JUDE 24-25

The endings to New Testament epistles come in all forms, but this particular conclusion is especially complete and meaningful. It has been variously characterized by scholars as “eloquent” (Arnold), “magnificent” (Wilkins), “fulsome” (Martin), “thrilling” (Green), and “grand and soul-stirring” (Reicke).

Pentecost says, “In this final paragraph Jude exploded with a most elevated doxology, answering the unexpressed question, 'But who will deliver us from the apostates and the apostasy into which they lead the unsuspecting?'...Here is the greatest theme of victory to be sounded, the highest note of praise and adoration possible, and the greatest assurance for the redeemed.”

And Wheaton adds: “After all these sad possibilities of error and apostasy Jude ends on the positive note of pointing his readers to the God who alone can keep them to the end of time and into eternity. With this glorious goal in view he ascribes all glory and might here and now to the God our Savior whose praises His ransomed people will be singing through all eternity. So be it.”

Wu notes that “the doxology in Jude has been considered as one of the most fulsome doxologies in the NT...and it is expressed with motifs evidently tailored to meet the subjective needs of the readers whose faith was endangered by the false teachings of the intruders.”

With all that said, it seems almost a shame to go into any more detail regarding the actual language in this doxology. But one can enjoy reading these verses on both an emotional and intellectual level, so here are a few comments of clarification that some Bible scholars have to offer.

“keep”

Barnett states, “While many warnings are given [in the Bible] of the danger of falling away, there are also encouragements about the mercy of God shown in these situations (e.g. Heb 4:14-16) as well as the strength and faithfulness of God to 'keep' his children from falling away from the true path of faith (e.g. Jude 24, etc.).”

But Schreiner warns, “The absolute necessity of human obedience for eternal reward does not nullify God's grace, for Jude says that it is God 'who is able to keep you from stumbling' (Jude 24), which means that he keeps believers from apostasy. Nonetheless, this does not rule out the need for believers to obey, for the word of promise cannot be used to nullify the threat of judgment.”

“stand in the presence with rejoicing”

Beale explains about that future time: “The kingdom that was inaugurated at Jesus' first coming will be established in its completeness, and God's people will stand in the immediate presence of his glory.”

“For those believers preserved and to be presented by God to himself on that day there was not only anticipated the successful showing in judgment but also the experience of great joy (Lk 1:44; Acts 2:46). This attitude and activity of rejoicing belongs with the hope of salvation in the eschatological day of triumph – over sin and death.” (Towner)

“without fault”

Payne says, “The phrase without fault may recall v. 12, although the Gk. words are not connected; it is in any case a metaphor from the OT sacrificial system (cf. Lev. 1:3, etc.).”

“wise”

Bruce Metzger notes that this word appears after “only” in verse 25 in some later manuscripts and is reflected in the King James Version. Most modern translations leave it out since (a) the vast majority of early manuscripts do not contain this word and (b) it probably arose as a scribal interpolation from Romans 16:27.

“Savior”

“The only occurrence of 'Savior' in Jude is with reference to God ('the only God our Savior,' Jude 25). In the NT as a whole soter refers to God in eight of its twenty-four uses and is otherwise applied to Christ.” (Hurtado)

“through Jesus”

“Jesus is singled out as the agent through whom glory was offered to God (Jude 25).” (C.C. Newman)

Witherington echoes this idea: “Jude 25 suggests that he is the only one through whom one relates to and petitions the only God.”

“glory, majesty, dominion and authority”

“Of the four qualities ascribed, glory stresses the splendor of God, as the radiance of light (cf. the description of heaven in Rev. 21:23; 22:9), majesty His position (cf. Heb. 1:3), dominion His ability to carry out His sovereign will, and authority the fact that He has the absolute right to do so.” (Wheaton)

“before all time and now and forever”

“Jude praises God's honor as eternal both in the past and future...God has vindicated his honor in the past, as the example of biblical sinners who were judged indicate (vv 5-7,11), which gives ground for a future divine vindication.” (Neyrey)

                                    Jude 25-26 (1984)

 

FLUID IMAGERY IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION

Those who attempt to understand this fascinating book in a logical and literal manner find themselves in an uphill fight. One of the many reasons is the way specific descriptions and images within it meld into one another and are transformed in a rather confusing manner. The intent of the author appears to be a parade of pictures as an almost psychedelic kaleidoscope that conveys the idea of the final incomprehensibility of the spiritual world to our limited understanding.

Follow the following rabbit trail for example:

    The whore in Revelation 17 is first seen sitting on many waters (v. 1) but also seated on a beast with seven heads at the same time (v. 3).

    It turns out that the seven heads are actually seven mountains (v. 9a), or is it seven kings instead (v. 9b)?

    But then we learn in v. 15 that the waters on which she is sitting are actually people and language groups.

    And at the end of chapter 17 we are told that the woman herself is “the great city,” identified earlier (17:5) as Babylon. However, going back a few chapters we are inexplicably informed that “the great city” is not Babylon at all, but actually Sodom, Egypt and Jerusalem all at the same time (11:8).

    And it is in that same “great city” that the two witnesses of God (11:3) are first described as two olive trees and then called two lampstands.

    All this brings up the question of whether these two “lampstands” are two of the seven churches portrayed as lampstands in Revelation 1:12-20. If so, which of the two churches of Rev. 2-3 are they?

I could go on in this vein even longer, but I think you get the general idea. And such fluidity in the imagery of Revelation extends to the heavenly personages themselves. This should not be surprising for those familiar with the theophanies which occur in the Old Testament, especially in Genesis. Thus, it is often hard to distinguish between appearances of God, an angel, the angel of God, and possibly the pre-incarnate Christ. And the same thing happens in this last book of the Bible.

Thus, the Lord God calls Himself “the Alpha and the Omega” in 1:8. But at the conclusion of Revelation, it is Christ who uses that same descriptor of Himself. Of course, such identification of the two is not unfamiliar to those who accept the concept of the Trinity.

Then, John is often privileged to hear the sound of a (great) voice from heaven or from the temple but it is unclear if it comes from one of the angelic beings, from God, or from Christ. For the latter possibility, remember that I Thessalonians 4:16 describes Christ coming from heaven accompanied by a loud cry of command. Such a heavenly voice speaks in passages such as Revelation 9:13; 10:4,8; 11:12; 16:1,17; 18:4; 19:4; etc.

But even more prone to misinterpretation are other passages, such as Revelation 10:1 in which a mighty angel is described as having a “face like the sun” and being “wrapped in a cloud.” It is tempting on the basis of those dual descriptions to identify him securely as Christ, who appears in 1:16 with “his face like the sun shining full” as well as appearing in the clouds in Revelation 1:7 and I Thessalonians 4:17. But to do so would be to relegate Christ to the mere role of an angel.

Then there is Revelation 14:14 in which John sees a mysterious person seated on a cloud who was “like the Son of Man” and has a golden crown on his head. That phrase in quotes definitely applies Christ in Revelation 1:13 as well as being Jesus' favorite self-description in the Gospel accounts. And even it comes from the vision in Daniel 7:13 in which the mysterious heavenly figure with that same designation has usually been taken as the pre-incarnate Christ. The reference to a crown of gold would seem to confirm that identification here. But if we jump to that seemingly logical conclusion, then we are faced with the unsupportable concept of even Christ Himself having to wait around on a cloud until an angel shows up to give him marching orders (Revelation 14:15).

Or we could start with the description of Christ found in Revelation 1:12-19 as one with eyes like a flame of fire having a sharp, two-edged sword coming out of his mouth. These same two characteristics are found in the person called The Word of God who is a rider on a white horse who comes to conquer and rule (Revelation 19:11-16). But the problem comes in when we consider the rider on a white horse in Revelation 6:1-2 who is also come to conquer. Most people would consider him to be Christ also. However, in the context of chapter 6 he is seen to be only one of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse who takes his orders from one of the four living creatures who surround God's throne. Again, that identification would relegate Christ to the mere servant of those creatures.

As you can see from the above examples, we must be very careful in getting dogmatic concerning the meaning of a particular image since it may be used in a variety of different ways within the same book of the Bible, especially when that book is Revelation.

 

WHERE EXACTLY IS SATAN?

 

Bible critic Rayan Zehn poses the following contradiction in the Bible:

    “Where is the 'devil'? The bible’s (sic) not certain, II Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6 both clearly state that the devil and his angels have been thrown into darkness, where they shall remain in chains until judgment day. Job 1:7;2:2 and I Peter 5:8 show the devil loose from these chains, walking about on earth, tempting human beings. Indeed, in 1 Peter, he might actually take the form of a hungry lion, chasing down drunk people for snacks.”

First, a comment on the snarky statement that Zehn ends with: He appears to believe that Peter in I Peter 5:8 is being literal concerning Satan actually taking the form of a lion and eating people. Either that, or he is purposely making fun of the verse.

And as for Satan picking on drunks, even a superficial reading of that chapter makes it clear that drunks are not at all mentioned in that verse. Instead, it is actually addressed to those Gentile Christians who have already given up such vices and many more serious ones listed in I Peter 4:3-4.

But Zehn's major misrepresentation is to state the devil and his angels have been thrown into pits of darkness. Actually, the truth is that the devil is nowhere mentioned in either II Peter 2:4 or Jude 1:6. As any commentator will point out, the angels being referred to in these verses are those mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4 who left their appointed place in heaven to cohabit with the daughters of men. And the devil does not appear in that passage either.

The true biblical view of where the devil (i.e.Satan) is located shows him as an angelic personage in the heavenly court whose position is as a sort of prosecuting attorney. In that capacity, he moves freely from heaven to earth throughout Old Testament times at least up to the time of Zechariah 3 and possibly up to Jesus' temptation before He began His earthly ministry.

Next, there are indications that Satan and his angels were excluded from heaven and began to lose their unrestrained power over mankind sometime during Jesus' time on earth (see Matthew 12:22-29; Luke 10:17-18; Revelation 12:7-9). So at the present time, Satan still has limited power to do damage here on earth even though Christians have no reason to fear him (Romans 16:20). Jesus came on earth and died so that among other things, Satan's power of death would be broken (Hebrews 2:14-15) and his evil works destroyed (I John 3:8).

Satan's ultimate fate is already determined. He falls under God's judgment (John 12:31; 16:11). He and his angels are destined eventually for the eternal fire (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:10) on the last day.

All of the above is pretty much agreed to by all biblical scholars. The only area of contention is in regard to the import of Revelation 20:1-10, the sole passage mentioning an intermediate time period during which time Satan will be “bound for a thousand years and thrown into the pit.” Premillenialists take the wording in a fairly literal manner to refer to a future realm of God's kingdom on earth for a certain time period while Amillenialists feel it is a figurative way of referring to the present epoch during which time the Gospel message is allowed to spread throughout the world. But even those two groups would agree that this should not be confused with the fallen angels being thrown into pits of darkness.

"YOU ARE NOT FAR FROM THE KINGDOM' (MARK 12:28-34)

After hearing some insights on this passage in a recent sermon, I decided to expand on some of the preacher's ideas a little.

This narrative relates the story of the scribe who came to Jesus and asked him a question regarding the most important commandment. At the end of the dialogue, Jesus tells him that he is not far from the Kingdom of God. Of course, that is another way of saying, “Your are not in the Kingdom of God.” There are two similar stories that come to mind here. One is that of the young ruler who came to Jesus and impressed Him so much that it is said Jesus loved him. However, that man went away grieving since he refused to part with his riches and give them to the poor. (see Mark 10:17-22)

Then there is the story of Paul and Festus told in Acts 26:24-29 in which Paul is preaching the Gospel to this Roman official. The King James Version has the well known reply where Festus says, “You have almost persuaded me to become a Christian.” This is the basis of the old invitation hymn titled “Almost Persuaded” which has the dismal last line, “Almost, but lost.” The problem is that more modern translations make it clear that Festus was in fact nowhere near being persuaded at that point. Thus, NRSV renders his words, “Are you so quickly persuading [or 'trying to persuade'] me to become a Christian?”

So when we come back to the scribe in Mark 12, the question becomes, “What was his problem causing him to stop half-way toward acceptance of Jesus?” We are never told in so many words, but there are hints embedded in the text that give us some idea.

Context

The first thing to consider is how this story fits in with the immediate surrounding of Chapter 12. It is actually the last of three encounters Jesus has with questioners among the Jewish leaders. And they form a series beginning with clearly hostile opponents of Jesus who are trying to trap him, proceeding to a group trying to get support from Him for their preconceived notions, and finally to the apparently sincere scribe in Mark 12:28-34. And they represent all the various factions present in Judaism at the time: first the Pharisees and Herodians (Mark 12:13-17), then the Sadducees (Mark 12:18-27), and finally the scribes.

In each of the three cases, Jesus responds to a question they propose and he passes some sort of judgment on them. The Pharisees and Herodians are branded as hypocrites who are only trying to trap Him; the Sadducees are told twice (vv. 24 and 27) that their theology is “wrong;” and the scribe's comments afterward prompt Him to make the statement regarding his nearness to the Kingdom. So Jesus moves from condemning the first group for their evil hypocrisy to not so gently correcting the beliefs of the Sadducees to mildly approving of the scribe.

But there are a couple of problems with the way the conversation goes with that last party which go a long way to explaining why he still has even further to go before he reaches the truth:

Christ's Identity

One telling point is the address the three groups use in approaching Jesus. To butter up Jesus, the Pharisees and Herodians call Him a teacher who is sincere. The Sadducees get right to the point and call Jesus “teacher.” And lastly, in v. 32, the scribe calls Jesus “teacher” also, but only after Jesus has answered his question first. In other words, there is no real progression in insight as to Jesus' identity. All three groups merely consider him one of the many teachers floating around at the time. The scribe certainly needs to progress beyond that point of understanding before he can truly be part of the Kingdom of God.

Christ's Authority

Another somewhat subtle point can be seen in comparison of these related encounters. The Pharisees and Herodians may have said to Jesus that He was a sincere teacher, but they were obviously only asking Him a question in order to trap him into saying something they could use against Him. The Sadducees were not quite as bad since they just wanted Jesus' backing for their particular viewpoints. One of those was obviously their negative views regarding the possibility of the afterlife. But Horsley brings up another possibility: “While their question took the form of academic casuistry, their focus on levitical marriage (Deut 23.5) hinted at their real agenda: the protecting of property rights and power through patriarchal marriage that perpetuated the male lineages.”

That brings us to the third encounter in which the scribe's motive is slightly harder to read. It does not appear that he falls into either of the previous two examples and seems sincere regarding his question as to the most important commandment. However, note what he says after Jesus answers. Basically, he congratulates Jesus on getting the correct answer, one which he already knew.

Not to compare myself with Jesus in any way, but I have encountered something like this in the past when I was filling in for a regular Sunday school teacher in another class where none of the attendees knew me very well. As I proceeded with the lesson for the day, I noticed that one gentleman in the small class began giving me a rather confused and skeptical look as I taught. At last, he interrupted my presentation and began quizzing me on a series of Bible questions totally unrelated to the subject at hand. I tried to patiently answer each one, after which the man would give a grudging approval to my answer.

He was waiting for a chance to catch me in an error, but not necessarily to trap me, as did the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus. And I do not think he had any hidden agenda he needed additional approval from me as did the Sadducees. I believe he was more like the scribe who would only accept Jesus as a authentic teacher once he passed a test. It is actually not a bad idea to be slightly skeptical regarding the biblical teachings of anyone, including pastors. But such a critical attitude can also be a grave danger and lead us to be closed to any valid insights that are new to us, especially when it is applied to the teachings of the Old and New Testament.

Failure to Apply Biblical Teachings

If you carefully read the dialogue between the scribe and Jesus regarding the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), it is possible to pick up on another lack in the scribe's application of Scripture. In the first place, note that he only asked Jesus about the one great commandment while leaving out the necessity of loving your fellow man as well. And in a related omission, the scribe pointedly leaves out the key word “soul” (which can be defined as applying to one's intellect, emotions and will) in his repetition of Jesus words. Several commentators have noted that both these points indicate some sort of disconnect between the scribe knowing the law and actually applying it in his own life.

For example, Horsley says, “The scribe admits that love of God and love of neighbor are more important tan the elaborate sacrifices at the Temple from which he draws his living...The scribe does not 'resign' his position, and Jesus does not invite him into the movement.”

In a similar manner, the pastor I heard preach last week directed our attention to the previous occasion in Mark where scribes were mentioned. It occurs in Mark 11:18 right after Jesus has thrown out the money-changers from the temple. The text says that the chief priests and the scribes heard about it and began looking for a way to kill Jesus.

Of course, we have no way of knowing whether the scribe of Mark 12 was part of the group that felt that way, but in any case, as Horsley points out, the whole temple system had grown out of hand to the point where Gentiles could not even worship in the Court of the Gentiles for all the noisy commerce going on. Thus, the priests and scribes were condoning a practice which in no way showed their love for their fellow man, as the Old Testament law required.

So knowing full well what the law said but continuing to support the system that flaunted that command showed that the scribe had not recognized and repented of his sinful actions. And until he did so, he would unfortunately remain away from the Kingdom of God.

 

RENDER UNTO CAESAR (MARK 12:13-17)

This is one of the more well-known stories in the New Testament, and it is closely followed by the other two Synoptic writers (see Matthew 22:15-22 and Luke 20:19-26). But there is one simple but telling point that was brought up this week by a pastor I heard last week. You can be pardoned for not seeing it since the English translations do not always do full justice to the meaning of the original Greek wording.

There are two key verbs employed in this passage, one by Jesus' questioners in verses 14-15 and another one in His reply in verse 17. Here is how they are rendered in various versions:

The questioners say:                    Jesus says:

give                                             render                       KJV

pay                                              render                       NASB, RSV

pay                                             pay                             NEB, TEV

pay                                             give                            NRSV, The Message, Living Bible, JB Philips

pay                                             give back                   NIV, JB, AB

So what do the word experts have to say regarding the meaning of the two respective words employed in this passage? All of them begin by stating that the opponents of Christ use the word didomi, which is an extremely common word in the New Testament (occurring some 416 times) having the general meaning of “give” in all its nuances. Thus, Vorlander says it may refer to presenting, giving, bestowing, granting, etc. In most of these usages, thus, one gets the idea of something voluntarily bestowed on another.

By contrast, Jesus replies by using a less common derivative of this word, namely, apodidomi, which has a more restricted meaning.

Vine says that it signifies “to give up or back, to restore, return, render what is due, etc.”

Bottger defines it as “to give back, to pay what has been agreed on, to fulfill an agreed obligation, to pay a debt, return, repay.” In general, “The group associated with apodidomi conveys the idea of recompense.”

So, as Swift states, “The whole principle laid down turns on the change of wording from pay (v. 15) to render (v. 17).”

With that linguistic background in mind, here is how several scholarly commentators deal with this passage:

Plummer states that “it was not a question of giving what might lawfully be refused, but of paying what was lawfully claimed. The tribute was not a gift but a debt. Caesar gave them the inestimable benefit of stable government; were they to take it and decline to pay anything towards it maintenance?”

Langley says that “although conceding Caesar his due (like any other person entitled to the return of his property whether acquired justly or not), Jesus is saying that the second statement takes precedence over the first – everything belongs to God, he must be at the center of our concern.”

Grassmick explains that “to use Caesar's coinage was to acknowledge, his authority and the benefits of the civil government it represented and consequently the obligation to pay taxes...This tax was a debt they owed to Caesar for use of his money and the other benefits of his rule. Jesus had made his point but significantly he added, and give back to God what is God's...This could refer to 'paying' God the temple tax due Him (cf. Matt. 17:24-27), but Jesus probably meant it as a protest against the emperor's claim to deity. Indeed the emperor must receive his due, but not more than that, he must not receive the divine honor and worship he claimed.”

“Did he imply that the use of Caesar's coinage was a tacit acknowledgment of Caesar's sovereignty? Perhaps he did...Jesus did not necessarily share this attitude – money of any kind was held in little enough regard by him – but there may have been an implication in his words that the Pharisees among his questioners might have appreciated: such coins were unfit for use by people who were so scrupulous about keeping the law of God, and should go back where they came from. Caesar's coins were best used for paying Caesar's tribute. If that was what Caesar wanted, let him have it.” (Bruce)

I find it interesting that one of Jesus' questioners happened to have such a coin in his possession.

 

DID ENOCH DIE? (HEBREWS 11:5,13)

In The Atheist Papers, Rayan Zehn writes:

    “In order to answer the question of whether or not Enoch died, all we must do is read Hebrews 11. Most of the contradiction is found in this chapter, although the non-death death of Enoch also appears in Genesis 5:24.”

    “This book [sic, 'chapter'] begins by making examples out of Abel, Enoch, and Noah to show how faith is rewarded. In verse 5 Enoch’s faith is so strong that god [sic] rewards him by making him vanish into thin air. Instead of dying a physical death, god [sic] takes him (and his physical body) up to heaven.”

    “But then in verse 13 everyone mentioned in the previous verses dies, including Enoch.”

    “This is one of the funnier contradictions because it’s made in a single breath. I’m not quite certain why it wasn’t caught prior to publication. All they had to do was insert “except Enoch” in verse 13. It’s as simple as that!”

I will give credit to Zehn for pointing out this seeming contradiction since the answer is not as transparently obvious as his other “contradictions.” However, it still can be addressed in a fairly easy manner, as several scholars have already done. The problem passage should first be quoted in full before proceeding:

    “All of these died in faith without having received the promises, but from a distance they saw and greeted them.” (Hebrews 11:13; NRSV)

Thus, the major sticking point concerns the identity of “these/them.” The referent of this pronoun must be deduced by what is said in this verse regarding them. We learn from 11:13 that “these” were those who (a) did not die and (b) were given “the promises.” Thus, right off the bat we can exclude Enoch on at least the first account. And one could also make the point that even Abel and Noah in vv. 4-7 were not given the sort of promises God gave to Abraham and his descendants that they would found a mighty nation.

An analysis of the literary structure of Hebrews 11 helps to confirm the above statements. Thus, the author, after an introduction on the subject of faith (vv. 1-3), proceeds in chronological order to review the heroes of the faith from Abel to the Old Testament prophets (vv. 4-38) before the concluding statement in vv. 39-40. But there is one major exception to this chronological scheme in that vv. 8-22 comprises a more literary arrangement. Thus, the whole chapter can be diagrammed as follows:

    I. Introduction: Definition of Faith (vv. 1-3)

        II. The “Pre-Jewish” Ancestors (vv. 4-7)

            III. Jewish Patriarchs (vv. 8-22)

                A. From Abraham to Jacob (vv. 8-12)

                    B. Description of the faith of “these” (vv. 13-16)

                A'. From Abraham to Jacob's family (vv. 17-22)

        II'. Later Jewish Heroes (vv. 23-38)

    I'. Conclusion (vv. 39-40)

Thus, it appears that Hebrew 8-22 was intended to be comprehended as a whole unit so that the word “these” refers strictly to those particular patriarchs.

Confirmation of the above reasoning comes from the following statements from the scholarly literature:

    George Buchanan: “'These all' were Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and possibly Abel, Enoch, and Noah. The author probably meant only the patriarchs (plus Sarah), because they were the ones involved in 'the promises.'”

    F.F. Bruce says that 'these all' means “more particularly, those mentioned in the five preceding verses, Abraham (with Sarah), Isaac and Jacob who died in faith, as they had lived in faith. Their lives were regulated by the firm conviction that God would fulfil the promises He had given them, and in death they continued to look forward to the fulfilment of these promises, as is evident from the words in which Isaac and Jacob bestowed their final blessings on their sons or grandsons...”

So much for “one of the funnier contradictions” in the Bible.

 

WHAT IS "THE PERFECT?" (I CORINTHIANS 13:10)

Paul makes a rather cryptic statement in this passage: “For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.” (NRSV) The Greek word translated here as “the complete” can also be rendered as “perfect.” Similarly, “the partial” can be translated as “imperfect.” Hillyer clarifies these terms by explaining that it is “not perfection in quality so much as totality; i.e. full knowledge about God. The imperfect, the partial (cf. Jer 31:34), that which is characteristic of our present experience.”

The problem is, as Orr and Walther point out, “Paul does not explain this.” Thus, “What Paul meant when he referred to the coming of perfection is the subject of considerable debate.” (Lowery) Let me start with what is most likely the intended meaning of Paul's words.

The End of this Present Dispensation

Although this is the most probable meaning to be ascribed to “the perfect,” we must admit that the nature of that new time period is defined quite differently by different people depending on their eschatological beliefs. Thus, Lowery writes, “A few have suggested that this state of perfection will not be reached until the new heavens and new earth are established. Another point of view understands perfection to describe the state of the church when God's program for it is consummated at the coming of Christ. There is much to commend this view, including the illustration of growth and maturity which Paul used in the following verses.”

A premillennial viewpoint thus treats the coming of Christ as different from the time when the new heavens and new earth are established while an amillennial perspective treats these two events as occurring right after one another. But both agree that we are talking about a time future to our present epoch in which God (and our Christ's) presence will be in our midst. Thus, Marsh can say, “In God's immediate presence, prophets, ecstatic speech and limited understanding are all alike rendered redundant.”

And Schippers makes the general statement that “'the perfect' means the future world, in which everything imperfect (v. 9) which distinguishes our present world, is overcome.”

Orr and Walther also feel that “it could refer to life after death, to some future stage of human life, or to the new appearance of Christ...At any rate, this completion will displace that which is partial.”

Grosheide also subscribes to this general view: “The world does not stand still or does time, all things hasten toward the end as Paul has declared more than once...Once the acme has been reached and this dispensation comes to an end, then all that belonged to this dispensation, including the charismata, will terminate.”

And Brauch, after critiquing alternative views (see below) also concludes that Paul's language implies the contrast between the present age and the coming time when we shall see God face to face.”

Carson appends a necessary caution to this general understanding by saying, “Even after the parousia this gap will never be closed, for to close it would mean we have become God. First Corinthians 13:10-12 does not promise that we shall know exhaustively and absolutely with the knowledge of omniscience, but that we shall then know in an unmediated way, 'face to face.'

A Maturing of the Church in Love

Brauch presents this possibility with the words: The Corinthians' valuing of charismatic gifts (especially the gift of tongues), and their quest to attain those fits, is identified as immature, as that which will come to an end when the perfection or completion of love has been attained.”

But Brauch feels that this explanation fails to take in account the context of I Corinthians 13:10:

“First Corinthians 13 is bracketed by the exhortations to (1) 'strive for the greater gifts' (I Cor 12:31) and (2) 'strive for the spiritual gifts, and especially that you may prophesy' (I Cor 14:1). But even this quest for the gifts that build up the church must be undergirded and accompanied by 'a still more excellent way (I Cor 12:31, the way of the pursuit of love (I Cor 14:1).”

Fee also critiques this possibility by stating that some have argued “that the more extraordinary phenomena were relatively limited in the early church – they belong to 'immature' believers like the Corinthians – but are not needed in our more 'mature' congregations! But this argument not only misunderstands the childhood/adulthood imagery in I Corinthians 13:10-12, it is also by the very nature of Paul's letters a totally invalid argument from silence.”

The Completion of the New Testament Canon

This final interpretation is the one I was taught in a various congregations over the years. But Lowery dismisses it with one short sentence: “But verse 12 makes that interpretation unlikely.” Marsh has a little more to say along this line: “To suggest that perfection refers to the completion of the Canon of Scripture fails to find any support in the biblical usage of 'perfect', or any of its cognate forms. Such an interpretation exists only by virtue of the need to explain the absence of certain charismata in many churches today.”

I would add to that some additional reasons why such an explanation is very attractive to conservative Protestant churches. It can be used at the same time to negatively critique the Roman Catholic Church, liturgical Protestant churches, heretical groups such as the Mormons, and Pentecostal denomination

JUDE 20-23

As we approach the end of this epistle, “Jude 20-23 actually brings the body to a fitting climax by addressing the purpose of the letter itself: how to contend for the faith, a subject first introduced at the start of the letter's body (cf. Jude 3).” (Webb) Let us start with two general overviews to this passage:

    Wilkins points out that the author reminded his readers of the truth at this point since it will:       

        (a) “encourage them in their personal and corporate growth” (v. 20);

        (b) “remind them to keep pure until the coming of the Lord” (v. 21); and

        (c) “equip them to rescue others who are under the influence of the false teachers and teaching.” (vv. 22-23)

    Webb: The readers' “first concern must be to guard their own relationship with God (Jude 21; the verb 'keep,' tereo, in Jude 21 is also used in Jude 1,6 [2x], 13), which entails fulfilling certain responsibilities (Jude 20) as well as maintaining an eschatologically oriented outlook (Jude 21). Their second responsibility is to assist those who have become tainted with false teachings (Jude 22-23...).” In that respect it reflects, respectively, the two great commandments as expressed by Jesus to love God and your fellow man.

In addition, note that “mercy” is a key word here, appearing once each in verses 21, 22, and 23. The overall impact of this repetition is to remind us that we are to show mercy to others as Christ showed mercy on us. Also note that Jude 20 and 21 contain references to each of the members of the Holy Trinity.

Jude 20

First, the believers are told to build themselves up on the faith. This introduces the first controversial point in this passage. Thus, Ralph Martin labels Jude 20 as a sign of early catholicism in which belief is “regarded as a treasured possession to be adhered to and preserved inviolate...thereby losing its personal character in that it is subsumed under a generalized Christian attitude as one virtue among many.”

However, Webb totally disagrees with this characterization and explains, “The reference to 'the faith' in Jude 3 (cf. Jude 20) is interpreted [by others] as referring to a defined set of crystallized doctrines. But there is no need to view this phrase as anything more than a synonym for 'the gospel.' And even Paul, writing in the 40s and 50s, used 'the faith' in this way (e.g. Gal 1:23).”

In addition, the command to “build yourself up in the faith” finds a clear parallel in I Thessalonians 5:11, as Ralston points out.

Next, Jude tells his readers to pray in the Holy Spirit, a command which has also been variously interpreted. Hawthorne states that in general, “the Holy Spirit comes to the aid of God's people in prayer (Jude 20; cf Rom 8:15-16,26-27; Gal 4:6; Jn 4:23-24).”

More specifically, Wilkins says regarding this command, “While this last expression may indicate charismatic prayer, glossolalia, in which words are given by the Spirit, the connection with the preceding exhortation to 'build yourself up in your most holy faith' suggests that prayer in the power and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit brings the strength necessary to confront the false teachers...”

Jude 21
The exhortations continue with first an admonition for the audience to keep themselves in God's love. This verse is a sticking point for those who believe in “once saved, always saved” and deny the possibility of a believer apostasizing as several scholars point out:

“'Keep yourselves in God's love' writes Jude (Jude 21), bringing out the importance of the love of the heavenly Father and also the dreadful truth that in some way believers can minimize its effect...Believers are reminded that the love of God demands a response.” (Morris)

Schreiner expresses it a little more strongly by saying, “Apostasy warrants eternal judgment, and believers will face the same if they adopt the morally loose lifestyle of the false teachers. Thus Jude commands his readers to 'keep themselves in the love of God' (Jude 21), and this cannot be a reality without obedience.”

This verse concludes “Look forward to the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ” as a clear reference to the Last Judgment at the Second Coming.

Jude 22-23

Seifrid notes, “Strikingly, three New Testament letters conclude with encouragement to restore the disobedient in view of their perilous state (Jas 5:19-20; I Jn 5:14-17; Jude 22-23; see also I Pet 4:8).”

Here also (as well as in Jude 3), according to Martin, is a clear reference to the possibility of apostasy in the mention of “those who are wavering.”

Schnabel echoes this thought: “The people who are to be 'snatched from the fire' are not unbelievers who should be introduced to faith in Jesus Christ but church members who indulged in sinful behavior and were thus in imminent danger of judgment at the Parousia.”

Tiller explains that 'rescuing some from the fire' means bringing them to repentance – see Zech. 3:2 for the origin of this phrase. He says that the final phrase in v. 23 ('with fear, hating even the tunic defiled by their flesh' refers to the fear of being corrupted by them in the process of trying to save them.

It is necessary at this point to quote R.P. Martin, who says that “sometimes the term 'flesh' is neutral but qualified by an adjective or phrase that gives the concept negative nuances, e.g....'the sensual desires of the flesh' (cf. Jude 7,23).” Webb interprets this as a reference to sexual immorality.

Canales and others note that the text is somewhat uncertain. Thus, “The verb eleao ['mercy'] appears in Jude 22 and 23, though the textual evidence is problematic for both verses, with some texts reading elegchete ('convince') instead of eleeite ('have mercy'). Nevertheless, a good case can be made for eleao being the original reading.”

 

FATE IN THE BIBLE

John O'Hara wrote a novel titled Appointment in Samarra based on an old tale retold below by Somerset Maugham from Death's viewpoint:

“There was a merchant in Baghdad who sent his servant to market to buy provisions and in a little while the servant came back, white and trembling, and said, Master, just now when I was in the marketplace I was jostled by a woman in the crowd and when I turned I saw it was Death that jostled me. She looked at me and made a threatening gesture, now, lend me your horse, and I will ride away from this city and avoid my fate. I will go to Samarra and there Death will not find me. The merchant lent him his horse, and the servant mounted it, and he dug his spurs in its flanks and as fast as the horse could gallop he went. Then the merchant went down to the marketplace and he saw me standing in the crowd and he came to me and said, Why did you make a threatening gesture to my servant when you saw him this morning? That was not a threatening gesture, I said, it was only a start of surprise. I was astonished to see him in Baghdad, for I had an appointment with him tonight in Samarra.”

The moral of the story is that it is impossible to escape your destined fate no matter how hard you try. And a similar story with the same theme is that of Oedipus, a foundling adopted by the king of Corinth who received a prophecy from the oracle of Delphi that he was fated to kill his father and marry his mother. To avoid that fate, he leaves Corinth for Thebes where he unwittingly kills his biological father and ends up marrying his widow, his own mother.

Notice that both of these stories come from pagan cultures and neither one contains any spiritual or ethical lesson to it or implies that these people deserved their punishments. Instead, they just echo the belief that blind fate is a powerful and inescapable force, and attempts to flee from it will only hasten your demise. We could also cite a more modern proverb of those who leave the frying pan only to fall into the fire. Turning to the world of the Bible, there are some passages which on the surface seem to convey the same message, but are in reality quite different in several ways. The Bible, especially the New Testament, is (a) much more interested in man's ultimate fate than his fate here on earth; (b) such a fate is not blindly determined but firmly under God's control; (c) there is always a way provided for avoiding ultimate doom; (d) and such fate is not randomly determined but closely tied into our moral and spiritual state.

Here are a few passages from the Bible which illustrate these distinctives:

Genesis 3 – In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve buy into the half truths Satan tells them. So they decide to disobey God's command in order to elevate their status on earth. It is that action which causes them to be driven from their ideal existence and from God's presence. In addition, they now no longer have access to the Tree of Life and thus begin to die from that point on.

Joshua 10 – This is another ironic narrative in which five kings feel they are safe hiding from the Israelites in a cave. Instead, it first turns into their prison from which they cannot escape and then ultimately as their mass tomb. But these are by no means innocent parties like the servant of the merchant of Baghdad since they had all ganged up to attack Joshua and his army.

Judges 4:17-22 – I have often cited the story of Sisera and Jael in other contexts, but here is another application of it. The defeated Canaanite general Sisera flees from the Israelites until he reaches the tent of Heber and his wife Jael, where he thinks he will be safe. Instead, Jael lulls him to sleep and then drives a tent peg into his head. This would seem to be another case of blind fate catching up to someone who was trying escape it. However, there is a definite moral and spiritual component to the story since Sisera represented the pagan nations that the Israelites were commanded to wipe out. That is why Jael is lauded as a heroine in the Bible.

Judges 19 – It is sometimes hard to find a true hero in the book of Judges since it is the story of downward progression in the life of Israel. But one can be forgiven for at first wanting to take pity on the nameless Levite in this story. After all, he is trying to get back home and is afraid of staying the night in a pagan city. So he travels on until he feels he is safe back in Israelite territory only to find himself threatened with homosexual rape by all the men of the town, who proceed to abuse his concubine all night long to the point that she dies.

This Levite seems to be the exact copy of the merchant's servant who fled from Baghdad only to meet his fate in Samarra. But there is a huge difference here once you look further into the character (or lack thereof) of the Levite. He callously throws his concubine (or secondary wife) to the lustful crowd to save his own skin; the next morning he sees her battered body lying at the doorstep and casually says, “Get up. Let's be on our way” as if nothing at all had happened; and finally he butchers her dead body into twelve pieces. This is no mere innocent party who inadvertently ran straight into trouble.

Ecclesiastes 6 – The teachings in the book of Ecclesiastes appear to echo the “Appointment in Samarra” story above in that the Teacher again and again bemoans the fact that everyone goes to the same ultimate fate whether they are good or bad, rich or poor, wise or foolish. Of course, all of his teachings and experiments in living are carried out with the limited perspective of what happens “under the sun,” (i.e. in this present world only). Thus, they only serve to demonstrate that if all that exists is our present life, there is no ultimate meaning to the world.

Proverbs 14:12 – “There is a way which seems right unto a man; But the end of it leads to death.” This illustrates the foolishness of trusting to your own wisdom instead of following God's leading. You may think that you will better your life, but it will only lead you down the path of destruction.

Isaiah 4 – This taunt song sung against the king of Babylon illustrates the folly of trying, as did Adam and Eve, to rival God in status and power. The king's grandiose attempts to “raise his throne above the stars of God” only lead to being brought down to the depths of the Pit instead.

Amos 5:18-20 – The prophet preaches to those fellow Jews who are always talking about looking forward to the day of the LORD. He warns them that due to their evil actions, that is the last thing they should be wanting since at that time their sins will catch up with them. The simile he uses to drive home that point resonates with the Samarra story somewhat: “It is...as if a man fled from a lion and a bear met him; or went into the house and leaned with his hand against the wall, and a serpent bit him.”

Matthew 16:25 – Here Jesus warns, “For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” In the context of this teaching, He is cautioning his followers that attempts to escape death by distancing themselves from Him will paradoxically lead ultimately to their eventual eternal destruction.

Acts 28:1-6 – This narrative provides an interesting example of even the pagans of Malta believing in final justice, not blind fate, catching up to a wrongdoer. They see Paul, whom they know is a Roman prisoner, being bitten by a snake and remark, “No doubt this man is a murderer. Though he has escaped from the sea, justice has not allowed him to live.” In other words, in trying to escape drowning he merely ran into an even worse death.

James 5:3 – James denounces those who amass great hordes of riches in an attempt to assure that they will have a long and prosperous life. But in fact they are doing just the opposite since those rusty and moth-eaten goods which should have been shared earlier with the needy will be the very evidence used against them at the Last Judgment. Jesus gave a similar example in his parable of the farmer who built bigger and bigger barns to store much more produce that he could ever need in life rather than sharing it with others.

In contrast, I think of Andrew Carnegie, whose life could be divided into two periods. In the first, he spent all his efforts accumulating vast wealth. Then in the last part of his life, he spent all his efforts giving it away to worthy causes.

In conclusion, none of the above biblical passages indicates a belief in a blind Fate which determines one's destiny regardless of how one acts or what one believes. A possible problem passage in that regard is Romans 9 in which one could read in the idea that God randomly selects some people for destruction and others for salvation. But this whole subject of predestination is much too large to tackle in this brief post.

 

GENEALOGIES IN THE BIBLE BANNED (I TIMOTHY 1:4; TITUS 3:9)

 

The skeptic Rayan Zehn points out what appears on the surface to be a serious contradiction in the Bible:

“The Bible is filled with genealogies, even though the Bible explicitly forbids reading genealogies...I Timothy 1:4 and Titus 3:9 both warn against reading such things. In fact, Titus is very damning about genealogies. 'But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.' In other words, parts of the Bible are 'unprofitable and vain.'”

In rebuttal, we should first point out that Zehn portrays his grave ignorance of the Bible when he apparently believes that Titus wrote the Letter to Titus rather than Paul. That alone should give us pause as to whether anything he says should be taken seriously.

Secondly, one merely has to quote from II Timothy 3:16 to demonstrate that whatever Paul is writing in these two passages above, he obviously does not believe that “parts of the Bible are unprofitable and vain.”

    “All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for         training in righteousness.”

Thirdly, does he really think that such a bonehead statement would have been made by Paul considering the large number of genealogies in the Bible? Just a few seconds of thought would convince any reasonable person that it is far more likely that the “genealogies” being condemned are not at all the same as the genealogical lists in the Bible.

The place to start is to consider the context of Paul's words in I Timothy 1:4, not quoted by Zehn, in order to properly define what “genealogies” really means.

    “I urge you...to...instruct certain people not to teach any different doctrine and not to occupy                     themselves with myths and endless genealogies that promote speculations rather than the divine plan     that is comprehended by faith.”

Thus, we can deduce the following regarding the nature of these genealogies in question:

    They are not to be a major preoccupation for believers.

    They are the purview of “certain people” who are also known for their false doctrines.

    They are closely associated with mythology.

    They are “endless,” unlike the limited genealogies of the Bible.

    They promote speculation rather than sticking to the plan God has already clearly revealed.

So what specific kind of genealogies would fit that description? Here scholars do not agree, but they all agree that it cannot refer to merely reading the genealogies in the Bible. Mitchell starts out by admitting that the meaning of the word here is “uncertain, but probably [consists of] speculations on biblical texts.” Similarly, Towner says, “This phrase ['myths and endless genealogies'] is problematic and resists precise interpretation.” And Litfin states, “Exactly what these fables and genealogies involved is not known. They may have had a Gnostic flavor, but were more likely of Jewish origin. Whatever their nature, they were empty of any spiritual value and led only to further speculation, questions, and arguments.”

Earlier explanations coming from liberal scholars who felt that the Pastoral Epistles were not written by Paul but date to well after his death generally ascribed the dissidents in the church as the Gnostics. Gnostic teachings took on a variety of guises, but generally they pitted the evil physical universe against the purely spiritual. That meant that they needed to come up with an entirely different view of how the world was created. So they formulated complicated schemes in which, for example, according to one popular view the “good” diety Ogdoad created through a long series of emanations one generation after another of “aeons,” resulting eventually in the “demiurge,” an evil entity who created the physical universe. Thus, these were the “endless genealogies” alluded to in the Pastoral Epistles.

Agreeing with this explanation is Hanson who feels it refers to “a form of Jewish Gnosticism, and the myths and endless genealogies will refer to the accounts of the movements and couplings of the various aeons as described in this or that Gnostic system.” That explanation is generally rejected by a growing number of Bible scholars since such Gnostic theologies were only formulated centuries after the biblical writings of Paul. However, it is stil possible that a “proto-Gnostic” heresy may be in mind here.

Colin Brown proposes two interpretations in his statement that 'genealogia occurs in the New Testament only in I Tim. 1:4 and Titus 3:9, and alludes specifically to the practice of searching back through ones' family tree in order to establish ancestry [as with the Mormons]. On any straightforward exegesis, those doing this can only have been Jews who, starting out from OT and other genealogies, were propagating all kinds of 'Jewish myths', quite probably pre-Christian gnostic speculations. But it is also possible that the Ebionites [early Christian heretical group] were using similar arguments to attack the doctrine of the miraculous birth of Jesus...”

Quinn agrees with one of Brown's possible interpretations above. Commenting on Titus 3:9, he states, “Thus at this point in Titus one encounters an attempt to obviate a waste of time and energy on the construction and perhaps the harmonization of the various genealogies of Jesus circulating in Jewish-Christian circles in the latter part of the first Christian century.” Here is how other other commentators deal with the ambiguity of these verses:

    “Many scholars see in genealogies a clear reference to the second-century gnostic emanations. But it seems a stronger reason to suppose that the anonymous false teachers were members of a sect attracted by the more speculative aspects of Judaism.” (Guthrie)

    Lea: “Interpreters see these stories as either fictitious Jewish distortions of the Old Testament or Gnostic myths about creation.”

    Towner: “Within Judaism, genealogies played the key role of establishing a person's bloodline and link to a particular family and tribe; rights by birth determined in this way allowed, for example, entrance into the priesthood. As its use in Philo demonstrates, the term could refer to the accounts of people in the early parts of Genesis. This usage especially opens up the possibility that Paul is identifying the practice among the false teachers of speculating on stories about the early biblical characters as well as actual genealogical lists such as occur there or in other more speculative noncanonical Jewish writings (e.g., Jubilees).”

    “Modern interpreters have often used these characterizations to identify these adversaries as Gnostics. But such accusations were commonly employed as a polemical device designed to disparage one's adversaries, no matter what their teaching was. That seems to be their function here. Even if these statements have specific teachings in view, there is no clear information about their content.” (Sumney)

    Nute explains that “genealogies is used in a wider sense than that customarily accorded it, and describes fatuous and extravagant interpretations of OT history, possibly mingled with certain Gnostic philosophical notions. These are said to be endless, for those who wander along these strange bypaths find themselves in an interminable labyrinth, leading nowhere.”

    Hendricksen brings up another important point: “The expression 'myths and genealogies' is one. It must not be divided, as if Paul were thinking, on the one hand, of myths, and on the other, of genealogies. The apostle refers undoubtedly to man-made supplements to the law of God...” He cites several known examples of such Jewish lore such as The Book of Jubilees as “a striking example of what Paul had in mind. It is a kind of haggatic commentary on the canonical Genesis; that is, it is an exposition interspersed with an abundant supply of illustrative examples.” He compares this type of error with today's fascination with various schemes regarding the details of the Last Days.

WHO WAS KISH'S FATHER?

The skeptic Rayan Zehn tackles another biblical contradiction here with the following words:

    “There are a few people named Kish in the Bible, but for the purpose of this post I will be referring         only to Kish, the father of Saul... It should come as no surprise...that every once in a while the Bible      mixes up paternity test results. This appears to be the case with Kish. Who is his father?

            In I Samuel 9:1 we discover that Kish came from Abiel’s seed.

            Then we flip to I Chronicles 8:33 and find that Kish’s father is Ner."

Actually, both I Samuel 9:1 and 14:50-51 are in agreement that Kish's father was Abiel. And the latter account explains that Ner was Kish's brother. However, I Chronicles 8:30 and 9:36 appear to give the name Ner as Saul's grandfather instead. To most people, this would appear to be no big deal since it is a minor point upon which no biblical doctrine depends. But even such trivial discrepancies have the effect of bothering both atheists and believers alike, even though most biblical scholars tend to ignore the apparent contradiction altogether. For those who are concerned, however, several commentators have attempted to reconcile the varying accounts.

    McCarter merely says, “Until a better solution is proposed, we must assume that this was an error on the Chronicler's part, arising perhaps from misinterpretation of the information given in the present passage [i.e., I Samuel 14:50-51].”

    But Williamson, writing on I Chronicles 8:30, throws out another proposal: “A. Demsky...has suggested that the list [in vv. 29-40] combines both vertical and horizontal elements, which helps to explain the tension concerning the position of Kish.” He is referring to the two basic ways in which genealogical information is generally presented in the Bible. In other words, it does not list names strictly from father to grandfather to great-grandfather, but may interrupt it to list names in the collateral line as well.

    “Flanagan thinks that Ner was elevated to the vertical line above Kish and Saul [in I Samuel 14:49-51] because of his importance in I Chr. 8:33-40 and 9:39-43.” (Tsumura) This possibility may sound strange, but we should not discount the fact that often the Bible presents these genealogies, not just to convey boring historical facts, but in such a way as to highlight one person or another in the lists. Just look at Jesus' genealogy given at the start of Matthew's Gospel. Comparison of these names with Old Testament genealogies containing the same people shows that Matthew has purposely left out a number of generations in order that every seventh name of the list will be a prominent personage. This is not the least “cheating” since the word “father” can also refer to a grandfather or other male in the persons lineage.

    “A comparison of I Sa. 9:1 with I Sa. 14:51 will show that Kish and Ner were brothers. Hence scholars my be correct in proposing here [in I Chronicles]: 'And Ner begat Abner, and Kish begat Saul', although there is no support from mss. [i.e. manuscripts] or versions. The Hebrew seems incompatible with I Sa. 9:1, but this could be corrected to read 'Kish, the son of Ner, the son of Abiel.'” (Ellison)

    “These two positions seem to be irreconcilable. However, 'Kish' in I Chr. 9:36 and Ner's son 'Kish' in I Chr. 9:39 could be different persons, based on the way the genealogical data are treated in vv. 35-44. For one thing, the narrator first lists ten sons of Jaiel [i.e. Abiel] in vv. 36-37; then after making a brief reference to the last son Mikloth in v. 38, the narrator moves on to trace in detail the lineage of Ner (vv. 39-44), whose first son was Kish, the father of Saul...In this structure, Saul's father, Kish, is the grandson of Abiel; see 'Kish, son of Abiel' (I Sam. 9:1); this is supported by the usage of ben [i.e. 'son'] which sometimes refers to a grandson.” (Tsumura)

Thus, there are actually several ways to explain away this “contradiction.”

 

PURPOSEFUL IMPERFECTIONS IN THE BIBLE?

Artists and artisans in several cultures, most notably Persian and Japanese, create works of art in which they purposely incorporate flaws. The usually stated reason for doing this is either that (a) it is arrogant of imperfect humans to try to achieve perfection since only God is perfect or (b) it is a reminder to the viewer that only God is perfect.

With that in mind, years ago I was trying to analyze the literary structure of the book of Hebrews and soon realized that it formed the perfectly symmetrical pattern shown below:

Figure 1: The Structure of Hebrews

    I. Introduction: God's New Revelation (1:1-3b)

        II. Angels and their Message (1:3c-2:18)

            III. Israel Tested in the Wilderness (3:1-4:13)

                IV. Apostasy and Confidence (4:14-6:20)

                    V. Old and New Priesthood (7:1-28)

                    V'. Old and New Sacrifice (8:1-10:18)

                IV'. Apostasy and Confidence (10:19-12:2)

            III'. Perseverance and Testing of Believers (12:3-29)

        II'. Exhortations (13:1-21)

    I'. Conclusion: God's New Revelation (13:22-25)

If one compares the pairs of sections with the same Roman numerals (i.e., I with I', II with II', etc.), it is easy to see that the same phrases, words, and themes appear in each pair.

Then, since there are ten sections in the book, I wondered if the number 10 would also figure in the organization of each individual section as well. I turned out that I could readily reconstruct the organization of all the major sections with that in mind (omitting the smaller Introduction and Conclusion, which only had five sub-sections each). The exact types of symmetrical arrangements in each section varied, but each obviously contained ten sub-sections. Here are just two examples of the variations in organization present (The rest are given in my post “Book of Hebrews: Introduction to the Literary Structure”):

Figure 2: Section II

Theme: Jesus' Atonement for Sin (1:3c)

    A. Christ is Superior to Angels (1:4)

        B. Scriptural Evidence (“did God say..or again..or again”) (1:5-13)

            C. Conclusion (1:14-2:4)

    A'. Son of Man Superior to Angels (2:5)

        B'. Scriptural Evidence (2:6-8a)

            C'. Conclusion (2:8b-9)

    A''. We Share Christ's Nature (2:10)-11)

        B''. Scriptural Evidence (“saying..and again..and again”) (2:12-13)

            C''. Conclusion (2:14-18)

Figure 3: Section V

    A. The Son – A Priest Forever (7:1-3)

        B. New Priest Superior to Abraham (7:4-10)

            C. Old Priesthood and Law Set Aside (7:11-14)

                D. Another Priest Like Melchizedek Appears (7:15-16)

                    E. Ps. 110:4 (7:17)

            C'. Old Commandment Set Aside (7:18-19)

        D'. The Lord Takes the Oath of Priesthood (7:20-21a)

                    E'. Ps. 110:4 (7:21b-22)

        B'. New Priest Superior to Old Priests (7:23-25)

    A'. The Son is Appointed a Priest Forever (7:26-28)

Thus, in the matter of minutes, it was possible to reconstruct and wonder at the amazing perfection of the book. There was only one small problem. Try as I could, I could not get rid of one small imperfection in the pattern present in one of the sections (At this point in time, I can't remember which section it was). But perhaps, I later thought, that was a purposeful imperfection introduced by the author to demonstrate that only God is perfect.

However, the more I thought about it, that explanation did not make sense for several reasons. For one thing, as others have noted concerning the reason that Islamic artists often incorporate purposeful imperfections in their geometrical and floral patterns, it is actually a sign of arrogance to proclaim to the world in effect: “You can see that I have purposefully put in a mistake to disrupt my work of art because I didn't want to show God up. But if I hadn't done that, it would have indeed achieved perfection.” So it can easily end up as an example of false humility.

Next I was reminded that the books of the Bible were not just any literary productions of some random believers, but were actually inspired by God. As it says in II Peter 1:20-21, “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” And although Peter was specifically speaking of the Old Testament, this truth can easily be expanded to include the other inspired writings of the Bible. So if Hebrews is directly inspired by God Himself, why would it have been necessary for the human author of the book to introduce an imperfection?

Finally, there are the times in the New Testament in which believers are actually encouraged to “be perfect.” See Matthew 5:48; 19:21; Hebrews 13:21; and I Peter 5:10. Of course, we should keep in mind that the root Greek word here by no means implies that we will ever reach the perfection of God, but we are to strive to achieve our personal best, to reach our ultimate goal, to be totally united with God in faith and behavior, be completely whole, to serve God with an undivided heart, etc. And as such, it is total inconsistent to think that the inspired author of Hebrews would purposely introduce an “error” in the book.

The bottom line is that I reexamined the “problem section” and realized that it could be quite easily recast as a completely symmetrical organization. In addition, I realized that the Introduction and Conclusion each took the form of a five-member chiasm (i.e., ABCB'A').So I have stopped looking for “imperfections” in the Bible as many critical scholars do, and instead concentrate on how perfect it is, not only as a work of literary art but in every way, when understood rightly.

ARE CHRISTIANS SUPPOSED TO CAST OUT DEMONS?

 Here is another gem from Rayan Zehn trying to expose errors in the Bible. It is a good demonstration of why those who have no idea what they are talking about (even including myself on occasion) can spread utter nonsense on the internet presented in such a way as to seemingly make sense to other ignorant people. The contradiction Zehn proposes is between the following two passages of Scripture:

Mark 16:17 answers the above question with “Yes.”

    “And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons...”

Matthew 7:22-23 gives a negative answer to the same question.

    “On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.'”

Zehn begins by saying that according to the first of these passages “it is a sign of a true believer. Jesus is quite the fan of people who cast out devils in his name.”

Unfortunately, Zehn has apparently been consulting a King James Version of the Bible since virtually no modern English translation includes any of the dubious verses past Mark 16:8 without noting that they were not present in the original documents. So much is clear to anyone reading a current translation even without consulting a commentary on the subject. For those interested in delving into the subject deeper, there are a number of good, reliable sources to consult. Suffice it to say that (a) the earliest Greek manuscripts do not contain these words; (b) the early Church Fathers were not aware of any verses past v. 8; (c) those later manuscripts which do go on after v. 8 do not agree at all in the wording of the subsequent verses and provide evidence of at least six entirely different endings; and (d) the rest of the partial sentence v. 17 Zehn cites above contains quite dubious “truths” such as believers being able to handle poisonous snakes without harm and being unfazed after drinking poison.

He continues, “But not so fast! There are two tales in Mark 9:38 and Luke 9:49 that tell a different story: Casting out devils in Jesus’ name should only be done by true Christians. “And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us.” Apparently doing Jesus’ work in Jesus’ name is not enough to be a Christian. You have to follow John too.”

There are three problems with Zehn's reasoning at this point:

    1. There are not “two tales” present in the Gospel accounts cited, only one. They are duplicates of the same “tale.”

    2. John did not say that the ones casting out the devils were not true Christians, only that they were not part of the more exclusive group of Jesus' closest followers. This statement is right in line with some of the apostles' wanting to consider themselves a privileged in-crowd. But the real point is not what someone as flawed as an apostle thought, but what Christ himself thought of these exorcists. And the fact, which is conveniently omitted by Zehn, is that the story goes on with Him chastizing John for his attitude toward those men.

    3. Then there is the rather nonsensical statement by Zehn that somehow this proves that “you have to follow John too.”

Zehn concludes with this summary: “Finally, Jesus changes his mind. In Matthew 7:22-23 Jesus makes it quite clear that if you cast out devils in his name, he’ll disown you. In other words you’ll go to hell. This is a very interesting verse here, because Jesus says that casting out devils is the work of iniquity. That is, it’s immoral mumbo jumbo. Even Jesus knew exorcisms were rubbish, yet, despite this, even followers of Christ still believe that devils need to be cast out of people.”

And as a final piece of illogical thinking, Zehn cites another passage in which Jesus says that a few people, not everyone, will complain to Jesus on the Judgment Day that they have cast out demons in His name and yet He is rejecting them. The reason He is rejecting them is explained as due to the fact that that they had not done the will of God (see v. 22) and that they are “evildoers” (v. 24). But nowhere does it state, or even imply, that casting out demons was the evil deed being talked about. After all, Jesus and the apostles all cast out demons.

And as if all that were not bad enough, Zehn then has the nerve to claim that he can read Jesus' mind and reveal to us the fact that Jesus knew all along that there was no such thing as exorcism. Is he implying here that Jesus had superior knowledge to those around him? It is doubtful that Zehn would give Him that much credit. But if so, then Zehn is implying strongly that Jesus was cynically taking advantage of the credulous nature of those around him.

HOW MANY TIMES DID DAVID KILL GOLIATH? (I SAMUEL 17:50-51)

How many time did David kill Goliath? (I Samuel 17:50-51)

Searching on-line for more biblical input from skeptics, I came across this one. Rayan Zehn lists this as his favorite biblical contradiction since it is a passage that seems to give two conflicting versions of how Goliath died within the space of two only verses.

Several commentaries I consulted did not even bother mentioning that there was necessarily any contradiction here. But McKenzie notes, “These verses make it appear as though David killed the Philistine twice, once with the sling stone (v. 50) and once by beheading him with his own sword (v. 51). The repetition results from the combination of two versions of the story, but v. 50 can be read as an overview of the entire episode.”

Notice that in a way, McKenzie himself is also guilty of formulating a contradiction, this time within the same sentence. He gives two somewhat competing explanations: (a) there is a merging of two competing versions of the same story in I Samuel 17:50-51 or (b) there is a literary explanation for the seeming conflict. Let me briefly discuss these two possibilities as well as others.

Different sources

This is the sort of explanation often given by liberal scholars who feel that many of the books of the Bible came into being after a long process of editing together various versions of the same story. Of course, if that is the case, then Zehn is correct in pointing out that the competing narratives give entirely different reasons for Goliath's death, and we will never know which is the historical truth.

For example, Kyle McCarter is one source critic who does identify verses 50 and 51 as coming from two separate and competing versions. On the other hand, Li, who also believes the story of David and Goliath comes from the combination of two different sources, assigns both verses to a single source. This is not untypical of source critics, and it demonstrates that the criteria these scholars use to identify different original sources are sadly lacking in any sort of scholarly precision.

Thus, Satterthwaite can state, “Until recently it was widely held that the books of Samuel are composite, fashioned from different sources that can be at least partially reconstructed today on the basis of their divergent viewpoints...Many still hold these views, but others argue that the different sections of 1-2 Samuel are better integrated with each other than such views would imply.”

Literary Explanations

Getting back to McKenzie's second possible reason for the “contradiction,” he invokes the well-known literary propensity of biblical narratives to sometimes make sweeping overviews of a time period or event followed by a more detailed description. In that respect, the author simply states in v. 50 that David knocked Goliath out with a stone and was then able to kill him, not that the stone itself accomplished the deed. Verse 51 describes how the deed was actually completed. If that explanation seems far-fetched to you, just consider how Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heaven and the earth; the rest of chapter 1 explains how that was accomplished; and Genesis 2 goes into further detail regarding the sixth day of creation.

There is yet another literary explanation provided by Tsumura which is a slight variation on the above. He explains that verses 50-51 are only part of an ABA structure described as below:

    A. (v. 49) David sent – took – slung – struck

            B. (v. 50) David prevailed – struck – killed

    A. (v. 51) David ran – stood – took – drew – killed – cut

Such a construction was designed to shed light on the all-important center section in which David prevailed over the Philistine.

Murphy's comments on this subject are also helpful when he states that the narrative's repetitions are “sometimes discounted as interpolations but integral to its literary texture.” Another close comparison demonstrating this point is the two accounts of the killing of Sisera by Jael in Judges 4-5. The first prose narrative appears to have her striking him while he is lying down, but the poetic version that follows has her hitting him while he is standing up.

Grammatical Explanations

Regarding this point I will readily admit that I am way over my head. However, it is interesting that Young's Analytical Concordance lists the Hebrew word for “slew” (mwt) in two places rather than one so that the usage in verse 51 is included with those passages in which the word means “to put to death” while the appearance of the same word in verse 50 has the meaning “to cause to put to death.”

Similarly, Merrill says “The podel [form] conveys the meaning 'kill definitely' (Judg 9:54; 1 Sam 14:13; 17:51).” Note that 17:50 is not included here. Thus, there appears to be a subtle difference in the exact meanings of “slew” in these two different verses.

Logical Deductions

If one could demonstrate that a mere rock from a slingshot could not in itself kill a heavily armored soldier like Goliath, then that would go a long way toward indicating that “slay” in verse 50 refers to David's subsequent action in verse 51. But here we are entering into the realm of supposition. Off hand, it would seem that the heavy helmet Goliath wore would have adequately protected him from any damage from any such missiles hitting his “forehead.” But one would have to know exactly what the helmet looked like to know for sure.

However, Deem has proposed that the Hebrew word usually translated as “forehead” really refers to the part of Goliath's armor called a “greave,” protection to the lower legs. Since that armor must allow flexible movement of the knee, denting it could have caused it to freeze up so that Goliath would have lost his balance and fallen. A temporary concussion of the head would then have given David enough time to grab Goliath's sword and finish him off.

The above scenario, however, is highly speculative in several ways, and Tsumura discounts its possibility with the words, “But this probably would not have knocked a giant down, and certainly would not have left him helpless when David came and took his sword.” At this point, it appears that we really don't have enough information to use logical deductions as an answer to the question.