Hebrew Bible in general but to the Sinai covenant (Ex 24:7) or to the law (2 Chr 34:30).” (Wan)

3:14-15 Although some translations have the word “minds” in both verses, in fact the Greek of the first occurrence is noemata (“thought”) while it is kardia (“hearts”) in 3:15.

3:16-17 “Jesus as Moses removed the veil when he went in to God (Exod. 34:34, so will the veil be removed from Israel when they are converted to the Lord, i.e. when they allow themselves to be ruled by the Spirit.” (Mendle)

3:17-18 Maile: “Paul's thinking was clearly trinitarian, even in the much discussed 2 Corinthians 3:17-18, whose concise language appears to identify the Lord and the Spirit. In reality, Paul is expounding Exodus 34:34, and he should probably be understood as saying that the Lord of whom this passage speaks is the Spirit.” Paige basically agrees with this interpretive position.

But Martin takes it to mean that we used to understand him to be the predicted Messiah, but now we appreciate him “as exalted Lord (Rom 1:3,4) sharing in his Spirit (Rom 8:9.).”

3:18 Wan feels that “'From one degree of glory to another ' reflects belief in the Greco-Roman world that an encounter with the divine transforms the beholder into its image.”

II Corinthians 4:1-6 These verses are treated by Hafemann as “the necessary conclusion” from the preceding argument.

4:4 Beale says that this “probably refers to Christ as the pristine image in which the first Adam should have been” in light of the reference to Genesis 1:3 in II Corinthians 4:6.

Beale and Gladd discuss the question of when this glory of Christ was first revealed. They cite Kim who feels that Paul in this verse is alluding to his own revelation of Christ's glory on the road to Damascus. But they prefer to see that glory present even in the crucifixion, however in a concealed form.

Wan notes that “this world” also appears in I Corinthians 3:19; 5:10; and 7:31 (twice). Paul uses this phrase as an equivalent to “the present age” (Galatians 1:4) and “the present time (Romans 3:26; 8:18; 11:6).

4:6 “The new covenant doxa [glory] in Christ is the climactic revelation of God's glory...Its full dimensions are especially apparent in 2 Corinthians 4:6.” (Griffin)

 

HOW TO LEAD BIBLE DISCUSSIONS

 

The first question you should ask yourself is whether you really want to have a discussion group or just present a prepared lesson. There are pros and cons to both, and I deal with the factors involved giving a presentation in two companion posts. (See “Advice to Sunday School / Bible Study Teachers, Parts 1 and 2.”)

If you are like me and just love to be in the spotlight as the fount of knowledge concerning the Bible (at least that is how some of my friends have lovingly characterized me), then opening up a group for discussion means to lose control of the class. However, on the plus side, it means to open it up for the Holy Spirit to speak more easily to, and through, all of us. Personally, I must admit that I generally limit any discussion time during a class period to a minimum. But it may depend wholly on the setting. In an informal home Bible study, a discussion format is often much more appropriate than in a large group setting which may also have more strict time restraints.

Strike a Good Balance Between Teaching and Discussion

Let's deal with those times when the majority of the class session is to be devoted to discussion. I have seen several example of one extreme way to conduct these sort of sessions, i.e. for the leader to give virtually no input other than announcing the subject of the day. Upon moving cross country for a job, my wife and I visited several churches before settling on one. At the Sunday school class at one particular church, the “teacher” had us (there were only about five other people in the class) turn to the Bible passage of the day. Then he would read one verse and ask each of us in turn, “What do you think that means?” After we had each given our answer, he would summarize by saying, “That is two votes for this explanation, two for another, and one for a third interpretation.” Then we would move on to the second verse and repeat the process. At one point, I remarked that my fellow classmate's answer was really contradicted by the very next verse. The “teacher” said to me gently, “You are new and probably don't realize how we do things here. We haven't gotten to that verse yet.” I expected him to at least make some parting comments at the end of the class period that would summarize the meaning of the whole passage, but he never did. I would call this an example of a class sharing its collective ignorance.

But the opposite extreme is just as bad. That is when a teacher says we are going to have an open discussion and then shoots down any opinion that doesn't match his own. I don't believe I have ever done that, but I must admit that I have on more than one occasion squashed any discussion without even trying. One class in which I was an occasional substitute teacher absolutely refused to say anything at all whenever I asked a question of them. Recently, I mentioned that to a friend who was part of that class, and his reply was, “Dave, I think you have a way of intimidating them.”

Because of that problem, which I sometimes recognize in myself, I have learned to preface some of my questions by saying something like, “Now this is a question that I haven't been able to adequately resolve in my own mind. Can anyone help me out by sharing their thoughts on the subject?” I usually reserve that line for areas in which I honestly know that there are uncertainties.

The ideal balance is to conduct directed discussions. In other words, you first need to give the group any pertinent information they may require before they begin sharing their own ideas. When this is not done, the leader is opting out of his or her designated role in the process entirely. Thus, even a person who does not feel knowledgeable enough to teach the Bible should be able to read a few ideas out of a Bible quarterly that may provide the proper setting for subsequent discussion. And many denominational quarterlies or inexpensively purchased study guides available though Christian Book Distributors or Amazon come with sample discussion questions to use in a class setting.

Almost always stick to asking open-ended questions. 

This is perhaps the most important advice I can give to someone who leads Bible discussions. Remember that you are not dealing with a group of second graders who learn by parroting facts back at the teacher. Let me explain by citing the example of a former co-teacher who would read some simple passage to us such as “God is love,” and then ask the class, “What is God?” Not surprisingly, at least to me, no one raised their hand. The reason for that phenomenon, which you may have noticed yourself on similar occasions, is we all knew that either (a) the answer was so obvious that you would get no “credit” out of answering it other than knowing looks from the other class members who will view you as “teacher's pet” or (b) it is a trick question and you don't want to be the one that falls for it.

The particular teacher who asked that question was flabbergasted that no one seemed to be able to answer his question. His comment to us was, “I must be talking over your heads. I will have to make my points more simple in the future.” And he did. But on the other hand, there was a different occasion when he asked a rather complicated and controversial question of the class. As we would respond one at a time, he would say, “No. That's not it; you don't have it yet; that's not what I am driving at, etc. etc.” This guessing game seemed to go on forever, and none of us could give him the answer he was waiting for. Once he had told us what he had been driving at, it became crystal clear to us that we would have needed to be mind readers in order to come up with his strange take on the issue at hand. He thought that it was just another closed question when in fact it wasn't at all.

That is why I say that, generally speaking, you should only ask questions that are valid discussion questions where various opinions are welcome, not the recitation of black-and-white facts that can be better handled by the leader simply stating them up front.

If your ask closed questions, first make sure that you know the correct answers.

This advice may seem like a no-brainer, but you may be surprised that on occasion an answer you thought was obvious really isn't. In that case, you may find yourself corrected by someone in your class, not that there is anything wrong with that unless you are concerned about losing some prestige in the eyes of others. Remember that even Peter had to be put in his place more than once by Jesus and even Paul. We should all be willing to learn from each other.

The one example that I have to share involved an excellent Sunday school teacher who was trying to show the importance of knowing the context of a biblical passage in order to be able to understand it. But unfortunately, he happened to chose John 3:16 as his example. He asked the class, “Who said these words?” Of course, he and most of the class probably figured that the answer was “Jesus.” But because it was a closed question, no one volunteered an answer (a phenomenon I have discussed above).

At last, in desperation he pointed at me and said, “Dave, surely you know the answer.” My reply was not at all what he had expected because I said, “It was either Jesus' words or it was John's comment.” The reason for the uncertainty on the issue is that there were little to no punctuation marks in the original Greek manuscripts, and so scholars are undecided as to where Jesus' words starting in verse 10 actually end. Like a good Berean, he went home, looked at several translations, and came back agreeing that I was correct.

Master the art of responding appropriately to answers from your audience.

On the one hand, assuming the answer seems to be spot-on, then the problem is that if you wholeheartedly endorse the answer, other class members will be very hesitant to offer any additional comments and discussion will stop right there. But it can be done by saying, “I really like that answer. I wonder if there are any other aspects to the issue that someone can bring up.” Or you can say, “Have any of you experienced anything in your life that would illustrate this principle?” Asking for people's personal experiences is a great way to elicit a number of valuable insights from the group.

The second situation is much harder to deal with: responding to someone who has made a completely wrong-headed, ignorant, ill-founded, off-the-wall, extraneous, or even heretical reply to your question. Coping with this sort of challenge may differ entirely depending on the situation. If everyone knows the person who made the comment quite well, you might be able to get by with almost any sort of comment or joke without disrupting the class or having to put someone down for what they said. But if you don't know them very well, or at all, it becomes a little trickier. It really helps to memorize some stock responses ahead of time so that you won't be caught unaware. For example, “I have never looked at it that way before;” “What are some factors or Bible passages that cause you to feel that way?;” “That is an interesting perspective that I will have to think about some more;” or just “Does anyone have another thought on the subject?” However, if an obviously heretical thought has been expressed, it is not appropriate for the leader to just let it slip by without some stronger comment.

One useful Scripture admonishment to keep in mind is found in the apparently paradoxical twin advice found in Proverbs 26:4-5: “Do not answer a fool according to his folly or you will be a fool yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly or he will remain wise in his own eyes.” The interpretation of this passage that I favor is that you really have to know when to reply to a foolish comment. If it is an important issue, you should not just let it go or the person (and the class) will leave thinking that he has spoken the truth and that you agree with him. However, if you do feel the need to reply, do not lower yourself to his level in how you word your comments or you will show yourself to be just as big a fool as he is.

There was member of a previous Sunday school class who always had the knack of leading the discussion, whatever the subject at hand, back to the same doctrinal point that he wanted to make sure we all understand. At one point he did this to a co-teacher who had had enough of this sort of disruptive behavior, and he blew his top and proceeded to put that class member in his place in no uncertain terms and at the top of his voice. Although we were all sympathetic with what the teachers had been putting up with, it was rather embarrassing for everyone and there was the general opinion that the teacher had gone too far. It all blew over, and the class member was back after several weeks absence, but I think that teacher slipped a little in our estimation after his outburst. Of course, the biblical pattern should have been for some of us teachers to confront the troublemaker privately instead of in a public setting.

Be aware of any logistical challenges.

For example, there are several potential problems involved in breaking into separate discussion groups. The first obvious one is that of logistics. If you are meeting in someone's home, no matter how small, it is usually no problem to find enough room for the groups to be separated enough that their conversations will not bother each other. At one home Bible study, I was even in a group that went into a bedroom for our discussion. Alternatively, if you are in a large meeting space at church and there are not too many people present, it is usually possible to separate the groups easily. The only two times when I felt that the venue was totally unacceptable for separate discussion groups were (a) when we met in the sanctuary and the fixed pews did not allow us to talk to one another without straining our necks and (b) when a lecture hall was completely filled with people, and the din of many separate conversations made it almost impossible to think or hear. In both those cases, the teacher (and it was me in one of the cases) should not have even attempted group discussions.

Experiment with different formats for discussion.

There are all sorts of ways to conduct these discussion sessions. The most simple is for the leader to just ask the question and solicit responses. But often you will find that the same one or two people will always respond while the others just sit and listen without giving any input. That is why breaking into separate groups is sometimes preferable. People are much more likely to open up in a smaller group and without having to worry about the leader's possible disapproval of the answer. The major challenge of a leader in that setting is seeing that the session finishes on time.

One can give all the groups the same question or questions to discuss for a certain amount of time and then have a spokesman from each group present their conclusions to everyone. The ensuing discussion over the different conclusions usually results in totally engaging all of the participants and coming up with unique answers to the question at hand.

Alternatively, each group can be given a different leading question, each involving another aspect of the overall subject at hand. Then when they are finished, a representative from each group will present the group's findings to everyone else. The questions should be designed by the discussion leader to elicit responses that will spiritually enlighten and challenge all those present.

The major problem with either format is keeping some groups at task so they will finish on time while encouraging others to keep discussing the question further, even when they think they are already through with their deliberations – all to ensure that they finish up at the same time and with enough time left over for whole group wrap-ups. The “teacher” can either leave entirely and do something else during their discussions or can move from group to group to loosely monitor how they are doing and be present to answer any of their specific questions regarding the assignments.

Keep it focused.

A leader needs to make sure that the discussions do not turn into general gripe sessions, political diatribes or opportunities to share gossip. Some groups of people are more prone to this sort of behavior than others, and the leader needs to let them know one way or another that it is not appropriate for a Bible study setting. Fortunately, I have never had to deal with that sort of situation, but I did attend a slightly liberal church decades ago in which one of the Sunday school elective classes during summer was actually on the subject of planting gardens.

I hope that I haven't discouraged any of you from volunteering to lead a discussion group since it is a rewarding ministry. But it is always best to know a few potential pitfalls before it is too late.