MIXTURES IN THE BIBLE

Of all the regulations given in Leviticus, perhaps the most incomprehensible is the prohibition against wearing garments made from different materials (Leviticus 19:19). Also in this verse are commands against cross-breeding animals and sowing a field with a mixture of seeds. But at least these other regulations seem to have a semblance of common sense to them, as does Deuteronomy 22:10 with its prohibition against plowing a field with a team consisting of an ass and an ox.

It turns out that Leviticus 19:19 is just a small part of a whole complex of ideas that begins in Genesis and ends in Revelation. So below is a rough summary of the overarching concepts holding them all together.

Proper Borders

One of the first things we learn about God in Genesis 1 besides His creative acts is that He is a God of order, with everything in its proper place. God begins by creating certain realms formed by acts of divine separation: light from dark, atmosphere from earth, and water from dry land. Then each of these realms was populated by appropriate things or beings especially suited to their individual environments. Whether one understands Genesis 1 as a scientifically accurate account or divine mythology, the fact remains that these actions of God are definitely accompanied by theological insights into the nature of God.

Concerning the original separation acts, limits are set for the water. As it says poetically in Job 38:8-11: “God set bars and doors and pronounced, 'You shall go so far and no further, and here your proud waves with stay.'” These limits set for the water are only transgressed once in the OT, and that is of course when God allowed the water to flood the earth and cleanse it of all the evil present there. Interestingly, one of the possible precipitating factors bringing about the Flood is the prohibited interbreeding described rather obscurely in Genesis 6:1-4 between the sons of God and the daughters of men. There are various interpretations of what that really means (see my post on that passage), but in any case, it definitely represented a prohibited form of mixing what should not have been mixed.

We then read further in Genesis that after the Flood came the incident of the Tower of Babel resulting in God scattering the people throughout the earth. Paul may have been referring to that event when, in Acts 17:26, he tells the inhabitants of Athens that God “allotted the boundaries of their existence.” It is interesting that one of the few ecclesiastical groups in recent times to make a major issue out of this verse is the Dutch Reformed Church. It quoted this passage in a 1976 document defending the policy of apartheid in South Africa on biblical grounds. Of course, the rank hypocrisy of such an interpretation is exposed by the fact that it was the Dutch in the first place who colonized lands “allotted” to the African tribes inhabiting that land. This church body recanted their position ten years later. For a little more on this issue, see my post titled “Apartheid in the Bible?”

Again, assuming that Paul was citing aftermath of the Babel event, the following verse, 17:27, explains God's rationale for dividing up mankind into different geographical regions when he says, “so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him – though indeed he is not far from each one of us.” (NRSV) If so, then this passage in Acts thoroughly discredits Michael Heiser's repeated assertion in his writings that God was punishing the people at Babel by disbursing them, and basically washing His hands of all non-Jews at that time.

This OT theme of dividing people groups geographically and linguistically takes a complete U-turn in the New Testament beginning at the Day of Pentacost when there is a symbolic reversal of multiple languages now becoming one spiritual language that all can comprehend. That reversal is continued during the ministry of the early church beyond the bounds of Israel to encompass an Ethiopian, Samaritans, and pagans living throughout the Roman Empire. Paul stresses that in Christ there is neither Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). And it culminates in the Book of Revelation with its seven-fold repetition of the saved of “every people, every tongue, every tribe, etc.”

Getting back to the original separations made by God and described in Genesis 1, that theme also reaches its conclusion in Revelation, where we learn that the moon will become blood and the stars will fall from the sky (6:12), there will be no more sea (21:1), heaven will come down to earth (21:2), and there will be no more night or sun (22:5). At that point in time, there will no longer be the need for any such physical boundaries since all will be incorporated together in the New Heaven and New Earth under the eternal reign of God.

Another aspect of the theme of proper boundaries is seen in man's repeated attempts to transgress the limits set for him. We see this first in Adam and Eve's attempt to be like God Himself, followed later by the building of the Tower of Babel in trying to reach heaven when God had told them to disburse throughout the earth instead. The theme continues as Job and his friends try to figure out God's secrets when they don't even yet understand the secrets of the physical world around them, as God points out in a series of questions addressed to Job in chapters 38-41.

Again, this particular aspect of proper boundaries reaches its conclusion with another reversal. Instead of mankind ascending to heaven at last, it is actually God who transcends boundaries by descending to earth from heaven (Revelation 21-22).

Clean and Unclean Animals

Taking these original creations one step further, the animals dwelling in the three realms described in Genesis 1 are then described in more detail in the regulations in Deuteronomy 14:2-20 concerning which are ritually clean animals suitable for food and which are unclean ones. The reason behind these regulations is given at the start of that chapter – “For you are a people holy to the LORD your God.” – as well as in verses 9-11. The rationale behind the particular divisions of animals has been explained as due to hygienic reasons, avoidance of pagan worship rituals of the time, or as a totally arbitrary set of criteria chosen by God to test the people's obedience and form a division between them and all surrounding cultures.

I think the rationale goes way beyond all of those explanations, as hinted at in Deuteronomy 14:1 quoted above. Levinson give the reason succinctly: “Animals that do not satisfy the defining characteristics for their group are not to be eaten.” Thus, for example, birds are clean as long as they can fly, are active in the daytime, and eat nothing other than plants and invertebrates. All others fall outside the ideal type for air dwellers. Similar restrictions are laid down for the fish and land creatures.

It is not hard to imagine which of the two categories the ancient Jews would have assigned for the platypus, the epitome of an animal which has characteristics found in a number of different species.

This points to another related sub-theme found throughout the Bible where fantastic creatures are described. A tracing of that theme is found in the post “Monsters in the Bible.”

Deuteronomy 22:5 is a command against cross-dressing. Deuteronomy 22:9 contains the same restriction against mixing seeds as in Leviticus 19:19, and Numbers 15:37-40 is another passage concerning the mixing of different materials together in a garment. D.P. Wright says, “One reason mixtures are prohibited is that such prohibitions are reminders that the people, keeping themselves distinct, are holy.” And Levinson says that “these laws attempt to maintain specific boundaries between categories seen as incompatible...”

This theme of clean and unclean pops up again in the New Testament. Self-righteous groups such as the Pharisees take great delight in criticizing Jesus for associating with “sinners” such as tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, and Samaritans whom they categorize as unclean, unlike themselves. And we all know what Jesus thought of their attitude. But the whole issue of food became a major stumbling block for the early Jewish Christians, as several incidents in the Book of Acts attest. But God pronounced the definitive word on the subject when he presented Peter with a rooftop vision that in one fell swoop laid to rest both the issue of clean and unclean food and of clean and unclean people groups. (see Acts 10).

All that is not to say that the issue of clean and unclean human beings was a moot point, but it was redefined by Jesus in terms of the ultimate divisions between believers and non-believers at the Last Judgment using images such as the sheep and the goats, the faithful and non-faithful bridesmaids, or the gulf between Lazarus and the rich man. And to make the point even more abundantly clear, read the final chapters of Revelation (21:7-8,27; 22:14-15) describing the greatest divide of all.

Intermarriage

A final type of divine prohibition against mixing is this category. This theme begins with regulations involving animals. A mixed team of an ox and an ass is not to be employed for plowing (Deuteronomy 22:10); experiments in interbreeding animals are not to be carried out (Leviticus 19:19); and humans are not to have sexual intercourse with animals (Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 18:23, 20:15-16).

The whole issue of intermarriage between the people of God and those of neighboring cultures seems not to have been a very big issue in the days of the patriarchs, although it always came with the danger that the purity of religion would be affected. The prime example of that happening later on in Israelite history is King Solomon and his sad end when he was seduced by foreign gods due to his many pagan wives.

But by the time of the return from Exile, this issue became of prime concern for Jewish leaders such as Ezra and Nehemiah (see Ezra 9-10; Nehemiah 9:30;13:23-27), who even went to the extent of enforcing divorce decrees to set aside existing marriages. We would expect that trend to continue into NT times, and we would not be mistaken. The religious leaders of the day were fairly fanatical in seeing that the Jews avoided almost any sort of interactions with non-Jews. And the nearby Samaritans were included in that category.

However, as mentioned above, there is also a strong counter trend in the NT away from all distinctions based on national origins. For one thing, Paul (unlike Ezra and Nehemiah) specifically does not counsel divorce for existing marriage alliances between believers and non-believers (I Corinthians 7:14-15). And finally, Jesus informs the Sadducees that in heaven there will be neither marriage or giving in marriage (Mark 12:25).

Finally, the one apparent counter-counter-trend in the NT back to more restrictions in this matter is found in II Corinthians 22:10, but that is the subject of yet another post.

 

NOTES ON THE MINOR PROPHETS

Hosea 10:12 Righteous Teacher was adapted by the Dead Sea community as the name of their leader.

Joel 2:23 see note to Hosea 10:12

Joel 3:5 See Colossians 3:17.

Amos 2:1 see II Kings 3:27.

Amos 2:8 See Deuteronomy 12:12.

Amos 5:22 Excavations of the temple area in Dan show that animal bones found were consistent with 

Levitical rules of sacrifice. This indicates that it was the attitude of the Northern Kingdom, not their 

heterodox worship practices that Amos speaks against.

Amos 6:7 The bed was used for sprawling guests during their feasts. An ivory inlaid bed from Amos' 

time was found in Salamis, Cyprus.

Amos 6:12 If bqrym has no letter breaks it means oxen. But bqr can also mean oxen, and ym = sea. 

Thus, "Does one plow the sea with oxen?"

Amos 7:9 Judgment first on the church and then on the government.

Jonah 1:7 There is a recent proposal that the fish is “a manifestation of Jonah's fear and sense of 

alienation while afloat during a long winter's night, with the constellation “the whale's belly” showing 

prominently in the skies. Unlikely.

Jonah 1:17-3:3 According to one commentator, Jonah's prayer implies that Jonah died and was later 

brought back to life, forming a close parallel with Jesus' resurrection (Matthew 12:38-41).

Nahum 2-3 The Qumran book called the Nahum Pesher relates 2:12 to Alexander Jannaeus (who 

crucified Pharisees) and 3:5 to his widow Salome who ruled Israel for years.

Zephaniah 3:8 Dan Curtis paper: “perhaps the most amazing use of the alefbet occurs in Zephaniah 

3:8 in which all 22 of the Hebrew letters plus the 5 special final forms occur in a single verse. Such 

constructions require author intent and show the literary importance of the Hebrew letters in Hebrew 

literature.”

Zeph. 3:17 yaharish = “he will be silent” (meaningless) or “he will plow” (plausible if a euphemism 

for sexual congress as a figure of God married to his people. Another possibility is a textual error for 

 yadarish = “renew his love” (as in the Septuagint and the Syriac Peshitta (BR).

Zechariah 2:8 See Deuteronomy 32:10.

Zechariah 6:12 was taken to be a prophecy of St. Assisi (= East) rebuilding a cathedral.

Zechariah 14:7 See Revelation 21:23.

Zech. 14:21 Canaanite = lit. “trader”

Malachi 1:8 Verse 8c is a good way to put into perspective our own actions by looking at earthly 

examples.

Malachi 2:15-16

Verse 15 is extremely difficult to translate. It is felt by some to refer to Genesis 2 and the two 

becoming one flesh.

Verse 16 is translated by some: "If one hates and divorces...he covers his garment with violence." Thus, 

a divorce based on mere aversion is branded as reprehensible.

 

ACTS 27

I once taught a creativity workshop to a group of pastors. As part of it, I asked them to name some Bible passages on which they had never given a sermon. I can't remember what they came up with, but I imagine the list would include some of the same subjects that Sunday school teachers hope they will never have to teach on, such as the Song of Songs, Ezekiel's temple vision in Ezek. 40-48, and Acts 27 which appear to be of interest mainly to marriage counselors, architects and maritime historians, respectively. And in fact, regarding the last passage, experts in the field generally treat Luke's account here as one of the earliest and most accurate descriptions of sailing practices of the time. But getting any spiritual meat out of these passages seems to be rather slim pickings. As Toussaint asks, “Why did Luke go into such lengthy detail about the voyage from Caesarea to Rome? There is no easy answer.” However, since I have already tackled the other two “problem” passages in earlier posts, I felt I really ought to see what might be said regarding the long chapter [44 verses] in Acts as well.

One way to view the whole of Acts 27 is as an allegory of the soul's experience. We should always be 

rightfully suspicious of those who interpret Scripture primarily in an allegorical manner since the 

approach is particularly susceptible to subjectivity. However, also keep in mind for this particular 

example that the saving of Noah and his family from the flood is treated by Peter as a type of a 

believer's water baptism (I Peter 3:19-20). Also, Jonah's salvation from the waters when he is in the 

belly of the sea beast for three days is a type of Jesus' death and resurrection (Matthew 38-40). And we 

ourselves are associated with Jesus' experience through baptism (Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12).

Secondly, the story reveals the real character of Paul as seen in times of crisis, demonstrating that 

sometimes it is the strongest one spiritually who can offer the most practical help in the time of crisis. 

This fact flies in the face of the popular saying concerning those who “are so heavenly minded that 

they are of no earthly good.” An excellent, but decidedly fictional, example also attempts to give the lie 

to this cynical belief. That is G.K. Chesterton's beloved Father Brown, whose ideas are dismissed by 

the police authorities around him as being totally out of touch with earthly realities since he is a 

celibate Catholic priest who can't possibly know what other people are capable of doing. But in fact, it 

is (a) his experiences hearing confessions and (b) his strong belief in original sin that enable him to 

solve crimes that the police have given up on. Just look at vv. 9-11 as a very similar situation in which 

the official authorities ignored Paul's advice to their detriment.

John Stott says, “Here then are aspects of Paul's character which endear him to us as an integrated 

Christian who combined spirituality with sanity, and faith with works...He was a man of God and of 

action, a man of the Spirit and of common sense.”

There is a similar lesson in vv. 21-28 where we see Paul taking charge of the ship, not the centurion. A 

church congregation may have a set of official leaders in it. But on occasion, the true prophetic voice 

of God comes from an entirely different source. At that point, one can only hope and pray that the 

“leaders” have the spiritual discernment to listen to it, as did the centurion later on (see vv. 42-43).

One somewhat jarring detail is given in v. 21 in that Paul appears to rub it in by delivering an “I told 

you so” speech to those who had ignored his advice. But I do not believe that was Paul's motive at all. 

It is sometimes necessary to walk a tightrope between the extremes of trying to insert ourselves into 

matters when we shouldn't and being so meek and mild that we are afraid to even open our mouths at 

times when it is really needed.

Paul's statement in v. 10 that there will be the loss of lives aboard the ship is sometimes viewed as a 

false prophecy. But instead we should see it just as a case of reaching a probable conclusion based on 

the facts of the case guided by prior experience. By contrast, consider Paul's statement in v. 22-23 after 

he had received a definite word from the Lord. Bruce says, “But on that [earlier] occasion he spoke 

simply as an experienced traveller of sound judgment.” Our problem is that we sometimes have trouble 

distinguishing between what is God's word and what is merely our word. See the even earlier incident 

in Acts 17:22 in which Paul hints that he will probably be killed when he returns to Jerusalem, which 

doesn't actually happen although it certainly could have.

27:21-26 The other obvious biblical example of God's grace being given to non-believers because of 

His people in found in the teachings in Genesis 18:23-33. F.F. Bruce says, “Not only would he himself 

survive to stand before the emperor; the lives of his shipmates were also to be spared for his sake. The 

world has no idea how much it owes, in the mercy of God, to the presence of righteous men.”

27:29 John Ogilve compares the four anchors the sailors let down to stabilize them until the time of 

darkness has passed to the four anchors Paul (as well as all believers) have been given in dark 

situations:

    1. The anchor of God's direct intervention through sending a messenger to reassure him (v. 23)

    2. The anchor of faith even in the darkest hour: “Do not be afraid” (v. 24a).

    3. The anchor of a sense of destiny: “You must stand before the emperor” (v. 24b)

    4. The anchor of peace through prayer: “There are times when there is nothing to do but claim the 

promises and pray for dawn to break...The anchor of prayer really makes all the other three anchors 

secure.” (Ogilve)

27:33-38 Paul urges everyone to stop and take some food to renew their strength. In this action, I see 

Paul following the example of God Himself who brought Elijah out of his depression by first seeing 

that his physical needs were met through food and rest. (I Kings 19:1-9)

Paul begins by blessing the food. Luke uses some very familiar words at this point in his description: 

“He took bread, gave thanks and broke it.” C.R. Matthews remarks, “The meal in which all partake has 

clear eucharistic overtones” (see Luke 22:19) That may well be true, but other scholars such as Stott 

have disagreed. He points out that is doubtful that an actual communion service was being celebrated 

since “neither the occasion nor the gathering of unbelieving soldiers, sailors and prisoners, was 

appropriate for this.”

W. Kelly adds, “For though the terms are just such as were so employed, they are no less expressly 

applied to an ordinary meal in Luke 24:30...But the most ordinary food should be sanctified by the 

word of God and prayer.” A good point to ponder is brought up by this incident. Why is is so hard for 

us to thank God in the midst of trials for at least the blessings that we do possess?

As a final discussion item to ponder, note the various ways that God accomplished His will in this 

chapter including an angelic revelation, people's enlightened self-interest, their gratitude, Paul's 

actions, and the physical elements.

 

TITHES AND OFFERINGS: WHERE AND WHEN

To most of us, the Bible appears to spend an inordinate amount of time talking about what we should give back to God. It begins with Cain and Abel and their respective sacrifices, is present throughout the Pentateuch in the myriad of regulations regarding offerings, continues with the rants of the prophets against those who rob God, Jesus' teachings on the proper use of money, the early church giving practices found in the Book of Acts, admonitions on the subject located in the epistles, and concludes with the eventual downfall of human economic systems in the Book of Revelation.

Despite the biblical emphasis on our proper use of resources, most pastors and Bible teachers today are understandably reluctant to tackle the subject before their audiences. But since I don't have to look any of you in the face, I will try wrestling with the wealth (no pun intended) of information available in the Bible regarding tithes and offerings from the perspective of the usual questions such as what, why, when, where, and how (much). One excellent resource on this whole subject, including the spiritual danger that possessions pose, is Jacques Ellul's book Money & Power.

In many Christian congregations, the question of where and when to bring our money to God is definitively answered in one single passage: I Corinthians 16:1-2 where Paul asks the church members to lay aside their offerings each Sunday. At least that is certainly what I was told in our church while growing up. And that teaching is still present in more conservative churches today: “Giving should be a systematic, weekly practice on Sunday when the church meets together.” (Lowery)

The problems with that particular interpretation have been pointed out many times:

    The collection for the saints in Jerusalem is to be put aside by the members of the congregation and saved on their own so that it is ready when Paul comes. The main point is that such offerings “should be regular and systematic.” (Marsh) Note that the money is (a) to be kept at home and not given to the church and (b) the passage does not speak about any regular tithes and offerings, only a particular special offering.

    As to why the money was to be set aside on Sunday, it probably has nothing to do with Sunday worship services. “Jews were forbidden to handle money on the Sabbath, so perhaps the arrangement to lay aside money on the first day of the week was a convenience to avoid offense. There is no mention of a worship service in this instance.” (Orr and Walther)

    “There is very little linguistic warrant for such a suggestion” that each person is to bring their money to the assembly. (Fee)

And the Old Testament regulations on giving provide little guidance either regarding when the various required offerings were to be given. The answer is either not addressed except for certain feast day offerings or depends entirely on the particular situation that necessitates a special offering such as purification offerings or the offering of first fruits. But one thing does seem to be clear, and that is the offerings should come to the temple (see Deuteronomy 12:5-19; Malachi 3:10).

Because of that precedent and the fact that offerings for the poor in early NT church practice appear to have been administered by the local church leaders (Acts 4:32-37; 6:1-7), there are pastors today who will insist that the biblical pattern is for all tithes and offerings to be given through official church channels. These types of congregations usually belong to some sort of larger denominational body which handles all money given to missions. And the money given to the church is then either earmarked for special mission offerings by the giver, or alternatively, all money is given into the church treasury and it is then distributed according to the church budget. In this sort of arrangement, parishioners may often be actively discouraged from giving any tithes or offerings to any outside ministry or charitable organization.

Then, I have attended churches in which only a nominal amount of the church budget was allotted to the mission fund, but members of the congregation were actively encouraged to support missionaries of their own choosing. There are pros and cons to both methods of supporting missions outside the local church. An organized collection method administered by the church or larger church body may be the most efficient way to disperse and monitor those funds. But on the other hand, there is certainly something to be said for the more personal involvement that comes from developing a close relationship with missionaries on one's own.

As biblical indications that not all tithes and offerings need to be funneled through the church, there are two additional passages to point out. The first is found in Deuteronomy 14:22-27 and repeated in Deuteronomy 26:12-15. It states that although the annual tithe on produce is to be given to the temple, every third year it is to be kept in special storehouses in each town for the direct support of the Levites, the alien residents, the orphans and the widows. We see hints of that principle in the NT in the various individuals who appear to support Paul directly with their resources.

My wife and I allot our tithes and offerings to both our local congregation and a variety of individual missionaries and non-profit parachurch organizations, and can see advantages to both means of supporting God's work.

Turning back to the question of when to give our tithes and offerings, again there is no hard and fast biblical model provided for us. The prophet in Amos 4:4-5 alludes to the practice of the people bringing morning offerings to the temple as well as their tithe every three days. This frequency, however, may be due to the fact that workers were generally paid on a daily basis. But even more likely is the fact that Amos is undoubtedly being sarcastic in these verses. He is in effect saying, “No matter how frequently you give your money, even every one to three days, it will do you no good as long as you continue to oppress the needy.”

In practice, I have seen two extremes followed. One friend of ours got paid on a monthly basis, but divided his monthly offerings up so that each week he could put some money into the offering place during Sunday service. He felt that in that manner he could more fully take part in each week's worship. On the other hand, a Mormon acquaintance of mine felt that although he was compelled to tithe, he was not about to let the church have the use of that money until the very last day of the year. In that way, he could invest all of it in the stock market throughout the year and keep the accrued profits for himself. That procedure speaks more to the heart issue of why we give than any other aspect, and that will be the subject of another post.

 

A PROPHET LIKE MOSES (DEUTERONOMY 18:15-22)

A Prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15-22)

One interesting way I have been approaching the Bible recently is to find a theme and trace it throughout the Old Testament and New Testament. In that respect, a new book by Gary Schnittjer entitled Old Testament Use of Old Testament is of great help, especially the chapter on “Networks.” There, Schnittjer takes 21 key themes in the Bible (such as “Covenant,” “70 Years,” and “Temple Vessels”) and shows graphically how the biblical authors added on to each succeeding passage by alluding to, quoting from or, interpreting it. And finally, even combining the original text with other passages of Scripture to reach new conclusions. Tracing the history of such transmissions is sometimes quite complicated, and the direction of borrowing often not readily determined.

As one specific and relatively simple example, take the theme laid out in Deuteronomy 18:15-22 in which Moses talks about a coming prophet such as himself. But since the book of Deuteronomy is largely a retelling of events in Exodus, the path really begins with Exodus 20:19, in which the people of Israel are so afraid when they see the supernatural events accompanying the giving of the Ten Commandments that they say to Moses, “You speak to us and we will obey; but don't let God speak to us directly or we will die.”

When this story is recapped in Deuteronomy 5, we hear the upshot of the people's request. God tells Moses that the people are correct and that from that point on He will tell Moses what to relay to the people. Then Moses takes the story one step further by explaining to the people that after he leaves them, God will send another prophet (or prophets) in his place. Moses also gives the Israelites a way to determine if future prophets are actually from God.

At this point, it is important to determine what Moses meant by saying that “another prophet” would be sent to the people. Was he referring to one specific person or a series of messengers? Here opinion is sharply divided among commentators:

More than one prophet

“It is generally agreed that Moses' prophecy could well be fulfilled by a succession of prophets, and Deuteronomy 18:19-22 presumes such a situation.” (Marshall)

“The primary sense in which the coming prophets would resemble Moses would be in their function, which was to declare the word of God...The singular (a prophet) is a collective form indicating a succession of prophets.” (Craigie)

“The verb “raise up” in vv. 15 and 18 “is to be understood in a distributive sense (i.e. will raise up from time to time), and does not refer to a single future act.” (Mayes)

One prophet

Although “traditional Jewish exegesis thinks of a prophet arising in each generation...this is untrue historically.” (Harrison)

“The promise has both individual and corporate significance. By NT times, it was understood of a precursor of the Messiah or of the Messiah himself.” (Cousins) This opinion is confirmed by John 1:19-21 in that John the Baptist is questioned by the priests and Levites who ask him whether he is the Messiah, Elijah, or the prophet. He denies all of these identifications.

There is even a slight variation on this second option, based mainly on a consideration of Hebrews 3, in which the author actually contrasts Jesus with Moses.

    E.L. Allen feels that Hebrews 3 was written to refute the strains of thinking among some Jewish Christian circles that Jesus was merely a new Moses.

    Thompson: “He would be like Moses in the sense that he was Yahweh's spokesman, but not in any sense of equality.”

    Kaiser concludes that Moses had in mind no simple prophet or a collective of prophets, but someone “unlike himself would complete the instruction and revelation of God.”

Back to our rabbit trail, which we left off at Deuteronomy 18. The end of this theme, as far as Deuteronomy is concerned comes in Deuteronomy 34:10 which states: “Never since that time has a prophet arisen in Israel to equal Moses.”

If we jump forward in time considerably, we next come to the book of Acts, where the theme resurfaces. Soon after the Day of Pentacost, Peter delivers a speech to the people in which he quotes from Deuteronomy 18:15-18 regarding Moses' warning to heed the words of God's prophets. Peter reminds his audience that many of these messengers of God over the years had prophesied the coming of the Messiah to bless all the people of the earth. In that way, Peter calls them to reconsider and accept Jesus.

Stephen also quotes the events in Deuteronomy 18:15-18, but is not quite as diplomatic as Peter had been since he accused the people of knowingly disobeying Moses and subsequent messengers (see Acts 7:35-43). His approach was met with predictable response from the people.

Getting back to the key verse Deuteronomy 18:15-18, remember that the people did not want God to speak directly to them or they would die. This sub-theme is expanded somewhat in Exodus 33:21-23 in which God allows Moses to see only His back so that he will not die by looking at His face.

The author of Samuel-Kings takes up this incident in Exodus when he alludes to it in I Kings 19:9-14, the story of God allowing the prophet Elijah (also hiding in a cave or cleft on Mt. Horeb) to experience His presence, but not face-to-face.

This theme now continues with Malachi 4:4 first reminding the people of Moses receiving the law on Mt. Horeb and then following it with a prediction in Malachi 4:5-6 of Elijah coming to call the people to repentance before the Judgment Day.

The Synoptic writers conclude the story in the parallel accounts found in Matthew 17:1-13; Mark 9:2-13; and Luke 9:28-36 of the Transfiguration in which both Moses and Elijah appear with Christ and there Jesus reveals to the apostles that the fulfillment of Malachi 4:5-6 was the coming of John the Baptist with the power of Elijah.

Schnittjer stops the trail here since he is mainly concerned with tracing themes within the Old Testament only. But we can easily continue the story by resorting to other NT texts which explore different aspects of the coming prophet theme. I have already mentioned John 1:19-21 in which the religious authorities question the true identification of John the Baptist. In addition, the angel reveals the future role of John in Luke 1:13-17, and Jesus in Matthew 11:7-15 tells the crowd that John was the prophet Elijah who was predicted to come. Finally, Herod even fears that Jesus is John the Baptist raised from the death although others felt that Jesus himself was the coming Elijah. (Mark 6:14-16)

 

3:16

I would hazard a guess that there are at least two Scripture passages even a fledgling Christian knows by heart: the Lord's Prayer and John 3:16. Perhaps Psalm 23 comes in as a distant third along with Genesis 1:1. As an interesting exercise, I went through the Bible to see if there were any additional memorable 3:16's present. I will admit that I was a little surprised by what I found.

The results from those books of the Bible that actually contained any 3:16's (most of which are summarized below) exhibited a limited number of repeated themes. There is nothing magical about this finding in retrospect since I was already well aware that there are many repetitions of the same ideas throughout the Old and New Testament. To me, this serves as one of many pieces of evidence pointing to the unity of composition of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Also, I should quickly remind the reader that there is absolutely no indication that the chapter and verse divisions in our present Bible were divinely inspired. They came about from several Bible scholars:            Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury, devised the chapter divisions in 1227.

    Nathan, a Jewish rabbi, came up with verse divisions for the Old Testament in 1448.

    Robert Estienne basically combined Nathan's OT divisions with his own for the NT in the 1500's.

    The Geneva Bible incorporated all of these divisions in their 1560 edition.

Therefore the correspondences below are mainly due to coincidences coupled with the propensity for the Bible to repeat similar themes with variations.

    Genesis 3:16 – God pronounces a curse on women for the sin of Eve.

    Exodus 3:16 – This momentous occasion is when Moses has just seen the vision of the burning bush and God appoints him to lead the people out from Egypt. God reveals his personal name to Moses.

    Joshua 3:16 – This verse marks the important time when God stops the waters of the Jordan so that the Israelites can pass over to the Promised Land.

    I Samuel 3:16 – The boy Samuel is summoned by God at night and Samuel informs Eli of the fact.

    I Kings 3:16 – Right after Solomon gets his night vision of God granting him the gift of wisdom, Solomon exercises that gift for the first time in making his judgment regarding the two prostitutes and their children.

    II Kings 3:16 – Elisha delivers God's judgment on three kings right after God reveals it to him when he is in a spiritual trance brought about by a musician playing.

    Proverbs 3:16 – Those who find wisdom from God are also promised long life, honor and riches.

    Isaiah 3:16 – God curses the haughty women of Zion.

    Jeremiah 3:16 – There is a prediction of the last days when Jerusalem becomes the throne of God.

    Ezekiel 3:16 – The prophet is appointed as a sentinel for the house of Israel in order to warn them.

    Daniel 3:16 – The three young Jews defy King Nebuchadnezzar and are preserved in the flames.

    Joel 3:16 – God roars from Zion and the heavens are shaken, but He is a refuge for His people.

    Zephaniah 3:16 – In that day, Jerusalem will have no need to fear since God is in her midst.

    Malachi 3:16 – There is a book of remembrance of those who fear the LORD and think on His name.

    Matthew 3:16 – Jesus is baptized and the Spirit descends on him.

    Mark 3:16 – Jesus appoints the twelve apostles.

    Luke 3:16 – John baptizes people with water, but Jesus will baptize them with the Holy Spirit.

    John 3:16 – The identity of Jesus as the Son of God and his role in salvation is stated following Jesus' night time revelation to Nicodemus.

    Acts 3:16 – A man is healed by the power of Jesus' name.

    I Corinthians 3:16 – God's Spirit dwells within each believer.

    II Corinthians 3:16 – There is a reminder of Moses seeing God's glory. Believers have no veil since we have the Spirit of the lord.

    Galatians 3:16 – The promise of the Messiah is given to Abraham (i.e. his seed).

    Ephesians 3:16 – Paul prays that God's powerful Spirit would strengthen the people according to the riches of his glory.

    Philippians 31:6 – There is the admonition that the church hold fast to what they have attained.

    Colossians 3:16 – Let Christ's word dwell in you as you teach and admonish one another in all wisdom.

    II Thessalonians 3:16 – May the Lord of peace be with you.

    II Timothy 3:16 – All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, etc.

    Hebrews 3:16 – The Jews who left Egypt with Moses heard God's word but were rebellious.

    James 3:16 – False wisdom is earthly and leads to wickedness.

    I Peter 3:16 – Defend the faith with gentleness and in the fear of God.

    II Peter 3:16 – The scriptures can be twisted by people to their own destruction.

    I John 3:16 – Jesus laid down his life for us, so we ought to be prepared to do the same for others.

    Revelation 3:16 – The Laodicean church is neither hot nor cold, and so Christ will spit them out of his mouth.

You no doubt have picked up on some of the repeated themes just from the above summaries, but below are my findings with the appropriate 3:16 in parentheses.

    The story of Moses and the Exodus includes his commission from God (Exodus), the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea (Joshua), Moses receiving the Ten Commandments (II Corinthians), and the rebellion of the Israelites in the desert (Hebrews).

    The personal involvement of the Holy Spirit in giving a prophecy to Elijah (II Kings), the baptism of Jesus (Matthew), the baptism of believers (Luke), within each Christian's life (I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Ephesians).

    Women suffer due to the sin of one (Genesis) or several of them (Isaiah) in attempting to raise their status using inappropriate means.

    Revelations of the identity of God (Exodus) and Jesus as His Son (John).

    Night time revelations to individuals (I Samuel, I Kings, John).

    The importance of Christians treating others in a spirit of peace and gentleness (II Thessalonians, I Peter)

    The use (II Timothy) and abuse (II Peter) of Scriptures.

    Christ's role in the salvation of mankind (John, Galatians, I John).

    Special leaders are commissioned by God (Exodus, I Samuel, I Kings, Ezekiel) or Christ (Mark).

    The power of the name of God (Exodus, Malachi) and Jesus (Acts).

    Wisdom is granted to Solomon (I Kings), is coupled with other gifts from God such as riches (I Kings, Proverbs), is needed for admonishment (Colossians), and is contrasted with earthly wisdom (James).

    The riches of God are contrasted with earthly riches (I Kings, Ephesians).

    Judgment falls on the disobedient (Genesis, Joshua, I Kings, II Kings, Isaiah, Joel, Habakkuk, II Peter, Revelation) while the believers are saved (Malachi, Daniel, John).

    It is predicted that in the last days, God will reside in Jerusalem and protect her from all enemies (Jeremiah, Joel, Zephaniah).

    God's glory is seen by Moses (II Corinthians) and strengthens believers (Ephesians).

    A vision of God appears in flames (Exodus, Daniel).

 

THE TEN COMMITTMENTS (EXODUS 20:1-17; DEUTERONOMY 5:6-21)

I have taken the above title and most of the ideas below from an article by Andrew Wilson in Christianity Today magazine, October 2021, p. 32.

Although it is obvious that God handed down these commandments for us to follow, He intended them also as a theological description of who He is and His prior commitment to us. In that way, it is more than just a one-way demand; it is a true covenant initiated by the dominant party, God, and to be followed by the subordinate party, ourselves.

The series of statements in both the Exodus and Deuteronomy versions actually begins with some important theological points regarding God's nature before even starting in on our part of the covenant. The first point is somewhat disguised in most English translations when they state (Exodus 20:2a): “I am the LORD your God.” When LORD appears in all capital letters, that is an indication that it refers to God's personal name, Yahweh, first revealed to Moses. But it also implies that He is the same God who had earlier revealed Himself to all the Patriarchs and given them all the promises through His grace. Thus, the whole process was initiated by God, not by human beings. And it is for that very reason, that v. 7 requires that we consider His name holy.

Going back to Exodus 20:2, the next thing God reveals concerning Himself is His redeeming act in rescuing the Jews from slavery in Egypt. This point is made even more clear in Deuteronomy 5:15. As Wilson says, “Before giving any instructions, God wants Israel to know beyond a doubt that he is a redeeming, rescuing, liberating God. Only then does he begin clarifying how obedience and gratitude should be expressed.” In a way, it is similar to how Paul structures most of his epistles. He begins with “grace” along with a theological section describing what God has done for us in Christ, and only then does he proceed to talking about our appropriate ethical and worshipful response.

Still in verse 2 and continuing into v. 3, there is found a third implied characteristic of God: His absolute Oneness and Otherness that is totally unlike any so-called gods. In a way, this point comes full circle at the end of the Ten Commandments in that any form of coveting on our part, even if only in our heart, constitutes putting another deity in place of God. I realize that this is a sticking point for both Islam and Judaism in that they accuse Christians of worshiping three gods in place of the One. I only mention the objection, but will certainly not attempt to play the theologian and try to resolve the issue to anyone's satisfaction at this time. If you wish to look at what I have posted on the subject, search for the following on this site: “Acts 20:27,” “The Trinity,” “II Corinthians 3:17-18,” and “The Deity of Christ in the New Testament.”

Exodus 20:4 stresses another property of God, His invisible nature. Therefore, any attempt to pin God down to a particular form or likeness of something we are more familiar with is a type of blasphemy.

Exodus 20:5a deals with the subject Paul mentions toward the start of his Letter to the Romans when he talks about the wickedness of those who “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator...” This is exactly what one does when one chooses to deny another key aspect of God, His role as the source and creator of everything and everyone. This revelation of God as Creator is also given in relationship to another commandment, that which says we are to honor the Sabbath and keep it holy (Exodus 20:11). By doing so, we are also honoring God as the supreme Creator as well as the God of rest for our bodies and souls.

Exodus 20:5b reveals God as a God of justice who will eventually hold an accounting of us for all our actions done in violation of His will (as does v. 7b). But verse 6 balances this side of God's nature with that of his loving-kindness, which lasts infinitely longer than His wrath. “Mercy triumphs over judgment.” (Wilson)

Exodus 20:12 demonstrates that God is also a God of promised blessings as long as we honor our earthly parents along with our heavenly Father. The command not to murder goes back to the fact that man was made in the image of God Himself. Therefore to act in violence against a human being is to in effect attack God Himself. The command against adultery reminds us of the many times the Old Testament compared Israel's lusting after other gods with a married party committing adultery. Thus, in a way, it comes back to the prohibition of worshiping other gods. In the same manner, stealing from another person is robbing them of what is due to them just as God deserves all the glory that is due to Him. And choosing to lie (v. 16) is to purposefully turn away for the Father of all truth in order to follow the Father of Lies, Satan.

Wilson summarizes his short essay by saying, “The Ten Commandments are central to Christian ethics, used by Jesus and Paul as a framework for teaching on the obedience of faith. But they are shot through with God's disclosure of who he is and what he offers.”

 

WHAT IS THE BIBLICAL MODEL FOR CHURCH LEADERSHIP?

One of the reasons behind the proliferation of different Christian denominations stems from disagreement as to the proper, biblical mode of church government, or polity, to follow. And this in turn stems from the fact that the New Testament is not as clear as we would like regarding that subject. Actually, the NT appears to describe two somewhat competing or complementary forms of church leadership.

    A. On the one hand, you could say that the early church was spirit-led:

“When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.” (I Corinthians 14:26b)

But this model comes with its own major questions: (a) Are all of these spiritual gifts still available today to Christians, or only the “non-sign gifts?” and (b) Paul goes on to say in I Corinthians that all must be done in an orderly manner. But who is going to ensure that order?

    B. As a second pattern, read through the Pastoral Epistles. The guidance given to Timothy and Titus presupposes a structured community governed more or less after the pattern of the Jewish synagogues with its elders. These male leaders appear to also appear under the name of presbyters or bishops. However, according to some denominational interpretations, these three terms may apply to different levels of church leadership. (I am leaving out the office of deacon since it is strictly defined in terms of a service role in the Bible.) And what exactly is the role of Timothy and Titus themselves? Are they equivalent to today's senior pastor, or are they traveling evangelists who are to set up local leadership in the church and then depart?

Thus, since there is no one model of church polity provided in the new Testament that is wholly free from ambiguity, perhaps we should turn to the question of which form of church government is the most effective. All I have to offer below is my own experience over many decades worshiping and serving in a number of different congregations, with the moves from one to the other mainly necessitated by changing work and family situation. And these experiences are strictly limited to attending evangelical, non-liturgical, independent congregations. However, all of these churches were more or less loosely aligned with some sort of denomination or church tradition.

I will make no attempt to describe the following congregations in the chronological order in which I experienced them:

    A church administered by elders who had a more or less permanent tenure and were chosen by congregational vote. The pastor was treated as the main spiritual resource of the church but served at the pleasure of the eldership.

    A loose-knit group of worshipers who adhered rather closely to the pattern given in I Corinthians 14, with rough oversight from a small steering group of gifted leaders who were there to insure that everything was done with decorum and that no one person attempted to monopolize the proceedings.

    A small democratically-run congregation in which all decisions were made by an open vote at frequent meetings after discussion of the pros and cons of the issues at hand. The church tradition demanded multiple eldership at the local level. Since we did not have more than one qualified candidate for that position, three men were chosen to be deacons who did everything from take turns preaching to teaching Sunday school to serving as church janitors.

    A semi-liturgical congregation with a well-developed system of government in which major decisions to be brought before the congregation for a vote had to first be approved by the board. Membership in the board included a chairman more or less appointed by a steering committee, the church treasurer, chairman of the deacons, chairman of the elders, and selected chairmen chosen from the various operating committees. The paid staff, including the senior pastor, were allowed to attend meetings unless told not to do so, but they had no vote.

    A church in which only the ordained staff members were considered to be elders. Deacons were strictly servants of the church but had no real oversight duties. Major issues were decided by congregational vote at monthly business meetings. But most of the key decisions were actually made behind the scenes by the various operating committees, with rotating membership and leadership chosen by the congregation.

    A rather large congregation which was elder-led by a group that was largely self-perpetuating. All of the ordained staff members were also part of the eldership, and the senior pastor more or less called the shots on most issues. Very few items were brought up for a congregational vote.

    An independent congregation blessed with a group of very godly and dedicated elders and staff. The elders interpreted their main duties as shepherds of the congregation and that informed all their actions. They worked very closely with the senior pastor with seemingly little or no conflict.

    A church affiliated with a large denomination which provided most of the Sunday school materials and to whom special missionary offerings were made every year. The eldership consisted of the ordained staff only, with a small rotating group of elected representatives from the church membership serving in an advisory role.

Despite the differences in types of church leadership, all of these congregations managed to function quite well in practice most of the time. And that is why I suspect that we weren't given any hard and fast rules in the Bible regarding which type of organization to set up. On the other hand, even congregations that on paper had almost identical types of church polity varied widely in their effectiveness depending almost solely on the nature of the people chosen to hold leadership roles.

For example, I have known elder-led congregations in which the “lay” eldership was chosen by (a) seniority, (b) spiritual characteristics, or (c) according to their wealth and ability as independent businessmen. Those in the first category often served reluctantly and gladly walked away from their responsibilities as soon as they could find a younger person to take their job. Those congregations which took seriously the qualifications for leadership described in the Pastoral Epistles seemed to be the most successful in identifying true shepherds as well as hiring a pastoral staff which was characterized by their servant hearts. The third group of elders tended to mirror the personalities of the staff members. All were used to doing their own thing the way they wanted to operate and with no coordination with or care for the other leaders or the congregation. To me, the overwhelming lesson was that practically any sort of church government will work as long as the scriptural guidelines concerning the spiritual character of the leaders are adhered to closely. I think that is why, for example, the Pastoral Epistles spend so much time outlining the spiritual qualifications of a church leader but give practically no guidance regarding their actual duties.

A few other personal observations regarding church government are listed below:

    Often, especially in small churches, the real power lies not with those officially outlined in the congregational by-laws, but with the richest, most influential, or most complaining person in the membership.

    One totally unjustified behavior is to join a church with the sole purpose of changing the way they do things to suit your own preferences. That is akin to marrying a spouse with the idea in mind of changing him or her after you are married. It hardly ever works and often leads to divorce.

    The same occasional conflict arises today between the two “biblical” models (A and B above) of church leadership. Since I have been an adult Bible teacher for many decades now, I have personally observed this sometimes good and sometimes bad relationship between the pastoral leaders (staff and elders) and those in the congregation who had the gift of teaching. As in many other situations, there appear to be two equally bad extremes to avoid.

One such extreme is seen when the church leadership washes its hands of all responsibility regarding what is taught or who does the teaching in the church, whether is in regard to Sunday school or small home groups. In one case, the pastor was so desperate to find anyone at all to teach, that for one semester he allowed an elective class for Sunday school devoted to home gardening techniques. At least that was a somewhat innocuous way for parishioners to spend an hour. But in other cases of which I am aware at another congregations, the results were decidedly negative.

As a teenager growing up in church, about the only things at all that I remember were two rather outrageous examples of teachers who never should have been put in that position. One was a pleasant enough woman who taught us that astrology was the method by which God ruled our lives here on earth. And then there was the man who taught the boys' class and spent his time telling off-color “jokes” making fun of minorities. Even the pastor's wife who taught the women's class was little better since she had a laundry list of sinful behaviors to avoid which included playing any card game with a deck having face cards in it.

One Sunday school class was taught by someone who can only be described as a modern-day Judaizer who was in love with all things Jewish. He spent his time teaching the class members about the Jewish rituals, and for a time even led a Jewish-oriented worship service to compete with the regular services of the church until the church leadership forced him to stop. Another similarly ignored Sunday school class was led by a business consultant who spent his time convincing the young men in the congregation that it was time for them to take charge and oust the older leadership of the church.

The other extreme, however, is just as disruptive to the proper workings of the church. That happens when a new minister of education is hired or a new group of elders comes in office, and they decide that they know much better than the Sunday school teachers (whether of children or adult classes) how a class should be conducted. And so without (a) much prior experience themselves as teachers, (b) even attending a single Sunday school class to see how it is run, or (c) getting prior feedback from the teachers, they begin making wholesale changes in how each class should be run. One thing they seldom take into account is that the teachers and leaders of each class are all volunteers, not paid for their efforts. And therefore undue burdens should not be placed on any of them in terms of time required to meet any additional duties.

One church I attended handled “the teacher situation” is a fairly reasonable manner most of the time. For one thing, they had an unofficial practice of coupling a new or inexperienced teacher with a trusted member of the staff or congregation for one semester of team teaching to see how the new teacher did before trusting him with a class on his own. That was the way I started teaching at that particular church soon after attending the congregation. However, at one point I had to inform the church elders that I could not in good conscience put in my name for actual church membership because I did not wholeheartedly subscribe to one of the twenty or so doctrinal points to which I had to agree. It happened to involve a tertiary issue regarding the exact details associated with the end times.

I found out much later that my admission actually triggered a whole elder's meeting to decide what to do with me. They delegated the Minister of Education to talk to me, after which he reported back to the elders. The compromise they suggested was that I could continue teaching as long as I refrained from ever teaching on that particular eschatological matter. I readily agree that it was completely their prerogative and duty to request that of me since they were the official leaders of the church. And in that manner, I continued to teach for years afterward, even though at one or two times I had to refer a question from the class to one of my co-teachers for a reply. And there was another time during a large mid-week presentation by a later Minister of Education when I had to refuse point-blank from responding to a question he posed to me, reminding him and the class of my prior agreement with the eldership of the church.

So in conclusion, I hope you weren't expecting any sort of resolution to the question of either the most effective or most biblical mode of church leadership because I don't think anyone is in a position to answer that question definitively. The best we can do is to adhere to NT guidelines concerning the quality of leadership that we should expect in the church, whatever that form of leadership is in your particular congregation or denomination.

 

NAVIGATING THIS SITE

Search Boxes

Since I am now well over 1,400 posts on this site, I figured it was a good time to give some hints on how to maneuver your way around it. The first thing to admit is that it is not really organized at all according to categories and sub-categories. Thus, about the only way you can see if there is a particular biblical subject or passage you are looking for is to use either of the two search boxes on the site. One is located in a small rectangle in the upper left corner of the home page, and the other is found on the left below the “About Me” section. The search engine is very fast and able to even pick up on phrases or words within the body of the posts. However, you may need to scroll through all the screens it identifies before finding exactly what you are looking for.

One additional thing to note is that I always use Roman numerals to identify the books of the Bible and Bible passages. Thus, it is best to search for I Chronicles rather than 1 Chronicles, II Peter rather than 2 Peter, etc.

If all else fails, feel free to send me an email message at elmerphd21@hotmail.com.

Comments

Although this particular site feature used to work, I don't think it does now. So if you have a comment on any post that you wish to share or have me respond to, again contact me at my email address above.

Original Art on this Site

Among my earliest posts are about 300 featuring my art work, mainly based on biblical themes and passages. These are rather hard to locate among all my writing posts on this site. So if you are interested, I would suggest that you can also view most of them by clicking on the link located on the left side of the home page above the “About Me” section. On that site, they are organized into different galleries mainly by the medium employed.

I do have another site, dr2mccoy.com, on which the same pictures, including short explanations of the biblical passage involved, are shown. That particular site has good search capabilities by key words or biblical references.

Explanations of Biblical Subjects on this Site

The large majority of the posts are devoted to explanations of specific biblical passages, whole books of the Bible, or themes within the Bible. Some of these postings originated with Sunday school or small Bible study groups that I have taught, and others were answers given in response to questions that I have been asked over the years.

In addition, some of the posts originally came from various series of lessons that I presented at churches in the evenings. Since the individual posts go under different names, guides to all the posts in this category can be located by searching the appropriate titles below:

    “Bible Interpretation: Lesson Outline”

    “Apologetics: A Study Guide”

    “The Parables: Lesson Guide”

    “Book of Revelation: A Topical Study Guide”

    “Miracles in the Bible: A Lesson Study Guide”

    “Recognizing Bad Bible Interpretations: A Study Outline”

Then there are several series in which whole books of the Bible are discussed from various points of view. These can usually be found by searching the name of the book (X) you are interested in and attaching the prefixes or suffixes below:

    “X: Introduction to the Literary Structure” This series of posts is abstracted from my unpublished book The Structure of Scripture, and each one explains the way that particular book is organized.

    “The Old Testament in X”

    “Notes on X”

    “X: Study Guide Outline”

Lastly, I sometimes survey the whole Bible to see what it has to say on a given theme. These miscellaneous posts go under titles such as “Mutes in the Bible,” “Walls in the Bible,” etc.

If there is any particular subject you would like be to cover in a future post, just drop me a line at my email address and I will attempt to research it for you.

 

KING AHAZ (II KINGS 16; II CHRONICLES 28)

If anyone doubts that there have been no changes in the attitude of God's people toward society and politics over the year, they have only to consider the reign of King Ahaz of Judah approximately 2,750 years ago. The kings of Judah and Israel during the Divided Monarchy were for the most part sad successors to King David in every way. However, Ahaz hit a new low even though the prophets Isaiah, Hosea and Micah were active during that time period, and Isaiah pleaded with Ahaz personally to change his evil ways (Isaiah 7:1-12).

Both II Kings 16 and the corresponding passage in II Chronicles 28 outline a whole litany of Ahaz' sins including even child sacrifice. But I would just like to highlight two incidents that, at least in my own mind, illustrate faults that characterize the church today and its leaders.

To be fair to Ahaz, we must admit that he faced many challenges since Judah was attacked successively by Aram (with its capital in Damascus), the northern kingdom of Israel, Edom and the Philistines. But rather than relying on God's power as Isaiah had counseled him, Ahaz decided to form an alliance with the Assyrians by giving them money out of the temple treasury in return for military help. At this point in the story, there is a sharp contrast between what II Kings and II Chronicles say regarding this treaty:

    “The king of Assyria heeded him and marched against Damascus. He took it, carried its people captive to Kir, and then killed Rezin [its king].” II Kings 16:9

    “So King Tilgath-pilneser of Assyria came up against him [Ahaz] and oppressed him instead of strengthening him. This was because Ahaz had plundered the house of the LORD...and given tribute to the king of Assyria; but it did not help.” II Chronicles 28:20-21

So which account is correct? Did the alliance with the Assyrians help or hurt Judah? As Williamson said, “such a policy secured relief from one direction only to open the door to an even worse disaster in the other.” And Oswalt puts it another way: “Ahaz could not see the long-range issues. He could only see in the short range, and he was to pay the full price for his short-sightedness.” P.R. House concurs with these opinions when he explains, “Judah, Ammon, and Moab benefit temporarily from Assyria's victory...Such 'freedom' comes with a high price, however...since all these nations are now directly under Assyria's authority.”

Ahaz made the same Faustian bargain with Assyria that a large chunk of American evangelicals and their leaders have been making with politicians for years. We seem to be more than willing to give votes, money and vocal support to anyone who promises to push our moral agenda despite their own obvious moral failings. In return, we may get a short-term return for our time and resources if we are fortunate. But it is at the high price of trading in our prophetic witness to the world and causing us to being looked on in disgust by those to whom we should be presenting a winsome and welcoming face.

I find it interesting to look back on President Nixon's downfall. If you recall, he was a favorite of many evangelical leaders until the secret White House tapes were made public. One famous evangelist, who will remain nameless, was utterly horrified by what was revealed in those private conversations of Nixon with his staff. But what totally turned that evangelist off was not the attempt to cover up a crime designed to influence the election results or even Nixon's snide comments regarding the gullible Christians who had supported him. No, the only thing that upset this church leader was the crude language that Nixon had used. I think it is time that we got our priorities back on track.

While I am on my soapbox (and thankfully for you I don't do it too often), the second lesson for the church revealed in King Ahaz' reign is described in II Kings 16:10-18. The Assyrian leader apparently invites Ahaz to visit Damascus, the scene of the Assyrian conquest. While there, Ahaz sees an altar and is quite taken with the design. He makes a copy and sends it to his architect so that an identical one can be built in Judah for him to worship at.

At this point, my strong temptation is to move forward to the modern application I had in mind to make from these verses. However, honesty makes me admit that there is a sharp difference of opinion between scholars regarding the exact import of what happened in Damascus. These differences seem to boil down to three competing interpretations of the event:

1. What Ahaz saw in Damascus was an Assyrian altar set up by Tiglath-pileser after his conquest of the Aramaeans. And since it was customary, or even compulsory for vassal states of Assyria to adopt worship of the Assyrian gods, Ahaz went ahead and imported that sort of pagan worship to Judah. This view sees no relationship between II Kings 16:10-18 and II Chronicles 28:23, which states that Ahaz worshiped the gods of Damascus. There are many Bible scholars who hold to this interpretation, such as Ellul, House, LaSor, Oswalt, and Waite.

Three major problems with this view are that (a) there doesn't seem to be enough time between Assyria's conquest of Damascus and Ahaz' visit for them to have constructed a brand new altar in the Assyrian mode; (b) there is no historical record even hinting that the Assyrians imposed worship of their gods on her vassal states; and (c) the temple worship of Yahweh continued uninterrupted at Jerusalem except for the change in architecture.

2. What Ahaz saw in Damascus was an Aramaean altar, and he liked its modern style and imported it for temple worship of Yahweh at Jerusalem. However, “this importation becomes for our author [of II Chronicles] a worship of the gods of Aram because of their apparent superiority over the God of Israel.” (Myers)

Although this view appears to be more plausible than that of #1, (a) there is no direct proof that there is a direct parallel between the accounts in II Kings 16:10-18 and II Chronicles 28:23; (b) it would make little sense for Ahaz to have begun worship of an Aramaean god because of its apparent strength just after that same god had obviously not been able to save Damascus from the Assyrians; and (c) temple worship of Yahweh carried on as usual after the change of altar.

3. The design that Ahaz copied was of an Aramaean altar and, “The construction of this new altar of striking dimensions...should be viewed as motivated rather by a spirit of assimilation to the current international fashion.” (Cogan and Tadmor) The comment in II Corinthians regarding the worship of Aramaean gods probably refers to the earlier time period just after Damascus had defeated Judah. Ellison concurs with this view. The main difference between views #2 and 3 is whether there is any relationship between the II Kings account and II Chronicles 28:23.

I see another great temptation to the modern church in this incident (assuming either the second or the third school of interpretation) – the desire to constantly borrow novel ideas and trends from the world and try to adapt them to church practices and teachings. One church which I attended for years was especially addicted to that mode of operation. Almost all of the elders were independent businessmen, and so one time the members of the congregation were subjected to a customer satisfaction survey. The results of this survey revealed that the one thing above all that we wanted was excellence in performance during Sunday morning worship services. The whole premise of this exercise, which can work well in a business setting, was flawed from the beginning. As our current pastor never tires of reminding us, during worship service all of us are the “performers” for an audience of one – God. It is not the staff who are performing for us.

As a result of that particular survey, our pastor at the time (who was indeed a perfectionist in his sermon presentations) actually gave us the identical sermon two Sundays in a row since the first time he had been suffering from a mild cold and happened to stumble over his words once or twice. So to salvage his personal ego, we had to listen to the same message twice.

Then the elders decided to do a cost-benefit analysis on the staff to see how much value they were adding to the church. As a result of that exercise the minister in charge of pastoral care, an excellent pastor and a godly man, was fired and his job responsibilities given to another pastor who was already in charge of both the music ministry and missions (another loss-leader item that soon took a back seat in the church priorities). A little later, a further cost-benefit analysis revealed that the church was probably catering too much to the elderly in the congregation who were on a fixed income. And so, the traditional worship service was disbanded, and the music minister (who believed in a good balance of recent worship songs and classic hymns) was fired.

Jacques Ellul points out the similarity between this attitude and that of King Ahaz: “He sought above all things efficiency at the human level,” but “we cannot separate our objectives from the person of Jesus Christ. Peace and justice [or whatever other goals we set for ourselves as a church]...have no importance or value in themselves.”

The same sort of looking for the latest and greatest trend carried over to the actual teaching in the church. A new best-selling Christian book had come out written by a popular speaker. In fact, the book was roundly criticized by most evangelical scholars as totally misconstruing biblical teachings. However, some of the church elders loved it and decided that several of the on-going Sunday school classes would have to give up their classroom space in order that some of the elders could present a series of lessons on the book, even though these elders were not exactly gifted as teachers.

The elders presented their series and then just failed show up after the last presentation, leaving those who had left their regular classes in order to attend these special teachings wandering around asking people in the other classes if we knew where their teachers were. Basically, the elders just did their thing and then left once they had thoroughly disrupted the other Sunday school classes.

We should keep in mind that the “latest and greatest” is usually one of the first things to become passe'.