II CORINTHIANS 8-9

 These two chapters constitute what is in many ways a doublet, giving rise to various theories concerning the origin of its composition. The two most attractive choices are to either view these verses as a unity or treat ch. 9 as a separate message to the Corinthians written soon after ch. 8 was complete, perhaps to a slightly broader audience. There are able defenders of both positions as well as those scholars who feel that there is not enough evidence to decide between the two options. The analysis below supports the unity theory.

Perhaps this section’s most obvious common factor outside its main theme of the collection for the Jerusalem church is the repetition of key words and phrases to mark its borders. Some examples of these include: “the grace of God” (8:1; 9:14), “abundance/abound” (8:2; 9:12), “test” (8:2; 9:13), “generosity” (8:2; 9:11,13), “ministry” (8:4; 9:13), “to the saints” (8:4; 9:12) and “fellowship” (8:4; 9:13). The first cited example is important since it associates God’s grace with the willingness of Paul’s congregations to contribute to the needs of others. The last example above (koinonia) not only serves as an (set of bookends) for the center Section III, but also closes out the whole letter (13:13). The Greek word for “grace/gift” appears exactly ten times in Section III. Quotations from and allusions to the Book of Proverbs figure prominently in both these chapters.

The next factor to consider is the above-mentioned two-part nature of this section, divided along chapter lines. Both 8:1 and 9:1 have all the earmarks of opening remarks. II Corinthians 8 begins with an address to the “brethren” and the phrase “we want you to know.” Similarly, ch. 9 uses the key word “concerning” which also played a prominent role in delineating the divisions of the First Letter to the Corinthians. These two chapters also open with much of the same language – “brothers” (8:1; 9:3,5), “saints” (8:4; 9:1), “urge” (8:6; 9:5), and “Macedonia” (8:1; 9:2,4), as well as the common theme of a delayed collection (8:6; 9:2). Within this section, language unique to ch. 8 includes “Titus” (vv. 6,16,23), “earnestness” (vv. 6,16,23), “your love” (vv. 7,8,24), the noun “comfort” (vv. 4,17) and “churches” (vv. 1,18,19,23,24). The last example acts as an inclusio for ch. 8. “Ministry” and “saints” serve the same function for ch. 9 (see vv. 1 and 12-13).

“The structure of the two chapters is virtually the same: theological warrant, derived argument, practical directives, but it is varied in part by a chiastic arrangement.” (Childs) These perceptive words provide an excellent introduction to the treatment developed below. It is this combination of parallel and chiastic (mirror-image) elements which reinforces the thematic unity of this extended passage. In addition, chapters 8-9 are characterized by an alternation between subsections written in the singular and plural first person. These literary elements are all summarized below.

The Structure of II Corinthians 8-9

Plural          Introduction: The Macedonians held up as an example (8:1-7)

Singular          A. The Corinthians’ willingness to give, not by command (8:8-12)

                            B. God blesses those who give – “as it is written” (8:13-15) 

                                C. “Thanks be to God” (8:16)

 

Plural                              D. Brothers sent to take up collection (8:17-23)

                                            E. Paul’s “boasting” about the Corinthians (8:24)

----------------------------------------------------

Singular                              E'. Paul’s “boasting” about the Corinthians (9:1-2) 

                                     D'. Brothers sent to take up collection (9:3-5a)

Plural             A'. The Corinthians’ willingness to give, not by command (9:5b)  

                            B'. God blesses those who give – “as it is written” (9:6-14) 

                                C'. “Thanks be to God” (9:15)

Clines points out that the sections labeled B and B' above are important to Paul’s argument in that they lay out the general principles for Christian giving. The phrase “supply...want” appears in this epistle only in these two subsections (at 8:14 and 9:12). Each of these theological passages is appropriately followed by a doxology reminding the readers that we owe all things to God, even the generous promptings of our hearts. Martin notes that 8:16-24 and 9:1-5 (Sections D-E and E'-D', respectively) can be viewed as letters of recommendation for the prominent Christians Paul is sending to Corinth.

Below are some specific comments on individual verses within these two chapters:

II Corinthians 8

8:1-2 Paul expressed this same general idea earlier in I Thessalonians 4:9.

8:7 “Faith” in this verse does not refer to saving faith but to a special gift of the Spirit, as with speech and knowledge. (Hillyer)

8:8 Paul stresses here and in 8:24; 49:3,13 that action is the proof of their love. “Others” would include the Macedonians.

8:9 See Philippians 2:5-8.

8:10 “Apparently the Corinthians did not heed Paul's instructions given to them in I Corinthians 16:1-4 or he would not have needed to bring up the subject again,” according to Colin Brown.

8:10-11 “Began...finish” is equivalent to “beginning...complete” in 8:6.

8:13-14a See the example in Acts 4:32 for the sharing of available resources within the church. Bella points out that “one has to discern when to give help and when to receive it.” Both are important within the Christian community.

8:15 This is a quotation from the middle of Exodus 16:18. The context involved God's provision of manna to the Jews in the wilderness. Each person only gathered enough for his or her own family to eat that day. Furnish notes that Philo quotes the same OT verse to demonstrate that God distributes wisdom equally in his Word. See I Corinthians 4:7.

8:18 This mysterious “brother” is probably included with the equally anonymous “brothers” mentioned in 8:22 and 9:3. Hillyer notes that Luke is “a widely-held guess” as to the identity of this person. However, both Luther and Calvin thought that it was Barnabas instead.

8:20 Calvin: “There is nothing which is more apt to lay one open to sinister imputations than the handling of public money.”

8:21 “This verse is a free quotation from Proverbs 3:4.” (Hillyer)

8:23 The word apostoloi is usually translated as “messengers” here. Barnett explains that it is one of only two occasions when Paul used the term “apostle” in a non-technical sense, the other being in Philippians 2:25 referring to Epaphroditus.

II Corinthians 9

9:1 This verse “seems to be a new beginning, perhaps because this chapter was written somewhat later.” (Bella) Another theory is that ch. 9 actually comes from another letter of Paul that was included here by a later editor. A third possibility is that the duplications between chapters 8 and 9 were intended by Paul for literary reasons (as in the proposed structure shown above).

9:6 The “sowing and reaping” theme in v. 6 comes from Proverbs 22:8 as does the phrase “cheerful giver.” In the Hebrew, Proverb 22:8 reads “He who sows injustice will reap calamity and the rod of his fury will fail” while the Greek Septuagint adds “God blesses the cheerful and giving man, and he will end the futility of his deeds.” Paul borrows from both versions. (Bella)

9:8 Osborne points out that “all sufficiency in all things” is panti pantote pasan in the Greek, an example of paronomasia, “words chosen to catch the original readers' attention and drive home the point.”

9:9 This verse comes from Psalm 112:9. “His righteousness” can be the righteousness of a pious man or of God. Bella notes that “in the Old Testament context the main message of the text is about God's powerful, effective word which will make all his promises come true...through the forces of nature.”

9:10 is derived from Isaiah 55:10.

9:10-12 There is a divided opinion as to whether there is an eschatological meaning behind Paul's offering to the Jerusalem church. In other words, did he intend it to lead to the conversion of the Jews? Balla is doubtful, but S. McKnight feels it might be one of his motives.

OLD TESTAMENT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA: TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS

These Jewish writings were composed at various times from perhaps 100 BC into the Christian era. They were not even considered authentic enough to be included in the Greek Septuagint and thus into the Roman Catholic canon. I thought it might be interesting to see if any of them possessed the sort of literary symmetry found in the books of the OT and NT. As two likely candidates, I examined two of the twelve writings supposedly containing the last will and testaments of the twelve founders of the tribes of Israel. Each of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs follows the same general pattern:

    The Patriarch calls his sons together.

    He relates pertinent events in his life (lacking in the Testament of Asher).

    He warns them against a particular vice or exhorts them to be virtuous.

    He prophesies the future of his sons.

    He exhorts them again (also lacking in the Testament of Asher).

    He dies and is buried.

With such a strict structure in place, it is of interest to see if there are also any underlying symmetrical patterns in place. And if there are, does this perhaps help resolve the question as to whether suspected later Christian interpolations (given in italics below) were added to an originally Jewish text. The short Testament of Asher was chosen as a typical example for analysis, with the following results:

The Testament of Asher

    A. Patriarch with his sons (vv. 1-2) “I will declare to you”

        B. Two inclinations (vv. 3-10)

            1. Evil actions (vv. 11-17) “This...hath two aspects, but the whole is evil.” (6x)

                2. Such men are hares (vv. 18-19) “clean, unclean, ” “God...in the commandments”

                    3. Double-faced men (vv. 20-22) “my children”

            1'. Good actions (vv. 23-25) Two aspects “but the whole is good (3x)

                2'. Such men are like stags and hinds (v. 26) “clean, unclean,” “God...by His commandments”

                    3'. Be single-minded (vv. 27-32) “my children” (2x)

    B'. Eternal consequences of actions (vv. 33-37) “meet the angel(s)” (2x), “evil” (2x), and an inclusio:     “my children”

        1. Negative consequences (vv. 38-39)     “I know you shall sin,” “ye shall be scattered”

            2. Positive consequences (vv. 40-41)     “He shall save Israel”

                3. Exhortation to “little children” (v. 42)

        1'. Negative consequences (vv. 43-44) “I know you shall be disobedient,” “ye shall be scattered”

            2'. Positive consequences (v. 45) “The Lord will gather...Jacob”

A'. Patriarch with his sons (vv. 46-48) “When he had said these things to them”

Section B'2 prophesies God coming down to earth as a man and saving both Israel and the Gentiles. The standard scholarly position is that this is a typical Christian interpolation in an earlier Jewish document. However, if the above analysis is correct, one can see that there is no way to remove vv. 40-41 without disrupting the symmetrical literary pattern. This could indicate that either (a) an originally Jewish writing was thoroughly reworked by a later Christian hand, (b) it was a Christian document to start with, or (c) it is a genuine prophecy of Christ's coming. However, the departures in the Testament of Asher from the general structure of the Twelve Testaments noted at the start of this discussion may label it as an outlier, in which case the above options do not necessarily apply to the other Testaments.

Testament of Benjamin

Since this document follows the general pattern much closer than the Testament of Asher and since it contains even more extensive prophecies of Christ, it was chosen as the next test case. Fortunately, in this case there are a number of verbal clues to guide the proper division of the writing.

A. Benjamin's birth (1:1) “125 years”

        B. Keep the commandments (1:2-20)

                            Prophecy of Christ (1:21)

                C. Two ways (1:22-2:3)

                    1. Doing “good” (1:22-39) “good” (10x)

                    2. Doing evil (1:40-46) “evils” (2x), ”seven” (4x), “Beliar” (3x)

                    3. Conclusion (2:1-4) “evil-doing,” “love,” “fornication,” “defilement” – 2x each

                            Prophecies of Christ (2:5-10)

        B'. Keep the commandments (2:11-29)

                1. Exhortations (2:11-17)

                            Prophecies of Christ (2:18-23)

                1'. Exhortations (2:24-25)

                            Prophecies of Christ (2:26-29)

A'. Benjamin's death (2:30-33) “125 years”

(a) Section B is unified by the following chiastic references to the patriarchs:

    Jacob (v. 2)

        Joseph (v. 4)

            Joseph...brother (v. 7)

        Joseph (v. 12)

            Joseph my brother (v. 14)

        Joseph (v. 18)

    Jacob (v. 19)

(b) Sections B and B' are seen as parallels by the numerous references to the patriarchs in both and the similar pronouncements “I was called Benjamin” (1:6) and “I shall no longer be called a ravening wolf” (2:25).

(c) The six occurrences of “my children” appear at the exact center of B and the beginnings of C1, C2, C3, B'1, and B'1'. Their immediate contexts also form a chiastic set:

love...commandments (1:12)

    see (1:22)

        flee (1:41)

        flee (2:1)

    know (2:12)

walk in commandments (2:24)

Units B' 1 and 1' begin with references to Jacob/Israel.

One could argue that the above structure makes sense even if the suspected Christian additions are included. Thus, (a) Section B', as it is, forms a regular a-b-a-b pattern and (b) the prophecies at 1:21 and 2:5-10 could be considered as either a framework for Section C or as parallel codas to sections B and C, respectively. Working against that analysis are the considerations that (a) none of the verses in italics is involved in any of the various word patterns listed above and (b) these prophecies do not fit in thematically with any of the other material in sections B, C or B'. So the evidence is again ambiguous if only structural considerations are taken into account.

 

 

II CORINTHIANS 7

This chapter can be outlined as follows:

    A. Paul boasts in the Corinthians (7:2-5)

    “I have great pride in you”

            B. Paul is comforted (7:5-12)

    A'. Paul boasts in the Corinthians (7:13-16)

    “I have complete confidence in you”

The root Greek word for “console/consolation” appears exactly seven times in this chapter. Supporting evidence for such a three-fold division is seen in the vocabulary unique to each literary unit.

Words appearing only in A and A' include “boast,” “heart(s)” and panta (“all/every”). Section B contains “grieve/grief” exactly seven times; “eager longing” twice; “zeal” four times; and “earnestness” twice. The phrase “on behalf of” in vv. 7 and 12 serves as an inclusio for B.

7:2 Hughes states that “it seems likely that it is in fact a three-fold repudiation of charges which had been made against him, and the tenor of which had been conveyed by Titus when he and Paul met in Macedonia (cf. vv. 5ff).”

7:2-3 The phrase “have said before” probably refers back to 6:11-13, according to Clines.

7:3 The word die precedes live “to emphasize this bond with the Corinthians through identification with Christ's death and life.” (Wann) Other explanations have been given for this order by different scholars.

7:4 The themes of boasting, affliction and consolation were first introduced in 1:3-7.

7:5-13a Clines and others note that these verses continue the story of Paul's trip to Macedonia (see 2:13-14).

7:5 See Acts 20 for more background information.

7:6 The Greek word alla, translated as “not only” or “what,” appears six times in this verse. Hughes says that this repetition “powerfully conveys the impression that Paul is at this moment writing in a mood of exalted delight.”

7:7 The emphasis on their response is seen in the three-fold repetition of “your,” as pointed out by several scholars.

“Previously the longing, lamentation and eagerness had been Paul's, and it was a delight to his emissary to find similar feelings in the Corinthians.” (Plummer)

7:8 Hughes feels “it is both reasonable and satisfactory to identify the letter” mentioned here and in 2:1-4 with I Corinthians. Others such as Tasker disagree and think that it was a letter of which we have no copy.

7:9 “It was not their sorrow but the fruit of their sorrow that gave him joy.” (Clines)

7:10 See the contrast between Peter (godly sorrow in Matthew 26:75) and Judas (worldly sorrow in Matthew 27:3-5). Hillyer explains the difference between the two as follows: “Worldly grief is merely remorse; it has no place for hope, forgiveness, or grace and simply produces death and despair because it cannot result in positive action.”

7:11 Porter: “Although Paul may be referring here to fear of God, the context of Paul's commendation of the Corinthians' change of heart makes it likely he is referring to their fear of him as an apostle, whether as God's comforter or punisher.”

7:12 If the harsh letter referred to I Corinthians, then “the one who did the wrong” was the man mentioned in I Corinthians 5:1-2 who committed incest. But if it refers to an unknown letter instead, then the one who was wronged was perhaps Paul himself and we have no information on the one who wronged him. (Wan)

Several commentators point out that the thought here is best expressed by translating the repeated phrase as “it was not entirely on account of the one...”

7:13 A double comparative is used here by Paul meaning literally “more overflowing more.” (Barth and Blanke)

7:15 “Titus had grown to love the Corinthians during his stay.” (Hillyer)   Hodge explains the phrase fear and trembling as “solicitous anxiety lest love should fail in doing all that is required.”

7:16 It is generally felt that this chapter was intended to prepare the Corinthians for the appeal to aid the Jerusalem church which he makes in chapters 8-9.

 

SCRIPTURE TWISTING: MINOR ERRORS

Although we sometimes focus on errors of biblical interpretation coming from the outside, it is even more important to deal with problems that come from within – those which probably all of us have been guilty of at one time or another. I hope none of you will be offended if I appear to be a little harsh in my treatment of some of these errors, but I will try to give them all the consideration they deserve.

How can we identify errors in Bible interpretation? It is said that the best way to recognize a counterfeit bill is to become well acquainted with the real thing. That is why I have also taught a class on the basic principles of proper Bible interpretation (also called Hermeneutics). However, the second best way is to get exposure to a variety of examples where Scripture is being misused so that you know what to look out for.

I would like to take this familiar passage as my overall theme:

“There are some things in them [Paul's letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability.” (2 Peter 3:16b-17)

There are several lessons we can derive out of this passage:

    1. It is reassuring to know that even Peter had trouble understanding all of Paul's writings.

    2. This is the first indication we have that the NT writings were starting to be considered as Scripture on an equal footing with the OT.

    3. Note that Peter identifies at least two classes of people who tend to misuse the Bible: (1) the ignorant, who don't know any better and (2) the spiritually unstable and lawless, who should know better. So if I pick on any one person or group for their misuse of Scripture in this post, please remember that I am not saying that I therefore think they are heretics or that their actions are necessarily done on purpose, just that they are mistaken.

    4. But, finally, even the most innocent twisting of Scripture can possibly have grave consequences for those who do it and for those who listen to them and believe it. Therefore, error needs to be pointed out in order to avoid those consequences.

Here are two proverbs that seem to address the situation. “Answer not a fool according to his folly lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own conceit.” (Proverbs 26:4-5). Even though Jesus tells us not to label people as fools, we can certainly call them out when they make foolish statements, and that is what the second proverb teaches. The tightrope to walk, however, is to do it without lowering ourselves to their level, as the first proverb indicates. And that is what I must admit that I often have trouble doing. Mark Twain said something similar: “Never argue with stupid people; they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” But you don't have to argue with them in order to gently point out their error.

I want to start out with some very innocuous examples of errors made out of ignorance, not malice. We will deal with more serious cases in the following lessons. Let's begin with some errors that I have experienced in our own church. The author of our Baptist quarterly one semester wrote that Paul's hometown was Troas instead of Tarsus. Our teacher contacted the editor, who was very gracious and said that in the future they would take more pains in proofreading their material. It was a perfectly innocent mistake that didn't at all affect any doctrinal points.

Another teacher had finished using 4 or 5 scripture passages to adequately prove a particular point he wanted to make, but he had to add just one more example just to clinch his case, this time from the very dubious ending verses of Mark's Gospel. The two oldest Greek manuscripts we have for Mark don't include those verses, but stop at Mark 16:8. By pointing out these verses, the teacher really weakened his argument by casting some doubt on his other points. I would call this mistake one of trying to gild the lily, which apparently some wedding planners will arrange for you if you really want to. I must admit that I have used quite dubious arguments on purpose myself at least twice that I can remember and gotten caught both times by someone who knew better. It is a special temptation when engaging in apologetics. So how do you know if someone is quoting a verse as authoritative when it might not have really been in the original? Pay attention to the textual notes at the bottom of the pages in your Bible. And if your Bible doesn't have any, get a new Bible.

Here is another interesting example. One Sunday school teacher asked the class who said, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him shall have eternal life.” He expected the answer, “Jesus.” But instead I replied, “It was either Jesus or John.” That answer quite rightly confused him, and he said, “But that verse is in quotes and my Bible has it in red letters.” Unfortunately, the original manuscripts neither have red letters nor quotation marks, and so the translators have to make a judgment call. At least four major translations (NIV, RSV, TEV, and Jerusalem Bible) end Jesus' words before verse 16. The bottom line here again is that it has no effect on any of our beliefs either way whether Jesus or John made the statement.

But there is one teacher at our church I want to identify clearly so that you can be on the lookout for his Scripture twisting, because some of it is a little more serious. That is myself. During one of my talks at church I made the offhand statement that it never says in the Bible that Moses personally wrote anything down. Fortunately, someone more knowledgeable was in the audience and gently pointed out that I probably misspoke. Well, he didn't trust what I said, and so I certainly wasn't going to trust what he said. I checked it out. Of course, he was correct; there are at least nine passages in the Bible which state clearly that Moses did indeed write things down.

I always get in trouble when I make a statement without carefully checking out the facts ahead of time. So the lesson here is: if you are engaged in a biblical discussion with someone and they pose a difficult question or say something that sounds a little dubious to you, you shouldn't feel the need to respond to them right away. Tell them that you will have to consider the matter further, and then go home and check it out for yourself. In this particular case involving Moses, how would you go about checking who was right? Do as I did and go to an exhaustive concordance and just look up all the times the word “write” appears in conjunction with Moses. If you don't happen to have a good concordance at home, several of them are available for free on-line.

Here is a final example from our own congregation. “In all Paul's letters when grace and peace are coupled together, grace always precedes peace. The reason: Grace is the foundation of peace.” This is a quote from R. A. Torrey, the famous pastor and evangelist who died in 1928 and was the founder of Biola University. Torrey was then quoted by John MacArthur in one of his commentaries where it was read and repeated by the teacher of our Sunday school class. All three of these godly men are excellent teachers and I happen to agree with Torrey's conclusion, but unfortunately his facts are more than a bit off-base.

It turns out that grace does precede peace in Paul's opening greetings, but the exact opposite is true in the closing section of those letters. The conclusion I draw from the way Paul bookends his letters this way is that not only is grace foundational to peace, but actually “grace” is the beginning and end of the Christian life, the alpha and omega. This story illustrates that even prominent Christians are guilty of misusing scriptures on occasion, out of ignorance rather than purposefully. And it also shows how easily such errors can be passed down from generation to generation. Here is another famous illustration of that going back quite a way further in history.

The Catholic Douay Version of Romans 5:12 is based on a translation by St. Augustine. “Death passed from one man (Adam) to all men, in whom all sinned.” This is where the whole idea comes from that the original sin of Adam is automatically transmitted to each of us at birth. And from that concept comes logically two key Catholic doctrines: (1) the idea that infants who die without being baptized will go to limbo rather than heaven since even they possess sin at birth and (2) it explains the necessity of proposing the Immaculate Conception of Mary so that it could be said that she, and Jesus in turn, would be born entirely without sin. The problem is that Augustine mistranslated that verse, as all modern versions show: “death spread to all men because all sinned.”

We Protestants are not free from error either as most of the examples I will be showing demonstrate. The famous agricultural scientist George Washington Carver was also a devout Christian. At one point in his life he was pondering what to do for a career so he turned to his Bible and opened it up at random to this passage from Psalm 121: “I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence comes my help. My help cometh from the LORD, which made heaven and earth.” So he looked at the hills outside, saw a field of peanut plants, and the rest is history. Unfortunately, he was reading the KJV which obviously has some problems with it. Why would the Psalmist think that God lives in the hills? That was a pagan concept of the time as evidenced by the prophets ranting and railing against the “high places” where the apostate Jews started to worship.

The problem stems from not knowing which proper punctuation to use since, as I pointed out earlier, there is little to no punctuation in either the early Greek or Hebrew manuscripts. And in this case, even the NKJV realizes that the Hebrew is better rendered this way: “I will lift up my eyes to the hills – from whence comes my help? My help comes from the LORD who made heaven and earth.” The context of this particular psalm is that it is a pilgrimage song sung by those on their way to Jerusalem for one of the feast days. They have to traverse mountainous regions before they reach their goal. They look at the mountains and cry out, “Who will help me?” and the answer is God. I am personally glad that Carver trusted a faulty translation. Otherwise, we might not have peanut butter today.

Well, let's move on to three recent Christian leaders who know the ins and outs of Scripture quite a bit better, beginning with the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, Bill Bright. One of his most important insights, or innovations, depending on your point of view, was to start with this famous passage, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.” (Revelation 3:20) Bright applied this verse to evangelizing the lost. The whole concept of letting Jesus into your heart in the Sinner's Prayer and the Four Spiritual Laws is based on this verse. The problem is that taken in its original context at the very end of the letters to the seven churches, this verse is not addressed to non-believers at all. It is a call to us as Christians to let Jesus back into our individual lives and congregations when we have shut him out. So some feel that Bright was not only taking some undue liberties with Scripture, but that his ideas have furthered the concept of cheap grace. Just raise your hand and say a few words and you will be saved for life. Others feel that criticism is unfair, and that Bright's application is a valid extension of what Jesus was saying even if it does depart quite a bit from the original meaning. I'll leave it up to you to decide.

Well, if that one hasn't turned enough of you off already, let's pick on Billy Graham next. First of all, he would have been the first to admit that his strength and calling was as an evangelist, not a Bible scholar. Late in life he even said that one of his greatest regrets was that he hadn't spent enough time in personal Bible study. But he did write at least one book, Angels, on a specific area of theology. In it, he states that one of the functions of angels is to escort our souls up to heaven when we die to protect us while we are passing through earth's dangerous atmosphere where Satan and the demons live.

A variation on this belief has been around at least since the Middle Ages. Do you know where the idea of saying “God bless you” when a person sneezes comes from? One version of the story is that it originated with the idea that one's soul momentarily leaves the body when you sneeze. So saying “God bless you” prevents the demons in the air from snatching it away before it can re-enter your body. Well, what biblical justification did Graham have for his statement? You can see it on the official Billy Graham Evangelistic Association website where three different passages are coupled together to reach this conclusion:

    1. Hebrews 1:14: “Are not all angels spirits in the divine service, sent to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?” Therefore, it is reasoned that one of the ways in which angels serve us must be by protecting us from all danger, in life and afterward. A bit of a stretch, but a possibility.

    2. Luke 16:22: “The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham.” The second passage comes from Jesus' parable about Lazarus and the Rich Man. The problem here is that the incidental details in a parable shouldn't be taken as representative of universal truths or used to establish any doctrines.

    3. Ephesians 2:1-2: “You were dead through the trespasses and sin in which you once lived following the course of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air...” This shows that Satan lives in the atmosphere and evidences his power the most strongly there. But this is the only passage I know of where that idea is mentioned, and elsewhere in the Bible Satan is more associated with his actions on the earth and in the underworld. And as I have shown in another post (see “Ezekiel 38: A Chain of Reasoning”), coupling together multiple passages in this way always lowers the probability that the conclusion will be correct.

A friend cornered me one day before Sunday school and asked if I knew where Kay Arthur had come up with the name “Precept Upon Precept” for her study series and ministries. I didn't know, and so I did a little research. It is based on a common English translation of a passage in Isaiah (28:10,13). On the surface, it does sound like a great motto for how we should conduct an inductive Bible study and build up our understanding of the truth step by step, line by line, precept by precept. However, there are two basic problems in using the passage in this manner. First, it is not at all clear how to translate the Hebrew. Here is another possible translation, which isn't nearly as positive in tone. “For it is do this, do that, a rule for this, a rule for that...” I have actually seen six different ways of rendering this verse including “the law is the law is the law.”

The original sounds like this: “sav lasav sav lasav, kav lakav kav lakav.” which actually makes no sense in Hebrew as it stands. That is why the Jerusalem Bible footnote and the NIV Study Bible state that the words were probably never meant to be translated at all. Those who do attempt to translate the words admit that it is not that obvious what the words mean and any translation is largely guesswork. Probably these singsong words are the equivalent of saying, “blah, blah, blah,” “la-di-dah” or“twiddle-dee-dee.” In any case, the traditional translation has largely fallen out of favor today.

The second problem is that it is not clear who is speaking these words. It is probably the drunken false teachers making fun of Isaiah's teaching or speech defect or speaking in tongues by turning it into nonsense words, babbling baby talk, a sort of nursery rhyme. On the other hand this verse may be Isaiah himself making fun of the drunken teachers' ramblings. In this latter case, two commentators have pointed out that the consonants in this verse happen to be the initial letters in the Hebrew words for excrement and vomit; Isaiah is saying that is all the drunken leaders are capable of producing. Of course, a Bible study entitled “excrement and vomit” would probably not attract very many people. In any case, the context (especially v. 13) shows that God will only speak to the false leaders using those same nonsense words and it's going to lead to their destruction. So even if these are “precepts upon precepts,” following them will certainly not lead to the truth. Does any of this cast a doubt on Kay Arthur's ministry? Of course no

 

II CORINTHIANS 6:1-7:1

This chapter can be roughly outlined as follows:

    A. Admonition: Do not accept the grace of God in vain (6:1)

        B. Supporting Scripture (6:2a)

            C. Application (6:2b)

                D. Personal Testimony (6:3-13)

                    1. We have put no obstacle in anyone's way (6:3)

                        2. We have commended ourselves through endurance and righteousness: nine examples                         each (6:3-7)

                            3. in honor

                                4. and dishonor

                                4'. in ill repute

                            3'. and good repute

                        2'. We are treated as X and yet are Y: seven examples (6:9-10)

                    1'. We have spoken frankly to you (6:11-13)

    A'. Admonition: Do not be mismatched with unbelievers (6:14-16a)

        B'. Supporting Scriptures (6:16b-18)

            C'. Application (7:1)

6:1 There is an interpretative debate right at the start of the chapter. Bella explains that commentators are divided as to what the first phrase (lit. “as we work together”) refers to. Is it Paul and the Corinthians or Paul and God? NRSV combines both ideas to say, “As we work together with him.”

Why would it be in vain? Hillyer says, “either superficially or because false apostles had subsequently misled them into supposing that they themselves could contribute something towards their own salvation.”

6:2 See Isaiah 49:8. The context of Isaiah 49 is a description of the Suffering Servant of God, i.e. Christ. Balla says that Paul is using the typical pesher form of argument employed by rabbis. He quotes an OT passage and then immediately “adds an interpretation that is at the same time an application to the author's own day.”

6:3 “Paul was concerned more about defending his ministry than defending himself.” (Lowery)

“His intention is to remove all grounds of suspicion and criticism which have only made for strained relationships.” (Clines)

The Greek word for “obstacle” or “stumbling block” is a synonym for that word employed in I Corinthians 8:9.

6:8b-10 “These...are not paradoxes...but antitheses answering charges against Paul.” (Wan) In each pair of contrasts, the first is the earthly opinion of Paul while the second reflects the reality.

6:11 Barrett paraphrases it as “I have let my tongue run away with me,” i.e. “I have spoken to you in complete freedom.” On “frankly”: see II Corinthians 1:12 for “frankness.”

6:14 The Greek words translated as “mismatched” and “partnership” appear only here in the NT, although the idea for the first comes from Leviticus 19:19.

Fee: “Traditionally this text has been interpreted as forbidding marriages between a Christian and a non-Christian. However, the metaphor of a yoke is rarely used in antiquity to refer to marriage, and there is nothing whatever in the context that remotely allows marriage to be in view here.” However, he adds that one can probably extend the principle in view but “only because it is indeed a biblical principle that can be sustained apart from this single text.” Similarly, Link and Brown feel that “the whole context and argument of 2 Cor 6:14ff appears to look beyond mixed marriages to idolatry and defilement in general, although a mixed marriage could lead to such idolatry and defilement.”

6:15 The same contrast also is found in II Corinthians 4:3-6.

Satan (“accuser”) in II Corinthians 2:11; 11:14; and 12:17 is called “Beliar” in this verse; “god of this world” in 4:4; and “serpent” in 11:3. The name Beliar or Belial is also found in the Dead Sea scrolls and various other Jewish writings outside of the Bible.

6:16 “In the temple imagery of 2 Corinthians 6:16, which presupposes the presence of the Spirit in the life of the community from 1 Corinthians 3:16, Paul understands God to be present among his people.” (Fee)

6:16-18 The following OT scriptures are felt to be the basis of these verses, but accurate identification is not always possible in all cases:

II Corinthians 6         Old Testament Sources

v. 16b                         Lev. 26:11-12; Ezek. 37:27

v. 17                           Is. 52:11; Ezek. 20:34,41; 22:20

v. 18                           II Sam. 7:8,14; Is. 43:6

“It is significant that Paul refers to God as the author of these proof texts three times (6:16a, 6:17, 6:18).” The phrase “as God said” only appears here in the NT to introduce an OT passage.

Bella: “Since all of these Old Testament references are direct verbal prophecies or are set in a direct verbal prophetic context, Paul sees these as having inaugurated fulfillment in the Corinthian community.”

7:1 The Greek word for “defilement” only occurs here in the NT.

Clines says, “By including himself with them, and calling them dear friends, lit. 'beloved' (a word of which he is not prodigal), he softens the severity of his warning.”

“'These promises' refer to God's assurances of His presence (6:16) and fellowship (6:17b-18) to those who obey Him.” (Lowery)

 

BALAAM: ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

The story of Balaam has been recounted in an earlier post entitled “Balaam: Numbers 22-24.” Because of doubts concerning the historicity of the episode with the talking donkey, there has even been speculation that the prophet himself was a fictional character. After all, here we have a prophet who isn't even Jewish but is still able to converse with God and even has a considerable reputation outside his own land.

So it was quite exciting when a totally unique form of archeological evidence was uncovered. The information below comes from David L. Stubbs' commentary on Numbers and from Biblical Archaeology Today, xi(5), p. 34.

Nothing else was known concerning Balaam except the details given in Numbers 22-24 and a few other biblical passages. Then in 1967, some Dutch archeologists were excavating at Deir 'Alla, identified with the biblical Succoth in northern Israel where Jacob built a booth for his cattle. They found pieces of several plaster panels containing writing in a red pigment. It appeared that these panels were attached to a column inside a non-Israelite Iron Age II temple. After many years, they pieced the writing together and reconstructed the Aramaic inscription to read “Book of Balaam, son of Beor, the man who was a seer of the gods.” The rest of the writing confirmed the existence of a pagan prophet named Balaam who was revered by Canaanites hundreds of years later.

The reconstructed text of the first panel describes Balaam receiving a night vision (see Numbers 22:8,20) in which he learns that the heavenly council is planning to remove all the light from the sun. In the second panel, which is in poorer condition than the first, it appears that Balaam may possibly be counseling the people to resort to child sacrifice to avert the disaster. If so, it indicates that Balaam was not just a prophet, but also an exorcist of sorts. This would fit well with the multiple roles that Balaam is expected to play in Numbers 22-24 as someone who not only can discern God's will, but also one who can cast effective spells against an enemy.

As to the age of this wall, the strata covering these panels and earlier levels had large cracks indicating destruction by a large earthquake. One such earthquake is prominently mentioned in Amos 1:1 and Zechariah 14:4-5 dating to about 750 BC. Other indications give the range of dates from 900-600 BC.

 

ANSWERING ATHEISTS: HISTORICAL ERRORS IN THE BIBLE

Let's start out with the often quoted objection that says the mention of certain Jewish patriarchs having domesticated camels (Genesis 24:10-11, 31:24) is an error because archeologists haven't found widespread evidence in that area until centuries later. Generally, all they are able to prove is that the use of camels was not widespread until later, but that doesn't exclude the domestication of some camels by a few wealthy people of the time, such as the patriarchs.

Here is part of a more detailed rebuttal from the New Bible Commentary (pp. 181-182): “The mention of camels in the Pentateuch, especially in Genesis, has been often and persistently dismissed as anachronistic. The truth appears to be as follows. From the 12^th century BC the camel becomes a regular feature of the biblical world (other than Egypt, where it remains rare). Though limited and imperfect, the extant evidence clearly indicates that the domesticated camel was known by 3000 BC; and continued in limited use as a slow-moving burden-carrier down through the second millennium BC.” The evidence includes a Syrian cuneiform tablet, a Ugaritic text, a drawing found at Byblos, camel remains from Middle Bronze Age tombs (1900-1550 BC) and in Egypt (2000-1400 BC), and a 13th cent. BC picture from Egypt.

Similarly, Mark W. Chavalas (Biblical Archaeology Review, Nov/Dec 2018, p. 52) cites the fact that Abraham did not come from Israel, but from Mesopotamia where archaeological evidence for the use of camels long before Abraham's time was known. Two-humped camels are pictured on a sherd from eastern Iran dating from the 4^th millennium BC. Skeletal remains date from the 3^rd millennium. A Sumerian list of animals from 2400 BC lists camels as part of their caravans.

Most of the historical objections to the Bible by past and present critics follows this same pattern: making deductions before all the evidence is in. So keep in mind this general principle: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” And since in archeology, the evidence is never all in, we should be rightly suspicious of any absolute statements from that quarter that deny the historical accuracy of the Bible.

It really boils down to the philosophical differences between archeological minimalists and the maximalists. The former will deny the historical accuracy of the biblical account unless absolutely proved otherwise by solid facts. The latter assume the strict historical accuracy of the Bible even if the facts tend to indicate otherwise. Then there are those somewhere in-between who start out with the working assumption that the Bible is historically correct in all details but are willing to interpret the text differently if undisputed facts warrant it. Thus, one important use of archeology is to help us properly interpret the events narrated the Bible. This may occasionally mean changing our view of events a little. The next example illustrates this point.

The city of Jericho was supposedly abandoned long before the Israelite invasion of Canaan. This was based on the fact that early excavations at Jericho uncovered no bichrome pottery, widely traded in the Middle East during the time of the Exodus. However, more recent excavations in a different part of Jericho did uncover this type of pottery as well as seals and scarabs clearly indicating that the city was occupied during that time.

“They raised a great shout, and the wall fell down flat; so the people charged straight ahead into the city and captured it.” Joshua 6:20b

But these excavations gave us even more valuable information helping us to understand the meaning in this text. One logical interpretation of the above verse would be that all the walls fell down so that the soldiers could go straight into the city wherever they happened to be around its perimeter. But the archeological evidence indicates another understanding of this verse. As the walls collapsed in one spot, it formed a natural ramp so that the soldiers could storm the city by going straight up into it without having to scale the two walls in between.

Another famous example is that for years scholars said that the Bible made up the existence of the Hittites. That was, however, before archeologists uncovered the capital of its empire. And it has been said that David never founded a dynasty. He was only a local tribal leader. However, an inscription referencing the “house of David” was found in the territory of Dan at the northern tip of David's extended territory.

Did Solomon institute the widespread construction projects listed in the Bible? I Kings 9:15 says that 

Solomon was responsible for building the gates of Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. In the late 1950's Yigael 

Yadin was excavating the Solomonic level at Hazor and he had the plan of the gate at Megiddo with 

him, since it had already been excavated. On a hunch that the three cities might have been built on an 

identical plan, he made markings on the ground estimating where the gate at Hazor would be and told 

the laborers to remove the rubble. “When they were finished, they looked at us with astonishment, as if 

we were magicians or fortune-tellers.” The gate was a replica of the Megiddo gate, both built at the 

same time by Solomon. He then re-examined the published reports from Gezer, which had been 

partially excavated, and found an identical gate. The measurements of all three closely matched in the 

length of the gates, their width, space between towers, width of entrance passage, and width of walls.

Here are a few NT examples. Luke 2 starts out with the familiar words regarding a census undertaken 

at the request of the Emperor Augustus while Quirinius was governor of Syria. There were strong 

doubts as to whether Quirinius was ever governor of Syria at all and certainly concerning any so-called 

census he might have conducted there. That was until a grave inscription was uncovered confirming 

both facts.

In describing the pool of Bethsaida, John 5:2 says it had five porticos, or covered walkways. But for 

years, scholars said that the number 5 was obviously made up because of its symbolic meaning. How 

could a pool have five walkways around it unless it was built in the shape of a pentagon? In fact, 

excavations have uncovered this pool, and there are porticoes on all four sides with a fifth one dividing 

the pool in two. Then it was strongly suspected by historians that Pontius Pilate was just a fictitious 

character made up by the gospel writers since no Roman records of his name had been found. In 1961 a 

piece of carved limestone was discovered having his name on it. And in 2018 a ring uncovered in 1968 

at Herodium was finally cleaned and found to be inscribed with Pilate's name on it also.

And the list of such examples goes on and on, and is still going one today. Consider two articles in the 

June 2018 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. The cover story concerned discovery of the tomb of a 

high official in the Egyptian government who had a definitely Semitic name, Abdiel. His name literally 

means servant of El, one of God's names. It had been felt by critics that there was no way Joseph could 

have risen to power during the reign of the pharaohs since they were known to be very xenophobic. 

Several other examples of Semitic officials in the Egyptian government have been similarly attested. 

Another interesting thing is that Abdiel is called “a child of the palace,” meaning he was raised there – 

just as Moses was during the same general time period.

The next article of interest in that same issue concerned the conquest of Canaan.

“Many modern scholars subscribe to various permutations of the Social Revolution Model, in which the earliest Israelites were originally disaffected Canaanites who fled their oppressive overlords in the urban centers in the coastal region and headed for the central hill country. There, they met a few Yahwists...who had lived in southern Canaan under Egyptian influence. The two groups entered into a covenant with each other and became 'Israel.'”

So what does this mean? The picture proposed by sociologists is this: A few believers in the true God living in southern Canaan escaped the influence of Egypt by moving north. They joined up with some poor Philistines on the coast who were fleeing eastward because of oppressive living conditions under their rich bosses, and together they formed the basis of what was later called Israel. The only factual basis for this scenario came from the fact that no remains of any Israelite dwelling from the time period had been found in the eastern part of the Holy Land. Therefore, the absence of evidence appeared to contradict the biblical picture of the Jews entering Canaan from the east and spreading outward from there. However, as it says in the article, “A recent archaeological survey uncovered nearly 70 sites with pottery from the early Israelite settlement period in this area (eastern Israel).”

All of these and similar examples have led to what has been called the death of biblical minimalism.

 

CONVERSIONS IN THE BOOK OF ACTS

I once had a conversation with a friend of mine who was a charismatic Catholic concerning the subject of speaking in tongues. He had been taught that it should follow a profession of faith as perhaps a necessary sign of salvation. While I, as an evangelical Christian, was hoping to convince him that water baptism was the event that should follow a conversion experience, rather than happening before conversion. We decided to go through the Book of Acts to see what it had to say on this matter.

In our study we excluded the summary statements in Acts which give no details other than just say a number of people believed and were added to the church. That left us with the following occasions discussed below:

Acts 2: At the day of Pentacost we are told that about 3,000 believed the apostles, were baptized, and devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers. The breaking of bread, according to most commentators consisted of what we would call a church pot-luck dinner at which communion was celebrated. This emphasis on table fellowship is seen by the repetition of the phrase “breaking of bread” in vv. 42 and 44, and is probably also included in the word “fellowship” in v. 42. Although the apostles obviously spoke in tongues on that occasion, there is no mention of any of their followers doing so. In addition, this type of tongue-speaking appears to differ from that seen later in the church. (See my post entitled “Tongue Speaking: Pentacost [Acts 2:1-21].”)

Acts 8:12-13: These verses mark a major expansion of the gospel in that Philip preached to a group of Samaritans, who accept the word and are baptized. When Peter and John hear about this event later, they visit those new converts and pray that they will receive the Holy Spirit. At that point the converts begin to speak in tongues.

Acts 8:34-39: Later in ch. 8, Philip has the opportunity to preach to an Ethiopian eunuch. As a result, the eunuch believes and expresses the desire to immediately become baptized. His first response after rising from the water is to rejoice.

Acts 9:18-19: After Ananias preaches to the blinded Saul, the latter is baptized and eats food with Ananias as his first response.

Acts 10:44-48 describes the first definite conversion of a group of Gentiles (Cornelius, his family, and his friends). Peter and his companions witness the giving of the Holy Spirit to those who believed, evidenced by the Gentiles speaking in tongues. Water baptism then followed and an invitation for Peter and companions to stay with them. Peter is criticized (Acts 11:1-3) for eating with such Gentiles on that occasion.

Acts 16:11-15: Following Lydia's conversion, she is baptized and sets food before Paul and Silas to eat. She is said to have rejoiced.

Acts 18:8: Crispus and his house become baptized after hearing the message and responding.

Acts 19:1-7: Some Ephesian disciples of John the Baptist who had been earlier baptized with the baptism of repentance are given further revelations regarding Jesus Christ by Paul. When they accept Christ, Paul baptizes them in the name of Jesus and lays his hands upon them for them to receive the Holy Spirit. At that point, they begin to speak in tongues and prophesy.

In case you haven't been keeping track, water baptism is the common factor in all eight cases; four times baptism is followed by desire for fellowship with other believers, all involving a common meal; twice it states specifically that the converts rejoiced; and three times speaking with tongues was involved. Concerning the last occasions, it has often been pointed out that each case marked a major advance of the gospel to a different people group (Samaritans, Gentiles, and followers of John the Baptist) in which it appeared necessary that some apostle be present in order to witness the occurrence and report it back to the home church in Jerusalem. These three occasions also depart from the usual pattern in Acts in other ways:

    Acts 8:12-13: There is a considerable lapse of time between the Samaritans' baptism and their speaking in tongues.

    Acts 10:44-48: In the case of Cornelius, speaking in tongues actually precedes baptism.

    Acts 19:1-7: With the followers of John, speaking in tongues follows what is in effect a second baptism for each of them.

So, although we should always be cautious in regard to taking an historical pattern and turning it into a prescribed behavior for today's situation, it is safe to say that a true believer should also be baptized and find a group of fellow believers with whom to have fellowship.