I TIMOTHY 1:1-14

I was thumbing through my old King James Bible given to me by my grandmother for Christmas when I was 13 years old, and I found a tiny piece of yellowing paper with the above Bible passage printed on it. I have no idea where it came from – probably as part of a Bible drill in church youth group. But I decided that it might be a sign from God that there was a message in those verses for me. I see nothing whatsoever wrong in accepting such fortuitous occurrences as possible examples of divine guidance. My problem, however, is with those who approach a portion of Scripture and immediately jump from reading it to finding an application for their own lives. In the process, they are leaping over the necessary step of understanding the text first.

Interpretation

My own personal way of understanding a passage is to first consider its context. It can be pictured as below with the adjacent verses:

A. “Charge” to Timothy (1:1-5)

B. “Certain persons” (1:6-11)

C. Thanksgiving (1:12-17) – ending “AMEN”

A'. “Charge” to Timothy (1:18-19a)

B'. “Certain persons” (1:19b-20)

Towner similarly notes the close relationship of 1:3-7 to 1:18-20 shown above, and Timothy as a child in 1:2 and 1:18 demonstrates the same thing. And in fact, the organization of the whole letter (described in the post “I Timothy: Introduction to the literary Structure”) indicates that the closest parallel/contrast between these verses in chapter 1 is found in I Timothy 6. That chapter not only describes true teachers of the word in marked contrast to the false teachers described in 1:6-11, but it also repeats in vv. 20-21 the earlier warning against false teachers.

Here were my initial observations upon reading through this passage:

Verses 1-2 Paul departs somewhat from his usual pattern of beginning with grace and peace by adding “mercy,” which becomes important for Paul personally at the end of this overall passage (in 1:13). Also, he does not repeat “grace and mercy” in the reverse order. Thirdly, he does not follow the opening greeting with a thanksgiving section, but plunges right into the problem that Timothy is facing at Ephesus, to which he is ministering. This all indicates, as commentators have pointed out, to the seriousness of the problem at that church.

Verses 3-7 The problems with the teachers in Ephesus are enumerated as teaching different doctrines, wasting their time on subjects that might not be heretical but were highly speculative, not having the final goal of teaching in mind, and wanting to teach when they were not yet equipped to do so.

Verses 8-11 This seems to be a digression of sorts that appears to say that the main purpose of the OT law was to bring people to a realization of their sin and not to be used for any other purpose. I am immediately reminded of the many sermons I heard growing up which continued to preach hell and brimstone to the already convinced. It seemed like a colossal waste of time to me and could have been spent much more profitably in building up the congregation according to the goals outlined in 1:5.

Verses 12-14 Happily, Paul now turns the spotlight on his own life of sinfulness in a section of self-refection on God's grace.

Questions to be answered

At this point, several points arise in my mind. There is the question of what the “myths and endless genealogies” consist of. I also wonder if I am correct in concluding that v. 5 outlines the goals that godly teaching should produce? Also, am I correct in my understanding of 1:8 regarding the purpose of the law?

To clear up these three points, I will turn to some trustworthy commentaries for guidance.

I Timothy 1:4 Regarding endless genealogies, I came up with the following suggestions:

NRSV Study Bible: “uncertain, but probably speculations on biblical [i.e. Old Testament] texts”

Stibbs: “possibly fanciful additions to, and interpretations of the OT”

Ward: He doubts that it has anything to do with much later Gnostic beliefs. More likely it “savors of rabbinical speculation...invented stories of patriarchal pedigrees.” He and many other commentators (such as D. Guthrie, Lea and Griffin, Knight, and Towner) cite the Book of Jubilees as a prime example of this tendency. Towner additionally cites pseudo-Philo and calls such speculations “wheel-spinning futility.” And Knight offers decisive reasons why it couldn't be Gnosticism as well as giving many other examples of early Jewish speculative writings of this sort.

Standing alone among the sources I consulted was Hanson who expresses the unsupported opinion that Paul would have seen nothing whatsoever wrong with the sorts of extrabiblical writings mentioned above. Therefore he must have been referring to some sort of Jewish proto-Gnosticism concerning the Creation proceeding from God through a whole host of lesser spiritual entities or emanations until finally arriving at the flawed material existence we see around us. This was in fact the belief of much later Gnosticism, but there is no evidence that the Jews of Paul's time ever speculated in that manner. Such an outlier as Hanson demonstrates that it is very dangerous to take any one scholar's, or especially non-scholar's, opinion as gospel truth.

I Timothy 1:5 As to whether this verse does indeed outline the final goal of all good teaching, I was pleased to see that interpretation confirmed in all of the sources I consulted. This may seem obvious to many of you, but I have been amazed before to discover that what I thought was the obvious meaning of a passage was not so obvious to others. And conversely, I have also been caught off guard when others pointed out to me that my personal interpretation was not correct.

Some additional implications I had not considered were pointed out by these commentators:

Both Ward and Stibbs stated that the four characteristics in this verse are acquired in reverse order.

Similarly, Knight says that love is the goal and it comes from the other three sources. And Towner says that the final goal is love, produced “from the perspective of three interior features of genuine belief.

Hanson perceptively notes, “The goal of teaching “is not meant to create endless discussion groups.” Years ago, I was convicted of that danger in my own teaching when I read C.S. Lewis' book The Great Divorce. There is a pastor in that fiction book who refuses to budge beyond “purgatory” to heaven because that would take all the fun out of teaching his small Bible study if all his speculative questions were definitively answered there.

I Timothy 1:8 My final concern was whether I was correct in my understanding of the purpose of the law mentioned in this verse. Lea and Griffin do agree in that interpretation, and Stibbs adds that the order of sins listed here is roughly the same as found in the Ten Commandments. Knight treats it as a very complicated question, but in the end agrees with the others that the Mosaic moral law is what is in mind here.

Again, Hanson is an outlier. He feels that this verse proves that Paul was not at all the author of this epistle since this verse takes a quite different view of the law than Paul would have been comfortable expressing. Hanson says that for this author, “using the law correctly simply means being a law-abiding citizen.” I can't help feeling that Hanson began with his skeptical view of Paul's authorship and then misconstrued the meaning of this verse in order to prove it.

Application

Armed with this background, I can now turn to personal application. And one useful way in which to do that is to put myself in the shoes of the three major characters in this section: Paul, Timothy, and the false teachers.

Paul

As a senior teacher helping out other teachers with less experience, I can to some small extent relate to Paul. For years, my main ministry was teaching in small groups and Sunday school. But slowly I came to the realization that it was time to step away from my role as the primary teacher and time to begin helping prepare others to take my place. I first did this by starting to function as the organizer of an ever-growing and ever-changing group of co-teachers. I would lay out each semester's lesson plan (some of which are found in this blog) with suggestions as to how each lesson could be approached. Many of these new teachers went on to start their own Sunday school classes. I also conducted a few more intensive one-on-one mentoring sessions with younger church leaders. In this activity I found that I often managed to learn as much as I imparted. Today, when it is more difficult to conduct any in-person interactions, I am relying on the internet to convey to others what I may have learned over the years.

I found that the greatest barrier to being a mentor rather than the actual presenter of material is to shed the egotism often involved in appearing before a group as the “expert.”

Timothy

By reading Paul's words as if they were directed toward me instead of Timothy, I can gain a quite different perspective. Although I may have somewhat more years of experience as a teacher than Timothy did at the time this letter was written, I cannot by any means feel that I am too advanced to relate to him. I have tried very hard, for one thing, to admit to myself and others that any pretense of intellectual superiority is due strictly to the scholarly sources I have stolen from. And in addition, God always has a way of cutting me down to size whenever I begin preaching instead of teaching the word. My words have often turned around to convict me more than my audience.

False Teachers

Here is one group that I would like to dismiss from consideration by simply saying that I can't relate to them at all. But I can't in good conscience do that. Actually, this is the group that I can relate to the best. They wasted their audience's time with endless genealogies, and I am tempted to just point to the Mormons as a modern example. Or I could point to my prime target in several posts: dispensationalists and their endless speculations regarding the details of the end times.

However, if I am honest with myself, I must admit that I have been guilty of the same sin when I bore my Sunday school classes with my lectures on the literary structures found in the Bible. As a former co-teacher was fond of saying toward the end of his class explaining a passage, “So what?” In other words, all that is nice to know, but what does it mean in my life? I began to recognize that the application aspect of Bible study was a weakness in my own presentations. So I have to constantly push myself in that uncomfortable direction and/or surround myself with those who can supplement my teachings with that missing component.

 

BOOK OF JAMES: STUDY LESSON OUTLINE

The Epistle of James is the closest thing the NT has to the book of Proverbs. And as such, it is best approached as a topical study rather than verse-by-verse. Here is one way of dividing lessons up for a group or individual study.

General Introduction to the Book

Partiality 1:9-11; 2:1-7

Law, Judging Others, Mercy, Forgiveness 2:8-13; 4:11-12

Faith and Works 1:22-25; 2:8-13

Caring for the Less Fortunate 1:27; 2:15-16

Teachers 3:1-5

Controlling the Tongue 1:26; 3:6-12

Fruits of the Spirit 1:16-18; 3:13-18

Renouncing Evil and Turning to God 1:19-21; 4:1-10

The Rich Who Defraud Others 4:13-5:6

Oaths and 5:19-20

Keeping One's Word 5:12

Behavior in the Face of Trials 1:2-4,12-15; 5:7-11

Prayer, Healing, and Elders 1:5-8; 5:13-18

Restoring Sinners

Individual lessons on James are found on this blog with the titles: The Book of James: Faith and Works, Judging and Partiality, On Prayer, The Rich, and The Tongue.

Alternatively, another interesting study of James can be had by looking for parallels between his teachings and the teachings of Jesus found in the Sermon on the Mount. From this sort of comparison, it is easy to see that James probably had the mind of Jesus more than any other NT writer.

 

"FALLEN, FALLEN IS BABYLON THE GREAT" REVELATION 17-19

The destruction of Babylon is announced in Rev. 14:8 and then described in great detail in chapters 17-19. But the question to ask is, “What is Babylon?” And commentators are no more in agreement on that point than they are concerning any other portion of this difficult book. So below I have attempted to wade through the various major opinions and group them according to their answer to the question just posed: What in the world is Babylon? Or is it even in this world?

But first, we need to recognize that the above chapters in Revelation are the same as the rest of the book in being permeated with allusions to the Old Testament (see my post “Old Testament in the Book of Revelation”).

Thus, much of the description of Babylon's downfall is similar to the curses and taunt songs regarding the nations and found in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Especially close to the language in Revelation are the predictions regarding Tyre found in Isaiah 23 and Ezekiel 26-28.

Nineveh, Tyre, Samaria and Jerusalem are called “the great whore” elsewhere in Ezekiel.

The phrase “many waters” identifies the literal Babylon in Jeremiah 51:13.

Isaiah 21:9 talks about the downfall of the gods of Babylon.

Nineveh is called “the great city” in the Book of Jonah, and Phillip Cary points out that both Babylon and Nineveh were well known persecutors of Israel.

The prediction of literal Babylon's fall is described in the Book of Daniel.

The whore of Babylon may have Queen Jezebel in mind as her prototype according to several commentators.

But similarities such as above are not definitive by any means since it is obvious that the Book of Revelation utilizes much OT language without actually saying that these events will be fulfillments of anything found in the OT. So here are the major options for identification of “Babylon” in Revelation 17-19. I have listed them in order, starting with what I personally believe to be the least likely possibilities and ending with my own vote for the most likely interpretation.

The Capital of a Future World Empire

This is the usual explanation given by some futurists and almost all dispensationalists. This world empire was definitively identified by Hal Lindsey years ago as the EU since its 10 nations at the time represented the 10 horns on the beast in Daniel. Of course, that union now includes 27 nations at last count, proving that Lindsey's stated method of using the newspaper to interpret the Bible is somewhat flawed. In addition, Beale points out that it is just as logical to equate the seven heads on the beast (Rev. 17:9) with the total of seven heads found on the beasts in Daniel 7:3-7, obviously representing a span of years, so that “the seven mountains and kings represent the oppressive power of world governments throughout the ages.”

One of the main dispensationalist leaders, John Walvoord, is a little less sensationalist than Lindsey when he says that Babylon will be the name of the “seat of power of the great world empire which will dominate the second half of the last seven years before Christ's return.” That allows him to retain a “literal” meaning for the designation Babylon since “ancient Babylon will be rebuilt as the final capital city of the beast's empire.”

John Phillips provides another example of typical dispensationalist reasoning: multiple fulfillments. He admits that the OT prophecies of Babylon being destroyed were mainly fulfilled millennia ago, but that is not the same as all of the prophecies being literally fulfilled. Thus, he points out that predictions of Babylon's destruction in Isaiah 13 did not involve the disturbances in the sky predicted in verses 6, 9-10, and 13.

But his explanation falls flat on at least two counts. It totally ignores the typical poetic, hyperbolic, and symbolic language associated with OT prophetic and apocalyptic writings. It also ignores the well accepted fact that time periods being referred to in the prophets often collapse or telescope near events with far distant events. One obvious example is Peter's quotation from Joel on the Day of Pentacost when he said that the coming of the Holy Spirit predicted in that passage had been fulfilled. However, Peter stopped right before verses in Joel mentioning disturbances in the heavens since that was going to happen at a much later date.

Jerusalem

Equally unlikely is the identification of Babylon as Jerusalem, but that interpretation has been proposed by several commentators. For example, P. W. L. Walker thinks that the language in Revelation 18 “appears to reflect the recent fall of Jerusalem.” That may be true, but the same could be said concerning the decline of any other important city or empire in the past. After citing a number of literal events in ancient Rome that have parallels with the “Babylon” in Revelation, J. M. Ford surprisingly expresses the opinion that Babylon is in fact Jerusalem. The reason for that identification mainly stems from the fact that Ford feels most of the Book of Revelation was written by John the Baptist. But she is practically alone with that opinion. Beale cites Chilton, who agrees with Ford that the Babylon of Revelation 17-19 is Jerusalem. Finally, the city in Revelation 11 appears to be Jerusalem, and it is also called “the great city.” But others such as J. Munck feel that the city in that chapter is more likely to be Rome since the two witnesses who are martyred there are obviously Paul and Peter.

However, Beale counters that their attempts to describe Jerusalem as a major economic power in the Mediterranean region (as portrayed in Revelation) are highly unconvincing.

The Apostate Church

Due to the obvious correspondences between Rome and the Babylon of Rev. 17-19, some commentators, especially those of earlier generations, saw a direct parallel between Babylon and the Roman Catholic Church. One is, however, much less likely today to hear of that exact correspondence, especially since the drastic weakening of the Catholic Church's sway over politics and economics in Europe.

Rome

This seat of the powerful political and economic powerhouse, the Roman Empire, would seem to be by far the most natural candidate for “Babylon.” And there is much supporting evidence behind that identification. For one thing, Peter passes on greetings in I Peter 5:13 from “she [your sister church] who is in Babylon,” which most scholars feel is a veiled reference to Rome. Similarly, Babylon was used as a secret code-word for Rome in other Jewish writings from around the first century AD such as 2 Esdras 3:1-2; 2 Barnabas 11:1; and the Sibylline Oracles 5. The reason for such an indirect reference was to be able to criticize Rome without getting into trouble with the authorities.

Mounce states that Babylon was chosen as the designation for Rome because it “has always been symbolic of opposition to the advance of the kingdom of God.” More specifically, both Babylon and Rome destroyed Jerusalem. The prominent evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce similarly equates Babylon to Rome.

Beasley-Murray explains that “Rome was, to John, the quintessence of the anti-God spirit manifested in earlier ages but now come to the full. As such it was the last Empire over which the devil should hold sway.” Hobbs strictly applies these chapters to Rome of that day. Both he and Payne say that Revelation 17-19 predicted the fall of the Roman empire in 476 AD.

Ideal, or Symbolic, View

Many commentaries will point out the similarities between the description of Babylon in these chapters with historical events related to the historic Roman Empire, even down to the exact succession of rulers listed. But Beale points out that it is in reality difficult to get the details to match up exactly. So considering the wide range of allusions throughout Revelation to both current and historic events, it is not surprising that a number of influential commentators take a basically idealist view of the book. In other words, everything found in it is symbolic of a more important theological point. Here are some comments from those scholars:

Hoekema: “Babylon stands for the worldly city – the forces of secularism and godlessness which are in opposition to the kingdom of God.”

Robbins: “This is world power...still present today in the organized evil of the world against the church.”

Seebass: “Although Babylon the Great has some of the features of historic Babylon and Rome of the time and contemporary power, she “is the type of worldly power in rebellion against God and the antitype of the heavenly Jerusalem.”

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: “Babylon stands not for a specific power but more generally for world power in opposition to God – the empire where God's people live in exile.”

Rome as the Prime Illustration of Opposition to the God Over the Ages

Although the idealist view appears to be the most satisfactory one, it is still missing a nuance found in this final approach to the text. The part not wholly accounted for by some idealists is the wealth of references to historic Rome of the time of John's writing. Thus, we have the following clarifications from the authors cited below.

Leon Morris: “For John, Babylon is the great city, the symbol of man in community opposed to the things of God...though doubtless to men of the first century there was no better illustration of what Babylon means than contemporary Rome. John is looking forward to the overthrow of all the evil that Babylon stands for.”

Beale: Babylon “is the entire corrupt economic-religious system...Nevertheless the wicked religious-economic culture of the evil Roman world system is the focus.” “The invasion of the Roman Empire by the Goths and Huns in the fifth and sixth centuries are not fulfillments of but only illustrations and adumbrations of the last conflict narrated in Rev. 17:16.”

W. Hendricksen: Babylon is a symbol which “indicates that which allures, tempts, seduces, draws people away from God, the heathen center of wickedness, the world as center of industry, commerce, are, culture, etc.” “Its form changes; its essence remains.” Thus, he explains, in John's day it was typified by Rome.

Ellul criticizes those scholars who simply treat Babylon as a secret code ford for Rome used so that the political authorities could not understood what was said. By contrast, Ellul says, “Babylon is not the symbol of Rome; it is Rome, a historical reality which is transformed into the symbol of a more profound and polymorphous reality of which Babylon has traditionally been the expression.” This includes “the perfection of political power,” “the city, concentration of the culture and work of man,” “being in communication (by sacred prostitution) with the religious and spiritual powers, with the satanic sources,” “commerce and wealth,” and “the one who kills the saints.”

 

PSALMS OF PENITENCE

The following four psalms are believed to be a result of David's adultery with Bathsheba and the subsequent murder of Uriah. The apparent chronological order is 6, 38, 51 and 32. Read in this order they represent the different stages of David's progression.

Psalm 6: Grief

a. What is the purpose of the trial David experienced?

b. In what ways did this trial affect David?

c. What is David's overall attitude in this psalm?

d. What two things did David dread?

e. What was the result of David's plea?

Psalm 38: Suffering

a. What did David confess? What did he claim? What was his plea?

b. In what ways was David suffering?

c. What is David's reaction in the middle of the psalm?

d. What things about God did David ask or observe?

e. What was God's response?

Psalm 51: Plea for Forgiveness

a. What is the nature of David's guilt?

b. In what ways did this trial affect David? 

c. Against whom did David sin?

d. What can we learn in this psalm about sin, confession of sin, and the basis of God's forgiveness?

e. How did David respond to God's actions?

Psalm 32: Forgiveness

a. What is the nature of David's prayer?

b. What is the sequence of actions by David and God as represented in this psalm?

c. What is involved in forgiveness by God? On what grounds can forgiveness be justly granted?

d. What does this psalm teach us about righteousness?

e. What are correct responses to God's forgiveness?

There are several other progressions of events given in the Bible, some leading upward and some downward:

James 1:2-4

My brothers, whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it nothing but joy because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance; and let endurance have its full effect so that you may become mature, lacking in nothing.

James 1:14-15

One is tempted by one's own desires, lured and enticed by it. Then when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown gives birth to death.

Judges 2:11-22

In these verses are described the sequence of events in the life of Israel that are repeated multiple times, indicating that the people never did learn their lesson during that time period.

sin

servitude

supplication

savior

salvation

silence

These various sequences, and others in the Bible, teach us several lessons:

1. When we are in the middle of unpleasant circumstances, we should look ahead to the inevitable conclusion of the chain of events and not get too discouraged by the present situation.

2. Our response in facing trying situations may have wide-reaching consequences in our lives. It can lead to freedom or bondage, life or death.

3. If we don't learn the lessons from our mistakes, we may be doomed to repeat them with the same unpleasant results.

4. But through it all, God is there to give comfort and patiently guide us.

 

JAMES: STUDY OUTLINE GUIDE

The Epistle of James is the closest thing the NT has to the Book of Proverbs. And as such, it is best approached as a topical study rather than verse-by-verse. Here is one way of dividing lessons up for a group or individual study.

General Introduction to the Book                       1:1

Partiality                                                             1:9-11; 2:1-7

Law, Judging Others, Mercy, Forgiveness         2:8-13; 4:11-12

Faith and Works                                                 1:22-25; 2:8-13

Caring for the Less Fortunate                            1:27; 2:15-16

Teachers                                                             3:1-5

Controlling the Tongue                                     1:26; 3:6-12

Fruits of the Spirit                                             1:16-18; 3:13-18

Renouncing Evil and Turning to God               1:19-21; 4:1-10

The Rich Who Defraud Others                         4:13-5:6

Behavior in the Face of Trials                          1:2-4,12-15; 5:7-11

Oaths and Keeping One's Word                       5:12

Prayer, Healing, and Elders                             1:5-8; 5:13-18

Restoring Sinners                                             5:19-20

Alternatively, another interesting study of James can be had by looking for parallels between his teachings and the teachings of Jesus found in the Sermon on the Mount. From this sort of comparison, it is easy to see that James probably had the mind of Jesus more than any other NT writer.

 

CHILD SACRIFICE IN THE BIBLE

“There is no question that during certain periods of early Hebrew history, children were routinely sacrificed to Yahweh or (more often) competing gods or idols.” This startling statement is made by Brian Bolton in his article “God Hates Children” in a 2017 issue of American Atheist magazine. I would like to briefly review all the examples of child sacrifice found in the OT to see if his statement holds up. Some of these are enumerated in the article above, but I have actually added to his list.

However, first let's consider the logic behind Bolton's statement. As an example of God hating children (as in the title to his article), he cites the fact that some people of Hebrew origin at some time in history took it upon themselves to sacrifice their children to God or gods. This lack of overall logic follows Bolton in all of the articles I have read by him. The only way in which his reasoning would hold together is if he considers (which I know he does from his other writings) that everything in the Bible is made up anyway, so anything mentioned in it that is uncomfortable to readers is due to the immoral authors who fabricated it. Of course, that brings up another contradiction, for how can he declare anything immoral without an absolute standard by which to judge it?

Genesis 22:1-12 Bolton explains that God first demanded that Isaac be made a human sacrifice to Him, but then changed His mind at the last minute. The nonsensical nature of that assertion is disproved by the facts that (a) it is clearly explained in the text (vv. 12,16) that the whole thing was a test of Abraham's obedience, (b) a substitute animal sacrifice was in readiness nearby (v. 13), and (c) God had clearly told Abraham in the previous chapter that Isaac was to be the son of promise (unless, of course, that was another thing that God had second thoughts about and then changed his mind back).

Also, since according to Bolton it was at this point in history that God “had doubts about the advisability of child sacrifice,” then it is certainly impossible to blame God for his hatred of children by citing subsequent human sacrifices in biblical history.

Exodus 13 As another supposed example of God changing his mind regarding child sacrifice, Bolton cites this chapter in which God lays down the general rule saying that after the people have entered Canaan they are to dedicate their firstborn to Him. In the first place, it is not clear what kind of dedication is in mind for their children. Then the passage goes into more detail to explain that the firstborn sons have to be redeemed (presumably with an animal sacrifice). This is not a change of God's mind since this pattern of starting with an overview and only then proceeding to the details is found elsewhere in the Bible. For example, look at the three-fold description of Creation (Gen. 1:1; 1:2-2:3; 2:4-25), the instructions regarding the number of animals to bring aboard the ark, or teachings on mutual submission in Ephesians 5:21; 5:22-6:9.

Leviticus 27:28-29 is then quoted by Bolton to demonstrate that apparently God has changed His mind back again regarding dedication of the firstborn since now it states that things dedicated to the Lord cannot be redeemed. We have merely to point out that this passage concerns the practice of herem when conducting certain holy wars in which God specifically states that all the inhabitants are to be killed. It has nothing to do with commanding the Israelites to kill their own children. And if we follow the story further we will see that even dedication of children for service in God's house is satisfied by the service of the levites instead.

Judges 11:29-39 This is the well-known story of Jephthah making a rash vow to sacrifice whatever or whomever greets him as he returns from battle. It turns out to be his daughter, and he has to fulfill his oath. As mitigating factors here, Jephthah is half-Canaanite; God nowhere blesses his actions; the actions of any human characters in the Bible, especially in the Book of Judges, are given as examples of what happened, not what should have happened; and finally it is not really clear what his daughter's ultimate fate is since she bewails, not her upcoming death, but her virginity. The last comment may indicate that she has to dedicate her subsequent life entirely to God in service rather than ever getting married and having children. If this interpretation is true, it may be another example of God redeeming someone from the death penalty, as a type of our redemption from the penalty of ultimate death by Christ's own sacrifice.

II Kings 16:3-4 // II Chronicles 28:3 King Ahaz of Judah is introduced as one who did not do right in God's sight. And as an example, it states that he followed the pagan custom of neighboring lands by making his son walk through fire. This has been variously explained as some sort of fire ritual, branding of the skin, or actual burnt offering to a pagan god. Again, I am not sure what Bolton is trying to point out by citing this example of obvious disobedience to God's commands.

I Kings 16:34 There are two ways of looking at this story, and in neither one is child sacrifice taught. The context is events that happened during the reign of Ahab, who according to verses 31-32 was a Baal worshiper, and displeased God more than any king of Israel before him (v. 33). This leads directly to the short story of the rebuilding of Jericho despite the fact that Joshua had placed a curse on whomever would attempt it. Apparently, a man named Hiel of Bethel did rebuilt it but lost his two sons in the process. In the first place, Bethel was not known as being a very pious town (see the mocking of Elisha by inhabitants near Bethel in II Kings 2:23-25). Secondly, his loss of two children is cited as a result of Joshua's curse rather than a statement of Hiel's purposeful sacrifice of them. Thirdly, even if Hiel did practice child sacrifice (to whom it is not stated), it is quite a stretch to cite that God approved of the action.

II Kings 17:17 This chapter is merely a litany of all the evil practices of the people of Judah at the time, including “making their children pass through the fire.” Several times in the passage it is made quite clear that God was punishing them for their actions, certainly not approving of them.

II Kings 21:6 // II Chronicles 33:6 Similarly, King Manasseh of Judah is condemned for his pagan practices.

II Kings 23:10 In marked contrast to the kings cited above, the pious King Josiah actually defiled the place where ritual child sacrifices had been conducted. And in this verse, we even learn that those sacrifices had been made not to Yahweh, but to Molech.

Zechariah 13:2-3 This is a restatement of the teaching in Deuteronomy 13 regarding sons and daughters who are false prophets and must suffer the death penalty. The only new wrinkle here is that it is the parents who will execute the death sentence, not the community. But the more important issues are given below:

No matter how one may wish to interpret this passage, it cannot be construed as a commanded child sacrifice to God, but an execution instead to stop false prophecies.

This “command” is in the context of Zechariah 12-14 which is an eschatological prophecy of all the things that will transpire on “that day,” the Day of the Lord. It is not a teaching intended for the here and now.

In light of the many occasions in the Bible where “sword” is used in a metaphorical sense rather than a literal one, and in view of the fact that we are reading a portion of Scripture that engages in poetic, hyperbolic, symbolic language – it is best not to consider it a literal description of what will happen. Thus, Ellis says that it is “inconceivable that the prophet is actually condoning homicide. Some kind of decisive denunciation must be meant...”

Similarly, Higginson feels that it refers to “parental correction” to “chastise him for the folly of his ways and the error into which he would lead the nation.” And Pao and Schnabel feel that these words predict “the breakdown of family solidarity in the last days.”

The most decisive argument against taking a literal interpretation of Zechariah 13:2-3 is the fact that the immediately following verses show that the result of the parents chastising their sons who are false prophets is that they “will be ashamed,” quit pretending to be prophets, and explain to those who ask concerning their “wounds” that it was due to those who loved them (my paraphrase).

In closing, one should look at Jeremiah 7:31, Ezekiel 16:20-22, Ezekiel 20:30-31, and Ezekiel 23:37-39. It is impossible to say that God hates children after reading His denunciation of those who sacrifice them.

 

THE OLD TESTAMENT IN BOOK OF REVELATION

Recommended books:

Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy by J. Barton Payne, Harper and Row,

Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, ed., Baker Academic.

There is a very strong relationship between the OT and Revelation since the latter is filled with more 

OT language and imagery than any other book in the NT. Statistics vary from 400-1,000 OT 

references. As a matter of fact, whole chapters in Revelation appear to be loosely organized using 

chapters in Daniel or Ezekiel as models. But there is not a single direct quote and certainly no phrase 

such as “Thus was (will be) fulfilled what was spoken in the prophets, etc.” So that leaves several 

options open to understanding the relationship of a given passage in Revelation to one in the OT that 

uses the same language.

    A. same event described

        1. applied to nation of Israel

        2. applied to the Christ and the church

    B. OT fulfillment foreshadow future events (multiple fulfillments—some elevate this to a law and feel that all prophecies have to have multiple fulfillments)

    C. similar language and imagery employed

    D. eclectic view

Example 1: The Rider on the White Horse

Rev. 6:1-8 White horse/bow—“came out conquering and to conquer,” Bright red horse/sword

—slaughter; Black horse/scales—famine; Pale green horse/death followed by Hades—kill by the 

sword, famine, pestilence and wild animals.

Rev. 19:11,14,19,21 Man on white horse is the Word of God accompanied by an army on white horses. 

He judges and makes war

Zech. 1:8 An angel riding a red horse. Behind him are red, sorrel and white horses. They are 

responsible for patrolling the earth. All is at peace. The rider pleads for the cause of Israel.

Zech. 6:1-8 Four chariots with red, black, white and gray (dappled?) horses. They are four 

winds/spirits who patrol the four points of the compass.

There are quite different understandings of the man on the white horse in Rev. 6 and many of these 

interpretations fail to make use of the possible parallels in Zechariah at all. For example, one professor 

who will remain anonymous only utilizes the immediate context in Revelation 6. Zechariah parallels 

aren't mentioned, in this case probably because they don't really help his line of reasoning at all. It is an 

interesting example because it is practically a textbook example of how not to interpret Scripture.

Prof. X's interpretation

Step 1: He can't be Christ since Christ conquers his enemies at the end of the Tribulation, not at 

the start.

Step 2: Therefore he is the Antichrist.

Step 3: Lack of arrow in his bow means he is not there to conquer militarily.

Step 4: Instead he is there to set up a world government.

There are a number of problems with this reasoning, as some of you may have already picked up on.

In Step 1 he makes several hidden assumptions: starts with a particular systematic theology as a given 

and interprets individual passage in terms of it (circular reasoning. He is basically saying it can't be 

Christ since that would contradict my theory), assumes that the Tribulation is being described (rather 

than the Battle of Armageddon, for example), assumes that all passages in Revelation are given in 

strictly chronological order, and assumes that it is a literal personage (even though the details such as 

the colored horses are taken as figurative and the fourth rider is specifically stated to be Death).

Step 2: only offers two choices (fallacy of the excluded middle)

Step 3: “Literal” interpretation of the bow goes against the fact that there are over 60 references to bow 

in the OT (all in the context of war) and only 6 of them specifically mention arrows. It's like we might 

say, “I went to war with my rifle.” We don't bother mentioning that the rifle is loaded.

Step 4: He again limits options to only two choices: war or world government. (Why not through 

economic or religious means?)

This is also a good example of a chain of reasoning. There are 7 statements or assumptions which all 

must be correct to prove his point. If even one assumption fails, the whole chain of reasoning is 

broken. 

 Another way to look at it is that even if each step of his reasoning has a 80% probability of being 

true, the probability that all seven steps are true is only about 20%.

Ellul—uses Rev. 19 as context. White = Word of God, Pale = Death (from Rev. 6), Red = Political 

Power, Black = Economic Power. These are the four main forces controlling all activities on earth.

Hodges—notes that in Zechariah 1, the man riding the red horse is an angel of the LORD who 

intercedes with God on behalf of Israel (v. 11-12). That informs who the four horsemen are.

Borders on taking the first approach to OT texts—they portray the same events or people. Same four 

horsemen scout out the land and plead for God to strike down the enemies of Israel in Zech. 1, then get

into chariots to prepare themselves for war in Zech. 6, and finally ride out to attack in Rev. 6. The 

question then becomes: are they going to attack the enemies of Israel in the future or those of the 

church? That would have to be decided by a whole separate argument.

Ford—By analogy with Zech. 1, the first rider (on white horse this time) is an angel of the LORD and 

the rest are subservient to him (lesser angels/winds).

Beale – He notes that in both Zechariah 1 and 6, all the horsemen are of the same type so the same 

must apply to Revelation—either all evil or all godly forces. Since the OT horses cover the whole 

earth, the plagues of the Revelation horses affect the whole earth.

Adamson—on Zech. 6:8, he says that God's conquest of Babylon shown here foreshadows his 

complete victory over all his enemies in the future. Clear example of Approach B (multiple fulfillments 

of prophecy).

Meyers and Meyers—symbolism of two Zechariah visions refer to, respectively, God's omniscience 

and his omnipresence (4 compass points) and omnipotence (chariots). All in mind in Rev. passage 

perhaps.

Metzger and Mounce say only the general imagery of the Zechariah vision has been adapted for use 

in Revelation—details are quite different. So we shouldn't push the parallels too far.

Finally, some see Ezek. 14 as a much closer parallel passage and interpret Revelation in terms of that 

passage. For thus says the Lord GOD: How much more when I send upon Jerusalem my four 

deadly acts of judgment, sword, famine, wild animals, and pestilence, to cut off humans and 

animals from it! Yet, survivors shall be left in it, sons and daughters who will be brought out; 

they will come out to you. Ezekiel 14:21-22

Note that if this is the closest reference, then a future attack on Israel is indicated. Nearest fulfillment 

of  the Ezekiel prophecy was attack on Jerusalem by Babylon in 597 BC. However, literalists point out 

that wild animals were not used as weapons by the attackers in this event. So true fulfillment must be 

in the future (the Tribulation or Battle of Armaggedon, for example) when Jerusalem will be attacked. 

But this interpretation runs counter to the statements in Rev. 6 that the whole earth or a large portion of 

it is affected, not just Jerusalem. More likely explanation is obtained from Jeremiah 15:2-3 where the 

same four plagues are mentioned and the role of the animals is to eat the unburied bodies of those 

killed by the other three plagues, or in several passages in Isaiah regarding judgment on the nations; 

beasts are mentioned as an indication that the cities will be totally deserted and only wild animals will 

live there. If these explanations of the wild beasts are taken into account, the Ezekiel prophecy has 

already been literally fulfilled and there is no need to look for a further fulfillment unless again one 

believes that all prophecies must have multiple fulfillments.

Or we could look at this parallel language between Ezekiel and Revelation as just the use of common 

imagery for the tools of God's judgment. This demonstrates that we have to take each case of parallel 

language between Revelation and OT on its own merits.

Example 2:

Let's go a passage in Revelation 11 next. Two witnesses who prophesy for 3 ½ years: “They have 

authority to shut the sky, so that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying, and they 

have authority over the waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with every kind of 

plague, as often as they desire.” (Rev. 11:6)

First, if we look at the Rev. 11 passage literally in its immediate context, it refers to two individuals 

who each have the combined power of Moses and Elijah. But many commentators tend to ignore this 

simple fact and separate these two powers, one to each witness, in which case one of them would have 

the characteristics of Elijah and the other of Moses. The idea of Elijah being brought back from heaven 

just in order to to be killed seems a bit strange. But we should admit that the passage is a bit too 

ambiguous to be understood on its own. so we could go to either Malachi or the Gospels for further 

clarification since the second coming of Elijah is mentioned in both.

Malachi 3:1

See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will 

suddenly come to his temple.

Malachi 4:5-6

Lo, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes. He 

will turn the hearts of parents to their children and the hearts of children to their parents, so that 

I will not come and strike the land with a curse.

There was great expectation in Israel for Elijah's return during the time of Christ-- (a) John the Baptist 

was asked why he was baptizing if he wasn't Elijah, (b) Jesus asked, “who do people say that I am?” 

And some replied that he was Elijah, and (c) a bystander at the cross said, “Let us see if Elijah will 

come to save him.”

We can start with OT prophecies and assume that (a) they must be literally fulfilled in some future time 

since a literally reincarnated Elijah hasn't appeared yet (even John the Baptist denied that he was the 

literal reincarnation of Elijah) and (b) he must appear right before the Tribulation (no telescoping of 

prophecy). From this data we can make the logical deduction that one of the witnesses in Revelation 11 is 

probably Elijah himself who will appear at some future time.

But what if we start from the NT instead?

Luke 1:16-17

Gabriel to Zechariah: He will turn many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. With the 

spirit and power of Elijah he will go before him to turn the hearts of parents to their children, 

and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous, to make ready a people prepared for the 

Lord.

Matt. 11:14

This (John the Baptist) is the one about whom it is written,

“See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.

...and if you are willing to accept it (or him), he is Elijah who is to come.”

Matt. 17:10-13 (Mark 9:11-13)

And the disciples asked him, “Why, then, do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” He 

replied, “Elijah is indeed coming and will restore all things; but I tell you that Elijah has already 

come, and they did not recognize him, but they did to him whatever they pleased.” .....Then the 

disciples understood that he was speaking to them about John the Baptist.

When pressed concerning Jesus' words, those who opt for a future appearance of Elijah have four 

responses: (1) the principle of multiple fulfillments, which in this case comes close to denying the 

pronouncements of both Jesus and the angel Gabriel, (2) distinguish the two prophecies in Malachi  

--the first applies to John the Baptist and the second one to Elijah himself (But both prophecies are 

quoted in regard to John the Baptist's coming), (3) adopt a minority opinion regarding Jesus' words “If 

you accept it.” (“only if you accept my words, will John become Elijah,” instead of as a Hebrew idiom 

meaning “I know this may be hard to comprehend, but”), or (4) interpret Matt. 17 to mean Jesus' 

acceptance of two fulfillments, one past and one future (again, not the normal understanding. Majority 

interpretation is that He is first confirming the statement from Malachi and the scribes, and then 

correcting their understanding by switching tenses suddenly). In other words, it is similar to Christ's 

words in John's Gospel: “The time is coming and now is.”

So you have your choice of beginning with the OT prophecy, the comments from the Gospels, or the 

Revelation passage and interpreting the other passages in terms of whichever verse you start with. It is 

a general principle of interpretation that one should begin with the clearest passage and interpret the 

more difficult passages in terms of it. If both the angel Gabriel and Jesus say that John the Baptist 

represents the fulfillment of Malachi, then perhaps we don't need to go to Revelation for any further 

fulfillment.

Of 33 evangelical scholarly commentaries on Malachi and the Gospels that I consulted on this subject, 

only 3 stated that there would be a future appearance of Elijah. All three were professors at Dallas 

Theological Seminary and their comments were almost word-for-word the same as each other. This is 

interesting because even John Walvoord, past president of DTS, stated that he didn't believe a literal 

Elijah was indicated in Rev. 11. By contrast, among the first 30 Google hits on “Elijah and John the 

Baptist” there were 9 (almost a third) who felt there would be a future appearance of the literal Elijah. 

So you can see that the interpretation depends heavily on the sources you consult, whether popular or 

scholarly, and on the commentator's theological training.

 

HEBREWS: STUDY LESSON OUTLINE

Below is the lesson plan we used in our Sunday school class some years ago. I was responsible for the divisions into each lesson, but one of my co-teachers came up with the often catchy titles:

“Listen up, folks” (an introduction to the book) 1:1-2a

Until We Get It Right 1:2b-2:18

The Spiritual Ear: Don't Leave Home Without It 3:1-19

Hear & Obey, For There's No Other Way 4:1-13

Nearer My God To Thee 4:14-5:10

Beyond the Basics 5:11-6:20

The Perfect Permanent Personal Priest 7:1-28

Obsolescence 8:1-13

The Greater, More Perfect Tabernacle 9:1-28

The Perfecter of Saints 10:1-18

The Soul Preserver 10:19-39

Face That Pleases 11:1-16

Full of Faith 11:17-31

Running the Race 11:32-12:11

Responsibility and Gratitude 12:12-29

Consistent Living 13:1-14

Spiritual Service 13:15-25

Notice that the lessons do not always cover a complete chapter, as many teachers are used to doing. That is because we must remember that the chapter divisions did not come about until the Middle Ages, and so chapter breaks are not always located at the proper spots.

And if that doesn't confuse you or your students enough, there is another more adventurous way in which to divide the lessons up. And it is based on what I believe to be the divisions actually intended by the author. My proposal is summarized in the post “Hebrews: Introduction to the Literary Structure.” The organization I arrived at is shown below, and it takes the familiar mirror-image form found throughout the OT and NT:

I. Introduction: God's Old 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)

So if you would like a shorter 7-week study of the book, each of the paired sections could be taken in conjunction with one another:

1. God's New and Old Teachings Compared (1:1-2:18; 13:1-25) (Sections I-II, II'-I')

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

3. Believers Tested Today (12:3-29) (Section III')

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

5. Apostasy and Confidence: Part II (10:19-12:2) (Section IV')

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

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

Of course, some of these chunks of Scripture may be too large to treat in a single lesson and could be broken up into two separate sessions.

 

DUBIOUS HYMN LYRICS

In many of these posts I have critically considered comments from Bible scholars. However, for this one offering, I would like to turn attention to hymn lyrics instead. And it really isn't that great a stretch since many of them are filled with theological statements and biblical references. We old-timers are often known for criticizing for several reasons modern songs sung in church, and I must admit that I still think the droning tunes and repeated lyrics are more appropriate to Hindu chanting than Christian worship. However, I can't really criticize the words to most of them since they are often filled with rich theological statements. Therefore I am going to turn my attention instead to the good old-fashioned hymns written from the 1700's to the 1940's.

In an earlier post (“Revelation 10:6”) I picked on James Black's popular 1893 song “Roll Call” and its reliance on the faulty King James translation of Revelation 10:6. So while I am at it, I might as well take some additional minor issue with the lyric “When the roll is called up yonder, I'll be there.” The biblical reference is to the Lamb's Book of Life (Revelation 20:12; 21:27) in which the names of the saved are entered. If the roll call is made based on that book, however, it is clear that we will not be “up yonder” at the time the names are read. Instead, we will be on a transfigured earth.

Robert Lowry's great Easter hymn “Low in the grave he lay” also contains the questionable assertion that Jesus was lying in the grave “waiting the coming day.” We are not privy to exactly what happened to Jesus during the time between his death and resurrection, but he wasn't exactly inactive. For one thing, he promised the thief on the cross that he would be with Him in paradise that very day. And also the tantalizing hints in I Peter 3:18-20; 4:6 indicate that Jesus was perhaps active in the underworld during the same time period.

Two standard invitation hymns of the past were certainly not my favorites while growing up, but the reason had little to do with whether or not they expressed biblical sentiments. One was “All to Jesus I Surrender,” and I will admit that some of my problem with it arose from guilt on my part due to the fact that I had not yet surrendered to Jesus. The other reason I disliked the song was the strange minor key that it was written in; it always gave me the creeps, and still does to some extent.

The other hymn was “Almost Persuaded,” and my major objection was to the negative note with which it ends: “almost, but lost.” It seemed designed to put a guilt trip on those in the congregation who had not come forward at the altar call, and even cause those believers present to doubt their own salvation. Now that I realize that the words were directly inspired by the encounter of Paul with King Agrippa recorded in Acts 26, I am much more comfortable with the hymn.

Then there were the more obscure Bible references found in the lyrics of two hymns in particular. “Sweet Hour of Prayer” contains the line: “Till, from Mount Pisgah's lofty height, I view my home and take my flight.” The New Bible Dictionary actually explains that there is no such one location called Pisgah, much less Mount Pisgah. The word is really a general description for any high ground having a good view of the surrounding countryside, and several pisgahs are mentioned in the OT. However, the most prominent one is that in Deuteronomy 3:27 on which Moses stood in order to view the Promised Land. So the lyricist is using metaphorical language to compare Christians on the brink of death being within sight of their future destination. But this is a very flawed analogy since Moses was allowed to see the Promised Land but barred from entering it, unlike our own situation. Just my nitpicking comment.

A second hymn which I always had my doubts about was “Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing.” It contains the obscure line: “here I raise my Ebenezer, by Thy help I'm come.” I was never sure what my Ebenezer consisted of and whether I would be comfortable raising it. But now I have looked into it and found the following, in case you happen to be curious. The word appears only three times in the Bible (in I Samuel 4-7) and the Hebrew literally translates as “stone of the help.” It was erected by Samuel to commemorate a victory over the Philistines. Because it is such an obscure reference, modern hymn versions have changed the words to “here I raise my sign of victory” instead. Probably a well needed change in my mind.

However, the hymn that I have definitely been the most reluctant to sing over the years is the ever popular “In the Garden” by C. Austin Miles. I had always assumed that C. Austin Miles was a female since the hymn is filled with almost embarrassingly sentimental and personal images of romantic love between a man and woman. I figured that it might make sense for a woman to express such feelings toward Jesus, but was highly inappropriate for a man to sing them. And I still feel that way despite the fact that I just found out that Ms. Miles was really Mr. Miles instead. The back story on this hymn is that he wrote it after meditating on the story of Mary in the garden while alone outside the empty tomb, and I must admit that the lyricist seems to have gotten into the feminine mind successfully even though he has no doubt greatly overly-romanticized the nature of Mary's feelings toward Jesus.

Knowing the biblical reference behind that hymn just prompts me to make one more comment regarding the lyrics. They say that “He bids me go; thro' the voice of woe.” This implies that Jesus was extremely reluctant to part with her. However, the biblical account makes it clear that he spoke with no voice of woe, but probably with a voice of command instead. And certainly, after His death and resurrection, it would be hard to detect any woe at all in his subsequent encounters with other followers.

Lastly, I would like to discuss some examples of historic hymns whose lyrics have been altered in recent versions found in many hymnals. Some of these are probably needed changes, some just silly, and some appear to go in the wrong direction.

The lyrics to “How Great Thou Art” were first written in Swedish by Carl Boberg with the most popular English translation by Stuart Hine. One of the familiar lines reads: “When I in awesome wonder consider all the works thy hands have made.” But in the 1950's, Manna Music acquired the rights to the hymn, and the editors altered the words to read “all the worlds thy hands have made.” I can only guess that they were not wanting to offend any evangelicals who treated “works” as a dirty word. One unintended result of that change is that the hymn has now been adopted by the Mormons, who of course believe that they will eventually colonize other planets and reign there as gods.

An even older hymn has similarly run afoul of more recent editors. Thus, Isaac Watts' “Alas, and Did My Savior Bleed (for such a worm as I)” has now become “for such a one as I.” This is in spite of the fact that Job 25:6 states, “Mortals are maggots, worms in God's sight,” even granted that these are the words of Bildad. David, speaking the part of Jesus in his Psalm 22:6 prophecy of His death, calls Him a worm. And God calls the people of Israel worms and insects (Isaiah 41:14). So my own conclusion is that this particular change, to remove a term that some people might feel is offensive to them, is an attempt to make people feel better about themselves than they really should. But there is one minor word in this hymn that I would be tempted to alter. The chorus ends with the words: “and now I am happy all the day.” But happiness on earth is not really what we are promised even though we should now have reason to be joyful whatever the circumstances.

I noticed two other recent changes in lyrics that involved removing OT references. I hope it was due to concerns that a biblically-illiterate congregation might not understand them since the only other possible explanation I could think of is a decidedly anti-Semitic one. In either case, the changes were hardly justified. The first instance concerns “All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name” with lyrics by Edward Perronet. The words in question are “Ye chosen seed of Israel's race,” referring of course to Jesus and his Jewish lineage traced back to King David. I guess that wasn't inclusive enough for the new publishers, so they changed it to “chosen seed of Adam's race.” The other example is from “Praise Ye the Lord, the Almighty.” Instead of “Now to His temple draw near” it reads “Brothers and sisters, draw near” as a bow to gender inclusiveness and erasure of an OT reference. Actually, the original lyrics were filled with both OT and NT allusions. Numbers 4:17-26 and Leviticus 21 go to great pains outlining the very few people who were allowed to even approach the sanctuary. By stark contrast, Hebrews 10:11-22 explains that we as believers are now all able to approach God's throne since we have been cleansed by our High Priest, Jesus Christ. These rich biblical allusions are lost entirely with the revised words.

There is one definitely needed revision that has been made in some later versions of a hymn. That is in “My Jesus, I Love Thee” by William Featherston. The phrase “in mansions of glory” is a reference to the King James Version of John 14:2, where Jesus says, “In my Father's house are many mansions.” Modern translations, however, render it more accurately as “abodes” or “dwelling places.” Thus, some hymnals now read “in dwellings of glory” instead.

My personal vote for the silliest revision involves the most loved hymn of all time – “Amazing Grace.” Some hymnals have actually changed the last verse from “When we've been there 10,000 years” to “When we've been there 10,000,000 years.” I understand the concept of inflation, but this is ridiculous!

Even “A Mighty Fortress” has come to the attention of recent editors who have changed the reference to “Lord Saboath” in verse 2 to “Lord of hosts,” which is a needed change since it accurately translates the Hebrew word and makes it more understandable to those in congregations who sing the words just assuming that it is a strangely spelled reference to Christ as the Lord of the Sabbath. Verse 3 is, at least in my mind, a little dated also since it may reflect Luther's own personal battles with demonic forces more than any biblical references. That verse mentions the fact that the world is filled with devils/demons. But actually, there are only nine post-resurrection mentions of plural devils/demons in the NT, and four of them clearly refer to Roman idols that are worshiped.

Finally, we come to one of our favorite Christmas carols “Hark, the Herald Angels Sing” by Charles Wesley. Some recent editions of this hymn have been subtly altered in several places so that they would fit in better with Christmas programs at church. One example is the change from “Glory to the King of kings” to “Glory to the newborn King,” thus weakening the correspondence between God the Father and God the Son.

 

DROWNED PIGS, ROMAN SOLDIERS, AND HELL (MARK 5)

The other night, for some reason or other I was thinking over the story of Jesus healing the demoniac found in Mark 5. I have previously given a verse-by-verse analysis and an illustration of this story (see the two posts entitled “Mark 5: Healing of the Demoniac”), but some additional insights came to me that I would like to briefly share.

If you recall the story, the legion of demons plead with Jesus to let them enter the bodies of the nearby pigs rather than being cast out into the world alone. Jesus permits them to do so, and the pigs promptly go mad and drown in the water, demons and all.

Here is an interesting question posed by a Christian animal rights organization: Did Jesus kill 2,000 pigs? On their website, they explain that of course Jesus didn't kill a herd of pigs when he cast the legion of demons out of the possessed man because this wasn't a miracle story at all. Instead it is a political parable put into the NT to teach that the Jews needed to expel the Roman “legions” from Israel, not legions of demons at all. This is a prime example of the trend C. S. Lewis once described. People start out by talking about the Bible and animal rights, then it becomes animal rights in the Bible, and finally their true motive comes out when they deny the clear meaning of the Bible if it doesn't fit in with their prime concern, which is ANIMAL RIGHTS. The end result from all these attempts to read into Scripture what we want to see there is called eisegesis. It is trying to get a square peg to fit into a round hole.

Then I got to thinking about the fact that Jesus actually granted the request of the demons, rather than just cast them out of the man's body. Was Jesus just being tricky and purposely luring them to their death? But then I thought of something else that C. S. Lewis (and others) had said. Although God may provide us with all that is needed to follow the right path in life, ultimately he honors every person 's dignity of choice rather than force them into his intended pattern for their lives. That is a model for us in how we raise our children, and also it is a lesson that explains the whole concept of hell. For those who do not want to be around God here on earth, He will not force them to be around Him in eternity.