GENESIS 1:31-2:4

When the first Christian scholar in the Middle Ages devised our present chapter divisions, he apparently was at a loss as to where the line should be drawn after the Creation Story. Most scholars today feel that he made a mistake in this particular case, although exactly where that chapter division should have been drawn is not quite clear.

On the one hand, the repeated formula beginning with “God said, 'let...'; continuing with 'and God saw it was good'; and concluding with 'There was evening and there was morning, the...day' concludes at 1:31. But on the other hand, the Hebrew wording in Genesis 2:4 obviously harks back to that in Genesis 1:1, appearing to form an envelope around all of Genesis 1:1-2:3.

So I would like to look at these transition verses, Genesis 1:31-2:3 in a little more detail, beginning with the analysis below in which parallel thoughts are more clearly shown. Note that God's name in the sections labeled A appear to be symmetrically spaced apart as do the four counted days in sections D. However, one can certainly not claim that there is complete symmetry to the whole section, as one sees throughout the rest of the Bible, including the New Testament.

                                   Figure 1: The Literary Structure of Genesis 1:31-2:3

A. God

        B. all which he had made

                C. beheld it was very good.

                        D. Evening and morning was the sixth day

                                E. and finished heaven and

                                E. all the host of them finished (1:31)

A. God

                        D. on the seventh day.

        B. His work which he had made

                                E. and he rested

                        D. on the seventh day

        B. from all the work which he had made and (2:1-2)

A. God

                C. blessed

                        D. the seventh day and

                C. sanctified it

                                E. because he rested

        B. from all the work

A. God

        B. [had created] (2:3)

The “D” Sections

Figure 1 indicates that God “resting” from his work is equivalent to His “finishing” creation, and there are indications in various commentators' writings that this is indeed the intended meaning.

Ellul explains that “the sabbath was not created because of the six days but the six days were created with a view to the sabbath. The rest was not one of idleness but of completeness, when everything was very good.”

“This finishing of God's work assigned to day seven is not a further creating, for it is paralleled by God's resting. Both finishing and resting are viewed positively and characterize the seventh day as a distinct state of triumphant consummation for the Creator...The sabbath day in particular was sanctified to be a constant source of blessing to man as the sign of eternal hope.” (Kline)

Brotzman and Tully note that the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls, in contrast to the standard Hebrew text, clearly “state that God finished creating the world on the sixth day rather than the seventh.” This was perhaps to remove any suspicion as to whether God had worked on the Sabbath.

Van Leeuwen asks, “In what sense is creation in Genesis 1 'finished' (Gen 2:1-3)?...At the end of 2:3, the cosmos is complete. Yet this complete world does not preclude development and change within the limits and possibilities established at creation. It is ready to bring forth the (human) generations announced in the 'toledoth' of 2:4.”

“It should be noted that the verb sabat ('to rest') does not carry the modern connotation of resting because of exhaustion. It means 'to cease', and in reference to the rest at creation it signifies a celebration of the completion of the week...De Vaux explains it this way: 'Creation is the first action in the history of salvation; once it was over, God stopped work, and he was then able to make a covenant with his creatures.'” (Ross)

And Carr states, “This day is the point to which the whole seven-day scheme has led. God does not command the sabbath, but he does rest (Heb. 'shabat') on the seventh day and bless it, weaving the seven-day rhythm into creation.”

“God's creation moves to a climax not in the making of humanity, but in rest and celebration (Gen 2:1-3). The days of actual work are called 'good,' but the day of rest and reflection upon the good is called 'holy' (2:3).” (Hamilton)

Kaiser: “All had been completed. Everything had been done. It was all 'good'; in fact, it was all 'very good' (Gen. 1:31). Every function, every being, and every blessing necessary to carrying out life and its joys were now at hand.”

“Genesis 1:31 has God looking at what he had done and finding it 'very good'...'very good' means sharing in God's one goodness!” (Collins)

The Role of Genesis 2:4

As alluded to above, there is some doubt as to how this verse functions in the scheme of things, i.e. whether it best fits with the previous section or with the following one. There are at least four hypothetical possibilities: (1) it is a superscription to introduce the rest of the material in Genesis 2; (2) it acts as a subscription to close out what has preceded; (3) the first part of the verse closes out the previous material while the second half introduces what follows; or (4) Verse 2:4a introduces what follows in Chapter 2 while 2:4b closes out the creation story in Genesis 1:1-2:3.

Possibility #1

The first usage of toledot (“generation(s)”) in Genesis does not actually occur until Gen. 2:4a, where there is the question of whether it signals the beginning or conclusion of a passage. Since most subsequent occurrences of this marker appear to begin new sections, the majority of commentators feel that the word functions in the same manner in this verse.

For example, Carr states that 2:4a is “probably not the conclusion of the Priestly creation story, but a separate superscription introducing the following material, as elsewhere in Genesis (e.g., 5:1; 6:9; 10:11).”

“Many scholars have identified the boundary of the book's opening unit as extending to 2:4a rather than 2:3, primarily based on vocabulary typical of the priestly stratum. Yet, the clause 'This is the story of' (2:4) is used consistently elsewhere in Genesis at the beginning of new movements in the narrative. As Wenham points out, 2:4 also has a tightly knit chiastic structure quite distinct from 2:1-3. Furthermore...elements of 2:1-3 provide a closing to an inclusio [a set of bookends] opened at 1:1. For these reasons, the unit should be marked as extending from 1:1 to 2:3...” (G.H. Guthrie)

And Childs overstates his case drastically when he says that “the first occurrence of the formula in 2.4: 'these are the generations of the heavens and the earth...' serves as a superscription to the account which follows and can, under no circumstances, either be shifted to a position preceding 1.1, or be treated as a subscription to 1.1-2.4a.” Thus, consider the following information:

A dissenting view was voiced by Wiseman, who cited Babylonian cuneiform evidence that toledot might have a retrospective function as a colophon instead. One literary observation possibly supporting such a use, at least in Gen. 2:4b, is that the chiastic pair “heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1) ---------earth and heaven (Gen. 2:4b)” may be intended to serve as an inclusio for the first major section of the book. However, there are alternative explanations for this phenomenon and a more elaborate inclusio exists between Gen. 1:1 and 2:1-3.

Turner also brings up caveats. Besides agreeing with Wiseman regarding the function of toledot at Gen. 2:4a, he points out, “Additional uses of the formula or equivalent occur, which summarize (Gen. 10:32) or reiterate (Gen. 25:13; 36:9) a toledot already introduced, but these do not have a structuring function.” This last assertion needs a little clarification considering that Gen. 36:9 can be seen, along with 36:1 to mark the beginning of two A units in the genealogy section Gen. 36:1-43, and this is a definite structuring function, though not in the same manner as most of the other toledot introductions.

        A. The descendants of Esau (36:1-5)

                B. Narrative Unit (36:6-8)

        A'. The descendants of Esau (36:9-43)

Turner also notes that 5:1 departs from the traditional toledot formula by saying “This is the book of the descendants of...” So we certainly cannot make any hard and fast judgments ahead of time regarding the exact manner in which these formulae should function.

Possibility #3

B.W. Anderson says of 2:4b-3:24, “This is a different tradition from that in 1.1-2.4a, as evidenced by the flowing style and the different order of events, e.g. man is created before vegetation, animals, and woman.”

At this point, you may be tempted to agree with the conclusion of Ellison: “Whether v. 4 is taken as the conclusion of the former story [Possibility #1]...or as the introduction to the second story [Possibility #2]...is of little importance...In fact (in opposition to MT [i.e. the standard Hebrew text]), Skinner, Speiser, NEB, JB, and GNB divide the verse between the two stories [in agreement with Possibility #3]...“It does not seem to make much difference to our understanding.” Ellison may well be correct, but in fact, he has left out one more possible way to look at this swing verse 2:4, as unlikely as this last theory may seem to be.

Possibility #4

As you can see from the above comments, there appear to be equally good reasons behind these first three views. And one way in which to at least partially agree with all three of them is to propose a rather counter-intuitive fourth possibility.

In the first place, it is almost universally recognized that the parallels between Gen. 1:1-2:3 and 2:5-25 are so strong that a two-part organization to these combined chapters seems inevitable, whether one treats the second half as a reiteration of the first creation or a special creation in a special location. By viewing it in this manner, the structural function of Gen. 2:4 becomes obvious and explains why the function of this swing verse here is so controversial. This key verse contains two lines:

    “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.” (v. 4a)

    “In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens...” (v. 4b)

Note the chiastic (i.e., mirror-image) elements within these semi-poetic lines. This verse takes the form of introverted parallelism found quite often in the Psalms. And this even extends to the reversed order of the two elements “heavens and earth” in the last line – a sure sign of an inclusio marking out the borders of this one verse as a literary unit in its own right.

                                              Figure 2: The Structure of Genesis 2:4

These are the generations (toledot) of

        the heavens

                and the earth

                        when they were created.

                        In the day that the LORD God made

                the earth and

        the heavens.

One unusual feature of this verse is that its first line appears to point forward to the rest of Gen. 2 as similar occurrences of toledot do. However, Gen. 2:4b looks backward to the very beginning of Genesis where the same phrase is used with another reversal of the same “heaven and earth” elements. Thus viewed, the structural function of ellah toledot here is neither as an opening nor closing phrase. Instead it is part of a hinge verse securely tying together the two halves of Gen. 1-2 in an interlocking pattern. Similar examples of such “reversed” hinge verses and sections appear elsewhere in the Bible, such as in seen, in a slightly different manner, the structure of the book of Daniel.

Thus, J.L. Collins states, “The most perplexing anomaly lies in the fact that the division on the basis of form and date does not coincide with the division on the basis of language.” In other words, why is Dan. 1 in Hebrew instead of Aramaic as are the other court stories of Daniel, and why isn't Dan. 7 in Hebrew with the other visions of the second half of the book? The answer to the second question at least is seen in the overall structure of the book, which is composed of two entirely different types of literature. Figure 3 shows how Chapter 7 serves to tie Parts I and II together by utilizing the language of the bulk of Part I while taking the literary form of Part II.

                                         Figure 3: Overall Structure of the Book of Daniel

                I. Court Stories (Daniel 1-6)

                                Chapter 1 in Hebrew

                                        Chapters 2-6 in Aramaic

                II. Prophecies (Daniel 7-12)

                                        Chapter 7 in Aramaic

                                Chapters 8-12 in Hebrew

What is the relationship between Genesis 1:1-2:3 and 2:5-25?

Assuming now that Genesis 2:4 acts as a swing verse in one manner or another between the longer sections on either side, that still leaves open the question as to whether (1) these are two varying, and differing accounts of the same creation event or (2) the bulk of Chapter 2 describes events subsequent to those in Chapter 1.

View #1

Ellison feels that these are two versions of the same creation event, not from different sources but written with two completely different perspectives in mind, 1:1-2:3 being from God's standpoint while 2:4-25 treat it from man's viewpoint.

Hamilton distinguishes these two parallel accounts in a different manner: “Both the OT and other ANE [i.e. Ancient Near East] literature know of only four methods of creation: by speech, by action, by sexual activity, or by combat with forces of evil. Gen 1 highlights the first of these, while 2:4-25 focuses on the second of these.”

As a key similarity between the two, Vorlander points out, “In both accounts of creation (Gen. 1:1ff; 2:4b ff.) the creation of man is the high-point.”

“If we turn to chapter 2, we immediately recognize that we are being given a complementary, and perhaps alternate, account of certain aspects of creation. The beginning of verse 4 seems at first to be merely a summary of what we have already been told...But then we read further...and the more we read, the clearer it is that the creations of the fifth and sixth days of chapter 1 are being reformulated, with a different order and with a different emphasis.” (Gros Louis)

At this point we should point out that although both Vorlander and Gros Louis feel that this is to some extent an alternative account of creation from that in Chapter 1, one states that the emphasis is the same in both while the other says that there is a different emphasis in Chapter 2.

And we could add the opinion of Van Leeuwen, who sees the relative emphases in these parallel accounts in yet a different manner: “If the portrait of creation in Gen 1:1-2:3 emphasizes God's sovereign transcendence as he orders creation by separations, 2:4-25 complements the former text by its picture of Yahweh's creative activity as immanent...Moreover, in Genesis 2, the emphasis is not on the separations in the cosmic order, but on the bonds that connect man and soil..., man and women, God and humans..., and humans and animals...”

Freitman makes this same point using another observation: “The OT begins with reference to Elohim rather than Yahweh (Gen 1:1); this may indicate that it more readily carried a universal sense for that audience than the personal name Yahweh. The addition of Yahweh to Elohim, 'LORD God,' in Gen 2:4-3:23 may be meant to claim that this universal creator God is none other than Israel's personal God.”

View #2

In favor of the second creation accounts covering later historical events, scholars have often pointed out that a common literary Hebrew pattern was to broadly describe an event and then proceed to go into increasingly more detail. This can be seen in the creation story with a general introduction given in Gen. 1:1, followed by more details in 1:2-2:4a, and finally zeroing in on a particular geographical location and human couple in 2:4b-25.

Kline: “Since the genitive in this formula [2:4] is uniformly subjective, the reference is not to the origin 'of the heavens and the earth' but the sequel thereof, particularly the early history of the earthlings. The first part of this verse, therefore, must be taken not with the preceding but the following account, which is not, then, presented as another version of creation.”

HOW HISTORICAL IS II KINGS 19:9?

This verse, which is paralleled in Isaiah 37:9, speaks of an Egyptian ruler named Tirhakah coming to the inadvertent rescue of Israel when his advancing army distracted the Assyrian troops who were about ready to attack Israel. But early on, critical Bible scholars began to pick holes in this account on two related fronts: (1) that particular ruler (known in Egypt as Taharqa) was not the pharaoh during that particular time period, and (2) he was only a child at the time who was much too young to have led any army.

One halfhearted attempt to salvage the historicity of the biblical account was to posit some sort of confusion with a later battle between Egypt and Assyria of which there is no extant record (mentioned by LaSor and others). This theory has generally been abandoned for lack of any proof.

But the story doesn't stop there, and I mention it mainly because this is one of those rare cases, at least in the posts I have written, in which practically all Bible scholars covering a wide theological and denominational spectrum pretty much agree on a solution to a previously controversial subject. For proof of that statement, below are a host of comments listed somewhat randomly from the briefest to the longest.

Blenkinsopp states, “Perhaps the error arose because Taharqa commanded the army defeated at Eltekeh by the Assyrians [a victory recorded in Sennacherib's annals for 701/700 BC, according to T.C. Mitchell].”

“It is now agreed...that Tirhakah was old enough to lead an Egyptian army (though he did not rule Egypt till c. 690) and powerful enough to cause Sennacherib to falter.”(C.G. Martin)

Cogan and Tadmor: “Most recently it has been argued that Tihakah was indeed of age and could well have been at the head of the Ethiopian army force which engaged Sennacherib at Eltekeh...The title 'king of Ethiopia' in the present context is admittedly anachronistic, for only in 690 did Tirhakah ascend the throne.”

“Subsequent work of Egyptian chronology, however, has demonstrated that Tirhaka was about twenty years old and perhaps serving as a prince by 701 BCE..Moreover, no Assyrian texts mention any campaign to Syria-Palestine in 688 BCE, and archaeological evidence regarding the destruction in 701 BCE indicates that it was of sufficient devastation to obviate any need of further campaigns.” (Kelle and Strawn)

Oswalt says, “It is now clear that he did not become king of Egypt before 689 B.C. This fact has been used both to support the two-attack theory and to discredit the historical veracity of the account. However, the majority of modern commentators admit the possibility that Tirhaqah is here identified by a position which he held later in his life. Whether the two armies actually met is not clear. Assyrian records only mention the battle of Eltekeh, and they place that battle before the siege of Jerusalem. Of course, if the Assyrians had suffered a setback at the hands of Egypt at this point, they would probably not have mentioned it.”

“Gray argues that this reference to Tirhakah must describe a later campaign since he 'was much too young to have played such a role in 701.' He was from the Sudan and became coregent in 689 and sole king in 686, ruling over Egypt till 664. It is noteworthy that he is not called Pharaoh, which may suggest a date somewhat earlier than 689. Montgomery and Gehman disagree, stating, 'Years before his elevation to the throne he was in active military service.' Wideman agrees with Montgomery and Gehman, as do Patterson and Austel. Hobbs summarizes these scholars' opinion when he concludes that Tirhakah led Shabtaka's forces in this battle, then later became Pharaoh in his own right. There is no overwhelming reason, then, to doubt the legitimacy of the text's claims.” (House)

Depuydt: “A Nubian king named Taharqa (the vowels are hypothetical) did exist around the time in question. Consequently, the equation of Tirhakah with Taharqa has been universally accepted. However, there is a problem. Tahaqa's reign begins in 690 BCE (or perhaps 691 BCE) However, Sennacherib's only known Palestinian campaign took place in 701 BCE. Taharqa cannot have been king yet in 701 BCE, as 12 Kings 19:9 seems to imply. Three explanations have been proposed for this problem: (1) Tirhaza was a general, not yet a king, in 701 BCE; (2) the text is plainly anachronistic – that is, in error; (3) Sennacherib undertook a second Palestinian campaign, not attested in the sources, after 690 BCE. Most have assumed that King Shabaka ruled in 701 BCE, but just when the debate was in danger of turning stale, a new piece of evidence became generally accessible: a cuneiform rock inscription at Tang-i Var in Iran dating to Sargon II (721-705 BCE). At first sight, the inscription suggests that Shabataka's successor and Taharqa's predecessor, Shabataka, who Taharqa may have killed, ruled already as early as 706 BCE, five years before Sennacherib'scampaign of 701 BCE. Until now no regnal year higher than year 3 was known for Shabatka. Thus a length of reign for two to three years (c. 692-690 BCE) for Shabataka was not positively falsifiable.”

Lastly, the most recent, longest, and clearest explanation is that of James Hoffmeier which is given in the Summer 2025 issue of BAR magazine. He writes, “First, as the late Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen pointed out, the biblical authors clearly wrote their account of Sennacherib's invasion at least a decade in to Taharqa's reign, since they also reference Sennacherib's assassination in 680 BC (2 Kings 19:37; Isaiah 37:38). Thus, even though Taharqa was the Egyptian pharaoh when they were writing, the authors were presumably well aware he was not yet pharaoh in 701. By way of analogy, when one says that Queen Elizabeth II was born in 1926, they are not claiming she was also queen at that time, only that she eventually became queen. The biblical references to Taharqa are therefore proleptic [i.e. something that is anticipatory], not anachronistic.”

“Second, we know the Cushites practiced a type of collateral succession, in which the king was succeeded first by his brother, then by his eldest son, and finally by his younger son. King Piankhy died in 716, meaning Taharqa must have been born at least a few years earlier, making him about 20 years old in 701. His uncle Shabaka assumed the throne in 716, followed next by Piankhy's eldest son, Shebitku in 702. Thus, during the reigns of Sahbaka and Shebitku, Taharqa was a crown prince, only ascending to the throne upon Shebitku's death in 690. This may explain why the biblical writers identify him as king of Cush rather than pharaoh.”

“Third, several of Taharqa's own royal stelae, discovered at the temple of Kawa, confirm this situation...For example, the text on Tela IV, dated to Taharqa's sixth year (685 BC), tells us that he was summoned from Napata to Memphis by his elder brother, 'his majesty King Shebitku,' and that he had with him 'his majesty's army.' The intent of this troop movement under Taharqa's leadership (in service to his elder brother) apparently was for taking military action against Assyria in 701 BC. Similarly, in Stela V, Taharqa recalls that this event happened when he was 20 years old (which proves he was not a child in 701 BC, as some have argued). Taken together these stelae confirm Taharqa's critical role in Shebitku's northern campaign against Assyria, even though he was still crown prince at the time.”

“Finally, it is notable that in the Hebrew Bible, Tirhaqah is only called 'king of Cush'...and not 'pharaoh'...The absence of any reference to Tirhaqah as 'pharaoh' again suggests the biblical writers understood that in 701 BC Taharqa was simply a Cushite prince who perhaps ruled Cush on behalf of Pharaoh Shebitku in Memphis and thus was called 'king of Cush.'”

 

PARALLELISM IN REVELATION 15:3-4

As I have demonstrated in several of my blogs, the Book of Revelation is permeated by Old Testament allusions. See especially the post titled “Revelation 15:3-4” in which every phrase is an echo of something said in the Hebrew Bible. But in those particular verses (more specifically in vv. 3b-4), there is another Hebraic feature pointed out by Leon Morris, namely, “This is the one song in Revelation to show the parallelism so characteristic of Hebrew poetry.”

As NRSV translates and indents this song, it reads:

3   A. Great and amazing are your deeds,

            B. Lord God the Almighty!

    A'. Just and true are your ways,

            B'. King of the nations!

4  A. Lord, who will not fear

            B. and glorify your name?

    A'. For you alone are holy.

            B'. All nations will come

            B''. and worship before you,

    A''. for your judgments have been revealed.

Thus, according to that scanning, verse 3 takes the form of what is called identical parallelism, ABAB.

In the same manner, verse 4 appears to take the slightly more elaborate alternating form, ABABAB, but only if we consider B' and B'' to taken together as but one line of poetry. Or, with others, we could consider 3-4a and 4b as the two separate arrangements ABABAB and ABBA (not to be confused with the great singing group).

NIV utilizes the identical indentations for verse 3, but differs in how it understands the parallelism in v. 4:

    A. Who will not fear you, Lord,

            B. and bring glory to your name?

    A'. For you alone are holy.

    A''. All nations will come

            B'. and worship before you,

    A'''.for your righteous acts have been revealed.

This appears as a more complicated pattern, ABAABA not really paralleled in Old Testament poetry unless wishes to break verse 4 into two separate ABA constructions.

TEV also feels that v. 3 is written as a simple identical parallelism. However, when it comes to the first and third lines, the translators chose for some reason to break out “your deeds” and “your ways” as separate lines so that an ABCABC pattern emerges. One could just as accurately have parsed it as follows:

    Great

        and

            amazing

                are

                    your

                        ways, and

    Just

        and

            true

                are

                    your

                        deeds

Then when it comes to verse 4, all semblance of a symmetrical scheme appears to have been abandoned:

    A. Who will not stand I awe of

            C. you, Lord?

        B. Who will refuse to declare

            C'. your greatness?

        B'. You alone are holy.

    A'. All the nations will come

        B''. and worship you,

        B'''. because your just actions

            C''. are seen by all.

In his commentary, Mounce also correctly identifies the parallelism in verse 3 and says, “The structure of the hymn suggest that it may have been used in the liturgy of the early church. The first four lines are a classic example of synonymous parallelism.” However, when it comes to v. 4, he treats “Who shall fear, O Lord, and glorify thy name?” as a rhetorical question answered by the following three lines, which are parallel to one another:

    For thou only art holy,

        For all the nations shall come and worship before thee;

For thy righteous acts have been made manifest.

This way of looking at v. 4b does appear to make sense since the Greek original does contain three occurrences of hoti (“for, because”), one at the beginning of each of these three lines. However, as Beale rightly points out, the function of hoti in the middle line serves an entirely different function than the other two: “The second hoti of v 4 introduces not a ground clause but is to be rendered as 'so that.' This consecutive rendering of the hoti indicates the effect of God's incomparable holiness expressed in the first hoti clause (v 4a), which declared the ground for worship due to God (v 4a; for the consecutive or final nuance of hoti with the sense of 'so that'). The effect of God's unique holiness is that people from all nations will recognize it and stream to worship God, which repeats the primary thought of v 4a that God is to be feared and glorified.”

Then there is John Phillips' analysis of these verses. The tack he takes is to consider vv. 3-4a as ABABAB parallelism in which there is an alternation between what is said and what is sung:

Sing: “How great thou art”

        Say: “How great and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty”

Sing: “How good Thou art”

        Say: “Just and true are thy ways, thou king of saints.”

Sing: “How glorious thou art!”

        Say: “Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name?”

By combining some of the above insights as well as discarding supposed parallelisms in which the meanings and functions of the supposedly similar lines of poetry do not really match one another, I would like to propose yet another way to understand v. 4 of this short poem, using the RSV wording but not its indentations.

    A. Who shall not fear and

            B. glorify thy name, O Lord?

                    C. For thou alone art holy.

    A'. All nations shall come and

            B'. worship thee,

                    C'. for thy judgments have been revealed.

Finally, I would question the statement of Morris which began this post: “This is the one song in Revelation to show the parallelism so characteristic of Hebrew poetry.” Just taking one random example which is the closest to 15:3-4, consider 16:5-7. It can be quite easily scanned as follows:

A. And I heard the angel of water say,

        B. “Just art thou in these thy judgments,

                C. thou who art and wast, O Holy One.

                        D. For men have shed the blood of saints and prophets,

                        D'. and thou hast given them blood to drink. It is their due!”

A'. And I heard the altar cry,

                C'. “Yea, Lord God the Almighty,

        B'. true and just are thy judgments!”

This is but another form of Hebrew poetic parallelism, taking a mirror image, or chiastic, form instead.

Or, to taking another random example from Revelation, look at 13:9-10:

A. If any one has a ear let him hear:

        B. If any one is to be taken captive,

                C. to captivity he goes;

        B'. if any one slays with the sword,

                C'. with the sword must he be slain.

A'. Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints.

Here we have a combination of parallelism and chiasm in one poetic construction

OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES IN THE PASTORAL EPISTLES

Exactly how many such references are found in I and II Timothy and Titus is a matter of some controversy among scholars as well as what that says regarding the Pauline authorship of these works.

I will start with the comments by Hanson along with a brief recitation of the references he has located.

“Commentators have often remarked on the absence of interest in the OT in the Pastorals, and have even cited this as an indication of non-Pauline authorship. It is certainly true that the author uses the OT in a way very different from the way Paul uses it. He rarely employs it as a tool in argument, and does not often go direct to the text of Scripture as Paul does. But it is not accurate to say that he hardly ever uses the OT. On the contrary, it is possible to detect a number of references throughout the Pastorals, some of them playing an important part in his message.” We will proceed to look briefly at those passages in the Pastoral Epistles which allude back to the OT according to the listings of Hanson and/or Towner.

I Timothy 1:14-17 // Exodus 34:6

I Timothy 2:4-5 // Isaiah 45:21-22

I Timothy 1:8 // Malachi 1:11

I Timothy 2:13-15 // Genesis 2-3

I Timothy 3:15 // I Kings 8:13

I Timothy 5:18-19 // Deuteronomy 17:6; 25:4

I Timothy 6:1 // Isaiah 52:5

II Timothy 2:7 // Proverbs 2:6

II Timothy 2:19 // Isaiah 28:16

II Timothy 3:8 // Exodus 8:18-19

II Timothy 3:11 // Psalm 34:16-19

II Timothy 3:15 // Psalm 119:98

II Timothy 4:3-4 // Genesis 1:31; Genesis 9:3; Isaiah 19:14

II Timothy 4:16-18 // Psalm 22 and Proverbs 2:13

Titus 2:14 // Deuteronomy 4:20 and Psalm 130:8

Titus 3:5 // Deuteronomy 9:5

As a cautionary note, if you should look up any one of these paired passages and can't see any sort of resemblance between the the two (or more) listed parallels, keep in mind that many of the similarities are drawn using the early Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, which happens to differ considerably on occasion from the Hebrew text on which most English translations are primarily based.

The author's seemingly heavy reliability on the Greek Scripture has been cited as a reason to deny authorship of the Pastorals to Paul. But this argument is nonsensical. He was writing to a Greek audience which generally was ignorant of the Hebrew language and was used to reading the Old Testament in translation. In addition, the Septuagint was in wide circulation during Paul's lifetime and so it can't be claimed as some scholars do that Paul was long gone before it was in common currency in the Greek-speaking world.

There is also the very real possibility that Paul, as elsewhere, employed secretaries to “polish up” his language and present his ideas in a more acceptable style which would be accepted better by the more literate of his audience.

These considerations go a long way toward defending against the common charge that Paul could not possibly have written these three letters.

REPETITION IN THE BIBLE: PART 2

Part 1 on this subject was posted two years ago on this site. It began with the following introduction:

“Those who are at all familiar with the Bible may rightfully come to the point where they ask:Why is there so much repetition in the Bible? It is an excellent question and actually can be answered in a number of ways depending on what kind of duplication one is talking about. On occasion, my tendency to organize and categorize comes to the forefront, and this is one of them. Here is my own attempt to classify some of the more common types of repetition found in the Bible with examples and comments as to the possible function such duplication performs in the service of the text.

A. Contiguous Repetition

    1. Of words

    2. Within the same verse

    3. Between adjacent paragraphs

    4. Between adjacent chapters

    5. Between adjacent books

B. More Remote Repetition

    1. In service of all the above duplicates

    2. Inclusios

    3. Significant numbers

    4. Mark's Gospel

But among the examples I gave in Section A2 of that post, I neglected to discuss another variation, namely the accumulation of near synonyms within a single verse. This post addresses that prior omission. Craig Keener explains this class of biblical repetition in his exhaustive commentary on I Peter when he states, “Piling up multiple, virtually synonymous terms fits both the traditional biblical and bombastic, so-called Asianic rhetoric.” Below are some of the examples of this rhetorical technique which he cites in his commentary on I Peter.

“Well and good”

The two Hebrew adjectives translated by these, or equivalent, words appear in verses such as Job 34:4 in their most common examples as part of two parallel lines within a single verse:

    “Then let us    examine for ourselves what is right;

    let us together establish                     the true good.” (JB)

However, that same sort of parallelism (Category A2 above) can be expressed even more simply by placing the synonyms right next to one another as a pair, such as we find in the following verses, all quoted from the KJV:

    Deuteronomy 6:18 – “And thou shall do that which is right and good in the sight of the LORD: that it may go well with you...”

    Deuteronomy 12:28 – “Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go will with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the LORD thy God.”

Note that there is another possible example of two parallel words joined by “and” in this verse, namely, “observe and hear.” Certainly there is a nuance of difference between the two original Hebrew words, but there is much overlap as well.

    I Samuel 12:23 – “God forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the right way.”

    II Chronicles 14:2 – “And Asa did that which was good and right in the eyes of the LORD his God.”

    II Chronicles 31:20 – “And thus did Hezekiah throughout all Judah, and wrought that which was good and right and truth before the LORD his God.”

To this list, Keener appends those occasions in which the same Hebrew phrase appears in an idiomatic, but not theological, context: Joshua 9:25; II Samuel 15:3; and Jeremiah 26:14; 40:4.

Strengthening Language

This is another category identified by Keener in which similar words are accumulated in order to make one general point.

    Isaiah 41:10 – In this verse, it is stated that the LORD strengthened, helped, and supported Israel.” Oswalt states that the use of moreover “between the three verbs give them a sense of being piled on top of one another. Not only has he strengthened, but he has helped, and not only has he strengthened and helped, but he also has upheld them.”

    I Corinthians 16:13 – “Be watchful, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong.” (RSV)

“The apostle inserts this final brief exhortation. The first four imperatives call for militant action, the last for love. The first pair are defensive, the second offensive.” (Marsh)

    Ephesians 1:19 – “...and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who believe, according to the working of his great might.” (RSV) This is also rendered by AB as follows: “...and how exceedingly great is his power over us believers. For that mighty strength is at work...”

“These first four imperatives are related in that they all call to watchfulness and steadfastness as to the faith itself (cf. 15:58).” (Fee)

And Marcus Barth says, “At this point the style typical of Ephesians is displayed at either its worst or its best, certainly in most exemplary fashion. Four nearly synonymous Greek words are used in succession to describe God's power, and the author adds the noun 'greatness,' qualified by the attribute 'exceeding' (or 'overwhelming'). The way in which so many words of similar meaning are combined is not simple, but is complicated by the use of three genitives and the preposition 'according to..'..The author wants to point out the absolutely unique and superior power exerted by God in the resurrection of Christ.”

    Ephesians 3:16 – “...he may grant you to be strengthened with might through his Spirit in the inner man.” (RSV)

Hoehner comments, “Two words for power are used here. The first is dynamis, which has the meaning of 'power, ability, capability of acting,' denoting capacity in view of his ability...The second word is the complementary infinitive krataiothenai from krataioo. It is a late construction...which means 'to strengthen' by exercise.”

    Colossians 1:11 – “May you be made strong with all of the strength which comes from his glorious power...” (TEV)

“The sentence runs on with continued emphasis that such fruitful living is wholly dependent on divine enabling...the Semitic doubling ('empowered with all power') is sufficient indication that the thought world here is still preeminently Jewish....As if the point were not already clear beyond doubt, the sense of complete dependence on divine enabling is reinforced with a further flourish: 'according to the might of his glory' (a Semitism = 'his glorious might'). Kratos ('might') is an understandable variant for dunamis ('power')...” (Dunn)

    I Peter 5:10 – The RSV translation of this verse reads, “And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, establish, and strengthen you.”

Commenting on this statement, Keener says, “Yet despite each term perhaps adding some nuances, the semantic overlap among restore, strengthen, fortify, and establish is considerable.”

Judges 9:16, 19

Lastly, I will throw in one additional example not mentioned by Keener. After Jotham tells the parable of the trees attempting to choose a ruler from among themselves to those who have rejected the rightful king of Israel, he states, “Now, if you have acted faithfully and blamelessly in making Abimelech king, and if you have dealt rightly with Jerubbaal and his house...then rejoice in Abimelech, and let him rejoice in you.”

Webb explains: “Jotham makes it clear what the central issue is by piling up adverbs (faithfully, blamelessly, rightly), all of which have to do with the ethical status of what the rulers of Shechem have done. The issue is not kingship as such, but whether it was right for them to make this particular man king and, in so doing, to support and participate in his slaughter of Gideon's seventy sons. Clearly for Jotham the answer is no.”

BABBLERS IN THE CHURCH

The New Testament has much to say concerning sins of the mouth. And today those same faults can be extended to those who spout off on the Internet at the drop of a hat without first engaging their brains or their hearts. A very recent example of this occurred the other day after the tragic loss of lives in the Kerrville flood, not very far from where I live. A public official posted on her Facebook page that she bet that not nearly as many people would have been upset by this event if it had happened to a group of minority girls instead of “lily white” ones. I would hope that if she had had time to think it over and carefully draft a letter to send to the newspaper, she would had thought better of it and not shared that opinion. But with modern technology, we can just rant and rave to our heart's content, push a button, and the world can read it, for better or worse.

There are many such faults of the tongue condemned in the Bible in relation to actions in church bodies, just one of which is the tendency of many of us to talk too much off the top of our heads with little thought as to what we are saying or on the effect it might have on the listeners. Here are just a few of the biblical passages in which this subject is discussed, along with some personal observations I have made in my many years in various church settings, especially in Sunday school classes.

Proverbs 10:8

Waltke translates this verse as, “The wise in heart accepts counsel, but the babbling fool comes to ruin...The wise in heart, as opposed to the 'wise in their own eyes' (cf. 3:7), knows that he is in need of teaching and welcomes it...Whereas the wise in heart are characterized by continual inner, spiritual growth that leads to wise speech (16:23), the babbling (lit. 'lips') fool despises wisdom and discipline (1:7). The fool is so full of himself that instead of having the capacity to accept wisdom he dangerously prattles out his own 'clever opinions,' which are devoid of true wisdom (cf. 10:13) and scorch like fire (cf. 16:27). By his undisciplined words he entangles himself and comes to ruin. In its teaching about the proper use of speech and the necessity for taking good advice, Proverbs follows the wisdom tradition of the ancient Near East. Here a contrast is drawn between the man who pays attention to the command or advice, of the wisdom teacher and the man who makes a fool of himself by giving advice when he himself is ignorant.”

Merrill explains that in the great majority of cases, a reference to “lips” refers in general to verbal communication. “For the most part, sapa is associated with negative or harmful speech...One who speaks without thinking is called 'a 'man of lips' (Job 11:2)...Such people are fools...”

“A wise person is teachable, willing to become wiser (cf. 1:5; 9:9). But a fool...does not quit chattering long enough to learn anything. In Proverbs needless talking is often associated with folly.”

(Buzzell)

Additional passages listed by Zuck regarding teachableness include Proverbs 10:17; 12:1; 13:1,13,18; 15:5, 31-32; 19:20.

There was one gentleman in a church I attended who also had been part of a small Bible study group during the week. He fancied himself a budding preacher and missionary although he had absolutely no training or aptitude for those roles. Since our church would not support him financially because he did not want to undergo the required prior “vetting,” he thought he could dig up support for his rather hair-brained “ministries” among the members of our small group. He asked for advice from me, which was rather out of character for him. But he totally ignored what I had said to him and went in the opposite direction after telling me how much my advice had encouraged him, obviously not listening to a thing I had said.

Not having learned my lesson, I later made the mistake of asking him to present a 5-10 minute devotional in the Sunday school class I was teaching before the lesson itself. When the day came, he again completely ignored my words and proceeded to babble on and on about absolutely nothing at all for the whole 90 minutes, and I had to scrap the lesson I had been preparing for a month, which I attempted, somewhat unsuccessfully, to do with perfect equanimity.

Matthew 6:7

This verse reads, “When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think they will be heard because of their many words.”

Hill states, “To heap up empty phrases (battalogeo) is probably connected with the Aramaic battal ('idle, useless'): the word is used in an Aramaic papyrus from Qumran meaning 'without effect'.”

In the same vein, Albright and Mann write, “The Greek word (battalogein) can be used of stammering, and so of constant repetition. Battos (stammerer) and cognate words suggest constant repetition rather than continually interrupted speech.”

And France adds, “Their approach to prayer is characterized by two colorful terms, first 'babbling,' a noisy flow of sound without meaning, and polylogia, 'much speaking,' 'many words.' It is an approach to prayer which values quantity (and perhaps volume?) rather than quality. It is not necessarily purely mechanical, but rather obtrusive and unnecessary.”

“We must not 'babble' (an onomatopoetic word – battalogia, literally, to say batta). In light of vv. 7-8, this at least refers to a long-winded and probably flowery or rhetorical oration.” (Blomberg)

Most of us have probably experienced in church the sort of person Jesus is talking about. Their prayers are long and repetitious, full of their favorite phrases from the Bible which they quote quite out of context. That was why I was never very good giving prayers during church services; I tended to get straight to the point, knowing that God already knew what was in my heart, and as a result my prayers were always much shorter than was felt to be acceptable. I think my problem was that somehow I had the mistaken idea that God was my audience, not the others in the congregation who might need edification from me during that time.

Even worse were those whom my wife encountered who took the opportunity during verbal prayers to put certain unnamed others (“You know who you are!”) in the audience in their place.

This teaching could also be applied to those senior pastors I have known who are in love with their own voices and over-rehearse their sermons down to every small inflection in their voice. We once had such a perfectionist who was indeed an excellent speaker, but he tended to overdo it. As an example, he delivered one sermon while fighting laryngitis. His message was perfectly understandable to all, but he was just not satisfied with it himself. So two weeks later when he was completely recovered, he delivered the exact same sermon again.

Such a driving need to appear before others without any apparent flaws was his eventual undoing. A deranged woman who had been attending the church for only about two weeks took it into her head that she would be helping the pastor out if she aimed a gun (fortunately unloaded) at his head during his morning sermon. Whatever in the world was in her mind at the time, the upshot was that one of the elders, an ex-football lineman, ran up on stage and tackled her while the pastor cowered behind the pulpit crying for help; the woman was carted off to jail; and the pastor had a nervous breakdown and disappeared for weeks until he was tracked down at a psychiatric clinic. He never did return to any pulpit ministry again, as far as I am aware.

I Timothy 5:13

Knight, among others, sets the context for this teaching by explaining that widows who are “enrolled” in the church are given financial support by the church and in turn are to spend their time in helping to carry out various good works for the benefit of those in the congregation.

Hendricksen: “Writing then about a certain type of young widow, the apostle's description becomes very vivid..,. They would become not only idle but chatty and meddlesome. (Note the play upon words: argoi periergoi. One might translate: 'not busy workers but busybodies'...). Of course, the result was that thus they might easily be doing more harm than good. In the midst of their vivacious chatter they would often 'say things which they should not (say),' creating problems for the church instead of solving any!”

I had the unfortunate “privilege” to witness a good (or should I say, bad) example of this class of Christian women. In this particular case, she fit the description of an “enrolled” woman in that she was the paid church secretary, an important job and one that certainly should not be held by one who has “loose lips.” One time when our church was between senior pastors, she became convinced that the official powers to be at the time, the deacons and personnel committee, were not treating the assistant pastors with the respect they deserved. And in an attempt to redress that sin, she used her privileged access to the home and e-mail addresses of all the church members to send out a scathing letter denouncing those two groups in no uncertain terms for their actions.

This unfounded accusation had the immediate effect of dividing the congregation into two warring camps, with the chairwoman of the personnel committee (of which I was a member) being hounded and chased down the hall during Sunday morning church by a screaming young man loudly berating her for her actions and demanding an immediate explanation. And within a few weeks, most of the young married couples left the church along with one of the assistant pastors to start their own short-lived church.

3 John 10

In denouncing a self-appointed church leader named Diotrephes, John censures him for his accusations against him. “phluareo can be used of babbling and talking nonsense (cf. the adjective in 1 Tim. 5:13) and hence of making empty, groundless accusations.” (Marshall)

Similarly, Bruce says that “the verb phlyaroo, here rendered 'prate,' means 'talk nonsense.'”

“Diotrephes was making evil accusations, unjustified charges. He was talking nonsense and 'spouting silliness.' There was an emptiness to what he said as well as a vicious and wicked intent.” (Akin)

Treatment of Such “Problem Children”

By no means all of those who in church settings tend to babble on and on do so for purely selfish or evil motives, and these must be handled with love rather than with censure. For example, I have run into at least three such men in the various churches of which I have been a member.

One had somewhat of a fixation on a particular theological doctrine, the absolute sovereignty of God. That is certainly a subject that needs to be stressed, but he did it to excess and felt that any teaching hour in Sunday school was totally wasted unless it mentioned that particular subject or at least refrained from (heaven forbid) actually suggesting than we had any human responsibilities for our actions.

I don't think he realized how disruptive his comments were when he felt he must constantly interrupt the speaker in order to make that one point. My solution was quite simple. I assigned one of the summer lessons for him to teach all by himself. He hemmed and hawed his way painfully through the lesson and learned first-hand that it was not very easy to fill over an hour of time keeping to the subject at hand while also incorporating into the talk his pet subject. It was at least a year after than experience before he even made a comment in class.

Unfortunately, when he reverted to his old behavior, someone else on our teaching team was presenting the lesson. That teacher, usually a very even-tempered man, totally lost his temper and chewed out that member of our class in no uncertain terms in front of others. The poor man stayed away from the class for over a month before daring to show his face again.

I had tried my own gentler technique earlier at another church with a member of our young married class, who I would guess had a rather limited intelligence and no social sense whatsoever. He tended to raise his hand during class and then babble on with comments which none of us could make heads or tails out of. The solution used above worked here also. We let him teach one lesson all by himself, and he did not acquit himself well, as even he recognized. Again, that experience seemed to satisfy his need to be recognized as a full member of the class, and that was apparently all he was trying to accomplish.

At yet another church, a very dear man in the class, would interrupt the speaker with comments which seemed to not be very well thought out in his own mind before talking. And so after about 5 minutes, he would apologize profusely to the class for his interruptions, and do the same for the speaker when the class was over. It was awfully hard for anyone to get upset about his actions since there appeared to be absolutely no evil or selfish motives behind his actions. I tried my best to assure him that no one had any hard feelings against him, and I took an interest in his personal life. That seemed to help a little, and we are still friends.

BABBLERS IN THE CHURCH

 

Babblers in the Church

The New Testament has much to say concerning sins of the mouth. And today those same faults can be extended to those who spout off on the Internet at the drop of a hat without first engaging their brains or their hearts. A very recent example of this occurred the other day after the tragic loss of lives in the Kerrville flood, not very far from where I live. A public official posted on her Facebook page that she bet that not nearly as many people would have been upset by this event if it had happened to a group of minority girls instead of “lily white” ones. I would hope that if she had had time to think it over and carefully draft a letter to send to the newspaper, she would had thought better of it and not shared that opinion. But with modern technology, we can just rant and rave to our heart's content, push a button, and the world can read it, for better or worse.

There are many such faults of the tongue condemned in the Bible in relation to actions in church bodies, just one of which is the tendency of many of us to talk too much off the top of our heads with little thought as to what we are saying or on the effect it might have on the listeners. Here are just a few of the biblical passages in which this subject is discussed, along with some personal observations I have made in my many years in various church settings, especially in Sunday school classes.

Proverbs 10:8

Waltke translates this verse as, “The wise in heart accepts counsel, but the babbling fool comes to ruin...The wise in heart, as opposed to the 'wise in their own eyes' (cf. 3:7), knows that he is in need of teaching and welcomes it...Whereas the wise in heart are characterized by continual inner, spiritual growth that leads to wise speech (16:23), the babbling (lit. 'lips') fool despises wisdom and discipline (1:7). The fool is so full of himself that instead of having the capacity to accept wisdom he dangerously prattles out his own 'clever opinions,' which are devoid of true wisdom (cf. 10:13) and scorch like fire (cf. 16:27). By his undisciplined words he entangles himself and comes to ruin. In its teaching about the proper use of speech and the necessity for taking good advice, Proverbs follows the wisdom tradition of the ancient Near East. Here a contrast is drawn between the man who pays attention to the command or advice, of the wisdom teacher and the man who makes a fool of himself by giving advice when he himself is ignorant.”

Merrill explains that in the great majority of cases, a reference to “lips” refers in general to verbal communication. “For the most part, sapa is associated with negative or harmful speech...One who speaks without thinking is called 'a 'man of lips' (Job 11:2)...Such people are fools...”

“A wise person is teachable, willing to become wiser (cf. 1:5; 9:9). But a fool...does not quit chattering long enough to learn anything. In Proverbs needless talking is often associated with folly.” (Buzzell)

Additional passages listed by Zuck regarding teachableness include Proverbs 10:17; 12:1; 13:1,13,18; 15:5, 31-32; 19:20.

There was one gentleman in a church I attended who also had been part of a small Bible study group during the week. He fancied himself a budding preacher and missionary although he had absolutely no training or aptitude for those roles. Since our church would not support him financially because he did not want to undergo the required prior “vetting,” he thought he could dig up support for his rather hair-brained “ministries” among the members of our small group. He asked for advice from me, which was rather out of character for him. But he totally ignored what I had said to him and went in the opposite direction after telling me how much my advice had encouraged him, obviously not listening to a thing I had said.

Not having learned my lesson, I later made the mistake of asking him to present a 5-10 minute devotional in the Sunday school class I was teaching before the lesson itself. When the day came, he again completely ignored my words and proceeded to babble on and on about absolutely nothing at all for the whole 90 minutes, and I had to scrap the lesson I had been preparing for a month, which I attempted, somewhat unsuccessfully, to do with perfect equanimity.

Matthew 6:7

This verse reads, “When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think they will be heard because of their many words.”

Hill states, “To heap up empty phrases (battalogeo) is probably connected with the Aramaic battal ('idle, useless'): the word is used in an Aramaic papyrus from Qumran meaning 'without effect'.”

In the same vein, Albright and Mann write, “The Greek word (battalogein) can be used of stammering, and so of constant repetition. Battos (stammerer) and cognate words suggest constant repetition rather than continually interrupted speech.”

And France adds, “Their approach to prayer is characterized by two colorful terms, first 'babbling,' a noisy flow of sound without meaning, and polylogia, 'much speaking,' 'many words.' It is an approach to prayer which values quantity (and perhaps volume?) rather than quality. It is not necessarily purely mechanical, but rather obtrusive and unnecessary.”

“We must not 'babble' (an onomatopoetic word – battalogia, literally, to say batta). In light of vv. 7-8, this at least refers to a long-winded and probably flowery or rhetorical oration.” (Blomberg)

Most of us have probably experienced in church the sort of person Jesus is talking about. Their prayers are long and repetitious, full of their favorite phrases from the Bible which they quote quite out of context. That was why I was never very good giving prayers during church services; I tended to get straight to the point, knowing that God already knew what was in my heart, and as a result my prayers were always much shorter than was felt to be acceptable. I think my problem was that somehow I had the mistaken idea that God was my audience, not the others in the congregation who might need edification from me during that time.

Even worse were those whom my wife encountered who took the opportunity during verbal prayers to put certain unnamed others (“You know who you are”) in the audience in their place.

This teaching could also be applied to those senior pastors I have known who are in love with their own voices and over-rehearse their sermons down to every small inflection in their voice. We once had such a perfectionist who was indeed an excellent speaker, but he tended to overdo it. As an example, he delivered one sermon while fighting laryngitis. His message was perfectly understandable to all, but he was just not satisfied with it himself. So two weeks later when he was completely recovered, he delivered the exact same sermon again.

Such a driving need to appear before others without any apparent flaws was his eventual undoing. A deranged woman who had been attending the church for only about two weeks took it into her head that she would be helping the pastor out if she aimed a gun (fortunately unloaded) at his head during his morning sermon. Whatever in the world was in her mind at the time, the upshot was that one of the elders, an ex-football lineman, ran up on stage and tackled her while the pastor cowered behind the pulpit crying for help; the woman was carted off to jail; and the pastor had a nervous breakdown and disappeared for weeks until he was tracked down at a psychiatric clinic. He never did return to any pulpit ministry again, as far as I am aware.

I Timothy 5:13

Knight, among others, sets the context for this teaching by explaining that widows who are “enrolled” in the church are given financial support by the church and in turn are to spend their time in helping to carry out various good works for the benefit of those in the congregation.

Hendricksen: “Writing then about a certain type of young widow, the apostle's description becomes very vivid..,. They would become not only idle but chatty and meddlesome. (Note the play upon words: argoi periergoi. One might translate: 'not busy workers but busybodies...). Of course, the result was that thus they might easily be doing more harm than good. In the midst of their vivacious chatter they would often 'say things which they should not (say),' creating problems for the church instead of solving any!”

I had the unfortunate “privilege” to witness a good (or should I say, bad) example of this class of Christian women. In this particular case, she fit the description of an “enrolled” woman in that she was the paid church secretary, an important job and one that certainly should not be held by one who has “loose lips.” One time when our church was between senior pastors, she became convinced that the official powers to be at the time, the deacons and personnel committee, were not treating the assistant pastors with the respect they deserved. And in an attempt to redress that sin, she used her privileged access to the home and e-mail addresses of all the church members to send out a scathing letter denouncing those two groups in no uncertain terms for their actions.

This unfounded accusation had the immediate effect of dividing the congregation into two warring camps, with the chairwoman of the personnel committee (of which I was a member) being hounded and chased down the hall during Sunday morning church by a screaming young man loudly berating her for her actions and demanding an immediate explanation. And within a few weeks, most of the young married couples left the church along with one of the assistant pastors to start their own short-lived church.

3 John 10

In denouncing a self-appointed church leader named Diotrephes, John censures him for his accusations against him. “phluareo can be used of babbling and talking nonsense (cf. the adjective in 1 Tim. 5:13) and hence of making empty, groundless accusations.” (Marshall)

Similarly, Bruce says that “the verb phlyaroo, here rendered 'prate,' means 'talk nonsense.'”

“Diotrephes was making evil accusations, unjustified charges. He was talking nonsense and 'spouting silliness.' There was an emptiness to what he said as well as a vicious and wicked intent.” (Akin)

Treatment of Such “Problem Children”

By no means all of those who in church settings tend to babble on and on do so for purely selfish or evil motives, and these must be handled with love rather than with censure. For example, I have run into at least three such men in the various churches of which I have been a member.

One had somewhat of a fixation on a particular theological doctrine, the absolute sovereignty of God. That is certainly a subject that needs to be stressed, but he did it to excess and felt that any teaching hour in Sunday school was totally wasted unless it mentioned that particular subject or at least refrained from (heaven forbid) actually suggesting than we had any human responsibilities for our actions.

I don't think he realized how disruptive his comments were when he felt he must constantly interrupt the speaker in order to make that one point. My solution was quite simple. I assigned one of the summer lessons for him to teach all by himself. He hemmed and hawed his way painfully through the lesson and learned first-hand that it was not very easy to fill over an hour of time keeping to the subject at hand while also incorporating into the talk his pet subject. It was at least a year after than experience before he even made a comment in class.

Unfortunately, when he reverted to his old behavior, someone else on our teaching team was presenting the lesson. That teacher, usually a very even-tempered man, totally lost his temper and chewed out that member of our class in no uncertain terms in front of others. The poor man stayed away from the class for over a month before daring to show his face again.

I had tried my own gentler technique earlier at another church with a member of our young married class, who I would guess had a rather limited intelligence and no social sense whatsoever. He tended to raise his hand during class and then babble on with comments which none of us could make heads or tails out of. The solution used above worked here also. We let him teach one lesson all by himself, and he did not acquit himself well, as even he recognized. Again, that experience seemed to satisfy his need to be recognized as a full member of the class, and that was apparently all he was trying to accomplish.

At yet another church, a very dear man in the class, would interrupt the speaker with comments which seemed to not be very well thought out in his own mind before talking. And so after about 5 minutes, he would apologize profusely to the class for his interruptions, and do the same for the speaker when the class was over. It was awfully hard for anyone to get upset about his actions since there appeared to be absolutely no evil or selfish motives behind his actions. I tried my best to assure him that no one had any hard feelings against him, and I took an interest in his personal life, and that seemed to help a little. We are still friends.

IS GOD WEAK AND FOOLISH? (I CORINTHIANS 1:25)

This verse reads in the NEB, “Divine folly is wiser than the wisdom, and divine weakness stronger than man's strength.” Thus, at one stroke Paul appears to be taking a potshot at two key attributes of God: His omniscience and His omnipotence. And although this verse may cause some ultra-literalists consternation, it is obvious to most readers that Paul couldn't possibly be stating anything like this. Thus, we see the following translations and paraphrases which attempt to bring out the intended underlying thought in the verse:

    TEV renders it as “What seems to be” God's foolishness and weakness.

    The Message says, “Human wisdom is so cheap, so impotent, next to the seeming absurdity of God. Human strength can't begin to compete with God's 'weakness.'”

    And The Living Bible reads, “This so-called 'foolish' plan is far wiser than that of the wisest man, and God in his weakness – Christ dying on the cross – is far stronger than any man.”

In addition, even “human wisdom” is a phrase which can't be taken at its face value. The note in the Jerusalem Bible to this verse defines it as “philosophical speculation and tricks of rhetoric.”

So we have here a prime example of irony used to explain why some people, even those considered wise by earthly standards, just can't understand the reason why Jesus needed to die in order to save us. It is certainly a major sticking point with those followers of Islam.

There was once a showing on TV of the cartoon version of C.S. Lewis' “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.” It became the discussion of a group of us chemists during break time at work, and one of the most intelligent chemists at our table, who had seen the show, said that he just couldn't understand the logic behind the lion having to die in order to save the boy and Narnia from the witch's spell. It seemed like complete nonsense to him. And this was a PhD who had been raised in Roman Catholic schools. Interestingly, even some of the atheists in our group had absolutely no trouble in immediately recognizing the Christian symbolism in the story, even though they may have personally rejected the message.

Here is how various Bible scholars weigh in on the meaning in this verse:

“Apart from God's active involvement in preaching the message would come as a stumbling block to the Jews (who demanded miraculous signs) and foolishness to the Gentiles (who looked for wisdom). At this point the content and activity of preaching correspond, for both are marked by 'foolishness' (I Cor 1:21-25). Only to those who believe does it bring salvation (I Cor 1:21-23).” (Mounce)

“In the logic of human wisdom the cross of Christ is foolishness (1 Cor 1:18), but in reality the apparent weakness of God is a demonstration of his power (1 Cor 1:24-25).” (Schnable)

Stott states, “What was foolishness to Greeks, and continues to be to modern intellectuals who trust in their own wisdom, is nevertheless the wisdom of God. And what remains a stumbling-block to those who trust in their own righteousness, like the Jews of the first century, proves to be the saving power of God (1Cor. 1:18-25).”

Orr and Walther: “The foolishness of divine love is wiser than the wisdom of human pride; it is the unadorned, stark display of willingness to enter the worst conditions that ever faced a human being. This is wiser than the security sought by the skill of intelligent persons because it accomplishes what no human wisdom can achieve: the reclamation and remaking of the victims of sin and death. The weakness of God is the weakness of the death of Christ. In human experience death is the ultimate weakness, but the death of Christ is more powerful than all human strength. Paul's acquaintance with Christ caused him to change all his previous ways of thinking. Here was indeed the supreme metamorphosis. Now he understood that wisdom and strength were to be found in weakness, life in death.”

“The foolishness of God is that work of God which the world considers foolish: the work of God in Christ. What the world considers foolish and feeble, namely, the death of Christ, is salvation for believers. It saves whereas the world cannot save. That is why the foolishness of God is wiser than man. These words denote man in all his knowledge and power. God's revelation, which by men is thought foolish and weak, is stronger than the strongest work of man.” (Grosheide)

Fee: “Christ crucified as God's power, and therefore God's wisdom, at work in the world is the ultimate contradiction. Paul now brings closure to his argument by grounding the historical outworking of that reality in a theological axiom: God is both wiser and more powerful than mere human beings. But he says that by keeping intact the paradoxical language of the paragraph...In the cross God 'outsmarted' his human creatures and thereby nullified their wisdom. In the same cross God also 'overpowered' his enemies, with lavish grace and forgiveness, and thereby divested them of their strength.”

He continues: “One can scarcely conceive of a more important – and more difficult – passage for the church today than this one...Such 'weakness' in God is scandalous to those who think of themselves as righteous and thus in no need of forgiveness; but to those who recognize themselves as in need of mercy this is the good news that sets us free to follow him. Thus this weakness is also the ultimate power, and therefore the final wisdom of God.”