FALLING INTO A PIT OF ONE'S OWN MAKING: PART 2

 

Part 1 of this subject considered all the teachings in the Bible relating to the sort of poetic justice that happens to those who attempt to trick others. In addition, there are also many notable examples of this sort of retribution occurring to historical personages portrayed in Scripture. In some of these cases, a sinful party attempts to set a trap for an innocent person, only to fall into it themselves. However, there are also cases in which the trickster is actually the righteous party, and his “victim” falls for the ruse only due to their own twisted cleverness. Any confidence man will tell you that there are two types of people most likely to fall for a con game: the naively innocent and those with a touch of larceny in their souls. That is why Jesus taught in Matthew 10:16: “Be harmless (or innocent) as doves and wise as serpents.”

Genesis 3 This sort of scenario actually begins in the Garden of Eden when Satan successfully tricks Adam and Eve into disobeying God's one prohibition in order to destroy them. But rather than that being the end of the story, God foretells a future time when Eve's offspring, the Messiah, will crush Satan's head and he will be destroyed instead.

Book of Job Satan attempts the same sort of trick on God Himself when he proposes a test intended to show that the only reason people worship God is because they want to get something out of it for themselves. Somewhat surprisingly, God agrees to using Job as a test case. In the end, of course, it is Satan who is tricked when Job refuses to deny God no matter what agonies he is put through. Thus, it stands as a powerful witness even for us today and for all time.

Numbers 22 The seer Balaam is approached by some Moabite ambassadors who offer to pay him a handsome sum of money if he will come with them and pronounce a curse on the Israelites. God first warns him not to go but then allows him to in order to carry out a divine purpose. Whenever Balaam tries to curse the Jews, a blessing comes out of his mouth instead. But Balaam apparently is determined to convince or trick God into relenting so that he can collect his payment. Unfortunately for him, blessings continue to come until the Moabites dismiss him without a dime. This is one of several complicated cases in which the ultimate trickster turns out to be God or one of his servants.

The Jacob Cycle: Genesis 25-50 This huge chunk of Scripture turns out to be the story of one party after another attempting to deceive someone and then getting tricked in return.

Jacob begins by tricking his brother Esau out of the birthright. When Esau finds out, Jacob has to flee for his life, leaving his family and home behind. This initial act of deception continues haunt Jacob, and he soon becomes the victim of Laban who tricks him into marrying Leah instead of his true love Rachel. This is accomplished by the same sort of mistaken identity trick that Jacob had played on his father in order to get the birthright.

What follows is a sort of cat-and-mouse game in which Jacob and Laban attempt to outdo one another in forcing unfavorable business arrangements on the other party. And as Jacob leaves Laban, Rachel in effect steals Laban's birthright from him in the form of the household gods, just as Jacob himself had stolen Esau's birthright. That deception almost boomeranged on Rachel by costing her life (Genesis 31:32). And actually, some scholars propose that her subsequent early death was due to the curse that Jacob inadvertently put on her.

When Jacob returns to Canaan and has a reunion with Esau, he is so afraid of what Esau will do to him that he tries to butter him up with some gifts. But it doesn't appear to be necessary as Esau is apparently pleased to see him again. But as a trickster himself, Jacob thinks that Esau will take revenge once they all go back to Esau's land and people. Thus, Jacob practices one more trick on Esau by promising to follow him while heading off into another direction. In that way, Jacob tricks himself out of his brother's fellowship for many years until their eventual meeting at Isaac's funeral.

The deceptions do not stop there, however, in that Jacob's own sons cover up their actions in selling Joseph into slavery by fooling Jacob using a garment of Joseph. This, of course, is a direct borrowing of the deception that Jacob had used earlier to fool his father by wearing Esau's clothing.

One of the brothers, Judah, has uncommonly bad fortune when two of his sons die at God's hand after marrying a woman named Tamar. Judah is reluctant to give her to his remaining son, as required by law, and so he puts her off by saying that his son is too young to marry yet. However, Tamar finds out that Judah has no intention to let her marry. She then tricks him by disguising herself as a prostitute, and Judah provides her with a child himself. Judah becomes righteously indignant when he finds that Tamar is pregnant and wants to have her stoned until she reveals that he is the father of the child. He repents of his actions and admits that she was more righteous than he was.

Getting back to Joseph, when he is reunited with his brothers, it is his turn to be the trickster. He carries out an elaborate ruse by pretending to be an Egyptian and plays several tricks on his brothers to test whether they have changed their behavior over the years, which they have.

Joshua 9 When the Israelites begin to conquer the land of Canaan, the Gibeonites see how successful they have been since God was with them. Therefore they concoct a clever scheme to prevent them from being conquered in turn. They dress up in old clothes and approach Joshua with the tale that they had come from a very far land in order to make a treaty with the Jews. Joshua and the leaders are taken in by their lie and fall into their trap. However, when Joshua finds that he has been tricked and can't go back on his word by slaughtering them, he turns all the Gibeonites and their descendants into permanent slaves to serve the congregation. Thus, the Gibeonites' trick may have saved their lives, but it resulted in all of them losing their freedom instead.

Judges 3 The first judge we encounter in this book is Ehud, a left-handed assassin who has a special sword made that will fit inconspicuously into the right side of his clothing. He sets a trap for the fat king of Moab, Eglon. After probably being frisked by the guards as he enters the Moabite palace (keep in mind that Eglon's left side was where they would have expected the weapon to be), he whispers to the king that God has a secret message for him. Hoping that he will gain some inside information allowing him to conquer the Israelite, Eglon dismisses the guards and ushers Ehud into his royal bathroom where they can talk without being overheard. In that way, Eglon is literally walking into a trap he is inadvertently setting for himself since it allows Ehud to kill him and escape the palace undetected.

Judges 16 Trickery also plays a great part in the story of the last judge in the book, Samson. In this chapter, Delilah colludes with the Philistines to trick Samson into giving up the secret of his great strength. That results in the capture and blinding of Samson. But instead of eliminating the threat from him permanently, it paradoxically leads to Samson wreaking the largest amount of destruction on the Philistines of his career when he brings down the pillars of the room in which they had chained him to mock him.

I Samuel 21 The first sign of David's propensity for trickery is seen in this chapter in two episodes. First, he tells a series of lies to the priest Ahimelech to trick him into giving his food and weapon. That subterfuge is successful for David but results in the priests' death later, as described below. Next, is the story of David's flight to Gath where he soon begins to feel his life is in danger. So he pretends to be crazy, and the people there leave him alone.

I Samuel 22-31 Technically speaking, the sad case of King Saul is not an example of any sort of trickery, but it does illustrate well the literal truth of Jesus' saying in Matthew 26:52: “All who take up the sword will perish by the sword.” Saul has the priests of God slaughtered with the sword after sitting down under a tamarisk tree (ch. 22) and meets his own doom by the sword followed by his body being buried under another tamarisk tree (ch. 31). The tell-tale detail of the particular kind of tree is an indication that this was no mere accident; it was engineered by God Himself so that the very weapons that Saul employed against God's servants would be used against him in the end.

I Samuel 27 shows us another example of David's trickery as he enters into the pay of the Philistines where he actually attacks their own cities while saying that he was out conquering the Israelites instead. David's pattern of deception will soon catch up with him, however, as seen in the next example.

I Samuel 11-12 relates the well-known story of David's seduction of Bathsheba followed by a number of schemes he sets to cover up her subsequent pregnancy. When none of them works, he finally resorts to violence by tricking Uriah into being left at the mercy of the enemy. The prophet Nathan traps David into admitting his sin using a fabricated parable which causes David to rise in a fit of righteous indignation and unknowingly condemn himself for his sin, as did Judah before him. The upshot of God's condemnation is that whereas David had destroyed the unity of Uriah's family, David himself will find his own family splintered into pieces. One of those subsequent examples is given next.

II Samuel 13:1-10 Amnon lures his half-sister Tamar into his clutches by tricking her into coming to his bedroom alone, where he rapes her. Her full brother Absalom bides his time and we see later in the same chapter that he in turn lures Amnon under false pretenses to his house where Amnon is murdered. Neither the trickster or the victim is innocent in this case.

I Kings 11 Even the “wise” King Solomon is not above falling into a trap that he himself set by bringing in a bevy of foreign beauties into his royal harem. First he falls for their charms and then for the lure of their pagan gods.

Daniel 6 During the Exile, the theme of a trickster being tricked continues. A group of Persian leaders become jealous of Daniel's power and so they set a trap for him. They convince King Darius to issue a decree stating that no one is to pray to anyone but the king himself; otherwise they will be thrown into the lion's den. When Daniel survives that ordeal, it is Daniel's accusers who are thrown into the trap they had set instead.

Book of Esther This whole story involves the plotting of the evil Haman to seek revenge on Mordecai and all the Jews in the Persian Empire. As in the case of Daniel, it is accomplished by convincing a rather weak king to issue a decree. Through God's providence, however, the plot backfires, leading to the Jews being able to seek revenge on their enemies instead. And Haman himself is hanged on the very gallows that he had constructed for Mordecai.

Book of Nehemiah This is the account of one attempt after another by the enemies of the returning Israelites to prevent the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. They do not go about their nefarious schemes directly by force, but resort to one subterfuge after another directed mainly at Nehemiah himself. For more details as well as my personal experiences related to Nehemiah's response, see my series of posts on this OT book. Not only do all of these traps fail miserably, they only serve to bolster the resolve of Nehemiah and the Jews to complete their task.

The Gospels I will not review all of the times during Jesus' encounters when the text says that his enemies approached him with the idea in mind of testing and trapping him. But in each case, these hypocritical religious leaders end up being publicly shown up for their devious behavior or lack of knowledge of the Scriptures. No wonder that they hatched up the underhanded plan for putting Jesus out of their hair forever. But that plan backfired when his death paradoxically brought back his Spirit in power, and the whole temple and its sacrificial system to which the religious leaders were associated came crashing down around them a generation later.

TITHES AND OFFERINGS: HOW MUCH?

For many Christians, this is the sticking issue. They want to know exactly how much they owe to God so that they can then freely consider the rest as belonging to them to do with as they please. This, of course, speaks to one's attitude in giving more than to how much to give. But still, we would like to have at least a rough guideline to go by. Unfortunately, as in many other items relating to current church practices, there appear to be many biblical models we could swear by.

Maximalist Approach

Dealing first with some extreme views, on the one hand there is Jesus' reply to the rich young man as to what he needed to do in order to enter heaven. Jesus tells him to sell all of his goods and give them to the poor and follow Him. (Luke 18:18) We could then couple it with the example in Acts 4:32 describing the members of the early church holding all things in common with no one claiming private ownership of their goods. Then according to this biblical model, there is no question of tithing or giving – it should all be given to God. In addition to some obvious impracticalities to that approach, there are also a few caveats concerning that sort of interpretation:

1. Elsewhere in Luke (10:25), a lawyer comes to Jesus wanting to test him, and he asks the very same question. However, in that case Jesus tells him to love God and neighbor, then following it up with a telling of the Parable of the Good Samaritan as an example. So it is obvious that in each case, Jesus could discern the questioners' hearts and put his finger on exactly what was lacking in their individual lives. So we can't take Luke 18:18 as a universal model.

2. Concerning the example in Acts 4:32, so-called Christian communism, there are a few problems taking it at its face value also, besides the fact that descriptions in Acts do not always equate with prescriptions for today's church. For one thing, right after that passage we see the sad case of Ananias and Sapphira who gave to the apostles part of the proceeds from the sale of some of their property while stating that they had given all of it. Peter makes it very clear to Ananias in Acts 5:4 that the land was wholly his own to do with as he pleased, as were the proceeds of the sale. The sin was in lying about what he had done. We could add the example of John Mark's mother who obviously continued to own her own house in Acts 12, and used it on occasion to host the apostles.

Minimalist Approach

At the other extreme of the spectrum are those Christians who appear to look for loopholes to escape even the requirement of a tithe with arguments such as:

    1.The OT tithe was supposed to go to the temple to support the poor. Today our government taxes accomplish the same thing.

    2. If tithing is required for Christians today, why doesn't Jesus have more to say on that subject?

    3. In any case, we are living in the age of grace, not under the law. Thus, all the OT regulations were set aside for Christians.

    4. Look at the example of those Jerusalem Christians who practiced communism. It resulted in a lot of freeloaders and was the cause of the church being so poor that the Gentile churches founded by Paul had to bail them out by taking up a special offering.

    5. And even in the Gentile churches, there were many people who gave up enough of their money that the wealthier members had to support them. So Paul had to tell them to get off their backs and get back to work or there would be no more handouts (II Thessalonians 3:10-12).

I will not spend time rebutting each of these arguments, but if you are curious as to why none of them is particularly persuasive, send me an email (elmerphd21@hotmail.com) and I will try to explain. But briefly put, I think it is fair to say that while the NT has virtually nothing to say specifically regarding the requirement of tithing, it is certainly not because Jesus felt the whole subject of money was inconsequential. Instead, it appears to fit in with his approach to the Law in general – concentration on the heart of the matter, not the externals.

Tithing as a Good Guideline for Giving

There are actually minimalist and maximalist approaches even within the general category of tithing. But since each of these various views centers around the biblical principle of 10% giving, all of them do have a certain degree of validity to them. For one thing, note that Jesus when talking about the hypocritical religious leaders who tithed mint and cumin, did not tell them to discontinue the practice, only to couple it with the weightier matters of justice and mercy (Matthew 23:23). So at least at that time, he taught that the tithe was still necessary.

But if the tithe is still required for us, exactly what should we tithe? After all, back in the time of a primarily agrarian society it made perfect sense to to define tithes and offerings in terms of animals and produce. But today, our paycheck comes complete with deductions for Social Security, federal and state taxes, and savings taken out. Do we tithe on the gross or the net proceeds? And what about those who are retired? Does one pay on the interest one gets from investments and Social Security benefits, or is that “double-dipping” since one has perhaps already a paid a tithe on that money set aside earlier?

Does the bad example of the hypocrites in Jesus' time giving money openly to the temple while refusing to support their own needy family members mean that we can consider money spent on family members as part of our tithe? Or does it indicate that we should both pay our tithes and spend money to aid our needy relatives?

I have heard from the pulpit two arguments for the tithe being the bare minimum for a Christian to give to the church. One is the fact that we have many more blessings from God than the OT Jews did, and therefore we should be even more generous in returning our proceeds to Him. It is a good point, and certainly should encourage us to consider giving at least one-tenth of our income, however we define that term. The other argument that I have heard is that if one counts up all the myriad of special offerings in addition to the tithe that Jews needed to give to the temple every year, they amounted to about 40% of an average family's yearly income. I don't know how in the world that particular number could have possibly been arrived at. But I am a bit suspicious considering the large number of variables involved in such a calculation.

Even with the myriad of required yearly and special offerings, there is something concerning the tithe on produce and the firstborn of the livestock (representing the major income for most families) that is seldom pointed out. Deuteronomy 14:22-26 explains that two out of every three years, that food is to be brought to the temple by each family who then are to eat it themselves joyfully in the presence of the LORD, thanking him for their blessings. In a way, therefore, it is like a believer today saying grace with each meal, and not really at all similar to a tithe offering given to the church.

Please don't latch on to this last point above to use it as yet another loophole to avoid giving back to God what is due him, because the most applicable model for giving has yet to be mentioned.

Stewardship

This appears to be the best NT principle to follow in terms of giving. It certainly is the focus of Jesus' teachings in his Parable of the Talents, which has given rise to the concept of our being good stewards of not only our treasure, but also our time and talents.

However, surprisingly even it has its critics. Jacques Ellul for one appears to deplore the idea of stewardship of money since he treats “Money” as an evil force in itself that attempts to rival the true God. And if that is true, nothing good can come of it. This view actually seems to fit in quite well with NT teachings that treat money as Mammon, a God which demands to be worshiped and with the expression “filthy lucre” found in several NT passages. But in rebuttal, look at Luke 16:9-11 where we are told to be faithful even in how we use our money (unrighteous Mammon). As Colin Brown says, “The point is that mammon itself does not endure, but it may be used to achieve something which is enduring.”

A Different Perspective

I am not claiming that this final view is a new one at all, just that all of the above approaches have one thing in common: they all focus on how much we are to give. I think that we need to sometimes step back and ask ourselves instead: “How much should I keep for my own use?” After all, this is why Jesus praised the widow for the mite she had given since it was all she had.

By contrast, we see the rich man who may have been a loyal tither who dines royally while Lazarus literally lies starving at his door. Similarly, the foolish landowner who built more barns to store all his goods may not have been cheating anyone to get these blessings, but he certainly could have given that excess grain to those who needed it badly. I am certainly glad for the billionaires who donate large amounts of money to charitable causes, but from God's perspective (which should be our own), they still have much more left that could have been given to others, and so do most of us.

 

CAN WE SPEED UP THE TIME OF CHRIST'S COMING? (II PETER 3:12)

This is an intriguing question which is really only brought up directly by this one cryptic verse in the Bible. In part, it reads: “What sort of persons ought you to be...waiting for and hastening [speudontas] the coming of the day of God...?” This concept has given rise to various attempts by people to actually influence Christ to come sooner rather than later. Some set quite noble goals such as the missionary organizations who are striving to evangelize all the people groups through Bible translations in all languages and proclaiming the message around the world (also influenced by Jesus' words in Matthew 24:14). However, it has also launched some rather cockeyed schemes to bring about the End. These include:

    digging wells in Israel in order to find so much oil reserves that her jealous neighbors will launch an attack that triggers the Battle of Armageddon;

    looking for Noah's ark so that the exact length of a cubit can be determined as needed for the rebuilding of the temple; and

    supposed secret plans in Israel to collect DNA samples on the residents in order to determine which ones have the correct genetic bloodlines in order to serve in the rebuilt temple as priests and Levites.

Most of the controversy regarding this passage revolves around the correct translation for the root verb speudo, whether its appearance in v. 12 be taken as transitively or intransitively. English translations are quite divided on this point. 

    On the one hand are those who translate the word as “hasten” or “hurry along.” These include KJV, NEB, TEV, Living Bible, NASB, and AB. 

    Then there is the NIV rendering of “speed its coming” with, however, an alternative translation of “wait eagerly for” given in a footnote. 

    A third group includes RSV and NRSV which give the preferred translation as “earnestly desiring” but with a footnote identifying “hastening” as an alternative. 

    The final group simply opts for the basic meaning of earnestly desiring, with variations such as “long for” (JB), “eager for its arrival” (The Message), and “earnestly longing” (J.B. Phillips).

Despite such a divided opinion found in the translations, I was amazed that all of the scholarly resources I looked at agreed that the basic meaning of “hasten” was to be preferred in this verse. This is despite the fact that interpreting it in that manner runs counter to many of our expectations.

    Verhey calls it “a new note” in the letter.

    David Payne says, “This is a striking suggestion that men can in some way speed up God's plans, and it does not commend itself to all commentators; nevertheless it may well be correct...”

    Carson states that “the notion of hastening the day of the Lord's return is unavoidable.”

    Harvey and Towner add: “There is indeed a good deal of mystery in this statement. We need to receive it humbly, refusing to let our theological presuppositions pull it in directions we prefer.”

However, this particular interpretation of verse 12 does not come out of the clear blue. David Payne expresses the opinion that “it would link up well with v. 9: since God delays to give men time to repent, their speedy obedience will shorten the interval prior to the day of God.”

And D.A. Carson turns to the Old Testament to find another possible background for this verse. “This latter clause [3:12b] ultimately depends on Isa. 60:22...'I am the LORD, in its time I will hasten it.' Here, of course, it is the Lord who is hastening the day, not his obedient people...In rabbinic circles another tradition affirms that God hastens or delays the day based on Israel's repentance or lack of repentance, though it is uncertain that any of these traditions reach back to Peter's time.”

So, Gangel asks, “How do believers hasten it? The godly lives of the Lord's people, their praying, and their witnessing help bring others to repentance.” Other scholars expand on this theme:

M. Green offers as the various ways that “present Christian activity ...influences the time of the Lord's return” such as: evangelism (Mark 13:10), prayer (as in Revelation 8:4 and the Lord's Prayer with “thy kingdom come”), Christian behavior (II Peter 3:11; I Peter 2:12), and repentance and obedience (Acts 3:19-21). Similarly, J. Barton Payne offers Matthew 6:10 and I Corinthians 16:22 in regard to prayer as well as Matthew 24:14 and Acts 3:19-20 referring to the effect of evangelism on the timing of the Parousia. “Conversely, the sins of men delay the coming (II Pet 3:9).” Wheaton also cites Acts 3:19-20 although Carson takes issue with its use to argue in that matter, voicing the opinion that it is going “beyond the evidence.”

In summarizing the above thoughts, Kreitzer puts it this way: “The delay between the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his Parousia is thus to be viewed as a period of God's grace, offering time for the church to enjoy both eager expectation and to discharge its responsibilities.” M.Green adds, “What a wonderfully positive conception of the significance of our time on earth...It is intended to be a time of active co-operation with God in the redemption of society.”

But doesn't this conflict with the doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty? Bauckman explains it in this manner: “[Mankind's] repentance and holy living may therefore, from the human standpoint, hasten its coming. This does not subtract from God's sovereignty in determining the time of the End..., but means only that his sovereign determination graciously takes human affairs into account.”

 

FALLING INTO A PIT OF ONE'S OWN MAKING: PART 1

One general image found an uncommon number of times throughout the Psalms and Wisdom Literature of the Bible is that of someone setting a trap and then falling into it themselves instead. The origin of this picture is the common way of hunting animals in biblical times by laying down a net, setting a snare, or digging a pit. These sayings are actually of two types, as another reminder that often a single image or symbol in the Bible is utilized in more than one way.

One class of sayings is illustrated by two passages, which read almost the same. Thus, both Proverbs 26:27 and Ecclesiastes 10:8 basically state that whoever digs a pit will fall into it. But lest one assume that this expresses the general idea of retribution for sins, look at the context of each verse. As Whybray comments on the verse in Ecclesiastes, “This saying has nothing to do with those passages in the Old Testament which speak of the wicked or malicious who themselves fall into pits which they have dug to encompass the destruction of others...Qoheleth is speaking of the [hunter or] agricultural worker who may...have an unforeseen accident at work.” Other commentators such as D. Moore agree, and J. Ellul says, “All forms of work can turn against the worker.” One of the occupational hazards for a hunter was to set out a camouflaged trap and then forget exactly where he had placed it, with obvious consequences for the hunter when he tried to find it again.

However, these two verses are a bit controversial in that Proverbs 26:27 in the Septuagint actually has an added phrase in it so that it reads according to the Greek version: “He who digs a pit for another will fall into it himself.” R.B.Y. Scott opts for that translation and then associates Ecclesiastes 10:8 with it, contra most other scholars. Similarly, Bruce Waltke states: “By his deception and extreme efforts the enemy has unknowingly set in motion an evil design that assumes a life of its own beyond his control that will destroy him.”

This same ambiguity applies to Jesus' cautionary word to Peter at His arrest: “Put your sword away, for all those who take up the sword will die by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52) While it is possible to take this as an expression of Jesus' absolute pacificism or a warning to Peter that God's will must be done, neither of those explanations is favored by most commentators. Instead, a non-ethical issue is felt to be in mind:

    “Use of the sword for this purpose was unprofitable...This proverbial saying must not be interpreted in an absolute, unqualified sense, as if use of the sword were always wrong.” (Hendricksen)

    “Jesus seems to generalize beyond the immediate situation...This statement is sometimes interpreted as a call to pacifism, but in fact it is simply an observation that violence breeds violence.” (Blomberg)

    “As a proverbial observation on the tendency of violence to recoil on those who perpetrate it, Jesus' aphorism reflects common experience, even though not every historical example conforms to this pattern.” (France)

Moving on, however, to the majority of proverbial sayings on falling into a trap of your own setting, we see a definite emphasis on what child-rearing experts used to call “natural consequences” of disobedient actions, or we could cite the title character in Gilbert and Sullivan's operetta The Mikado who sang: “My object all sublime I shall achieve in time to make the punishment fit the crime, the punishment fit the crime.”

A quick review of the remaining examples of this saying in the Wisdom Literature shows that they all refer to a form of punishment rising against those who are evil:

    Job 18:6-10 Bildad says that the wicked “are caught in a net by their own feet and a snare grabs them.” Of course, Job's friends had a way of taking a proverbial generality and particularizing it to apply to a given situation, such as to Job's dire condition.

    Psalm 7:15-16 states that the wicked dig out a pit and then fall into it. Their evil deeds turn on their own heads.

    Psalm 9:15 applies this idea to whole people groups: “The nations have sunk into the pit that they themselves made; their foot is caught in their own hidden net.”

    Psalm 35:7-8 David pronounces a curse on his enemies by saying, “Let the net they hid trip them up; let them fall into it to their destruction.” Tanner comments on this passage that the “wishes are not for their weapons to be turned against them. The wishes are for them to know shame and humiliation, to be driven away like chaff, and to be captured in their own traps.”

    Psalm 57:6 “They set a net for my feet and dug a pit in my path, but they fell into it instead.”

    Psalm 69 describes the Psalmist's enemies having a plentiful table as a snare that will close on them, using the image of a typical Mesopotamian trap in which the net is spread flat around some food as a lure.

    Proverbs 1:16-19 expresses the ironic fact that evil men “set an ambush for their own blood; they lie in wait for their own lives (AB).”

But even considering these verses all relating to the punishment on the wicked, there is one more ambiguous item – Are they referring to the Final Judgment or to some more immediate fate? The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery opts for an open mind on the question:

    “Such a theme presents two distinct ways of looking at the immoral person's inevitable punishment. It is a product of God's righteous judgment on sin and his ultimate authority to judge the earth. However, the Bible also presents it as an inevitable and entirely natural consequence of sin...It is clear that God views sin as an encumbrance that leads people to fall into the trap...”

As with many other important principles found within the Bible, this theme is not only explicitly taught but also illustrated with historical examples. Reviewing some of those real life examples will be the subject of another post.

 

GENESIS 15

This chapter describes the covenant God made with Abram, sealing it with a rather eerie and almost ominous ritual. Wenham points out that this chapter is actually structured into two parallel movements, which can be diagrammed as follows:

    God speaks v. 1                      v. 7

    Abram speaks vv. 2-3            v. 8

    God's reaction v. 4                 v. 9

    A public act v. 5a                 vv. 16-17

    God speaks v. 5b                 vv. 13-16

    Conclusion v. 6                   vv. 18-21

Note that the parallelism above is not quite perfect. I would prefer to discuss this chapter chronologically as divided below:

Genesis 15:1-7 God appears to Abram in a vision and reassures him that he will have numerous descendants. This event comes on the wake of Abram's victory over a coalition of kings. Carr explains that the “promise to be a shield (Heb 'magen') for Abraham echoes Melchizedek's praise of the god who 'delivered' ('miggen') Abraham (14:20), and the reward replaces the goods he had refused from the king of Sodom (14:21-24).”

Genesis 15:8 Abram wants to get a sign from God that this will indeed happen. Interestingly, this is almost word-for-word what the priest Zechariah said to Gabriel after hearing that his request for a child would be granted (Luke 1:18). The condition of childlessness also forms the same background to this passage. But whereas the angel rebuked Zechariah for his lack of faith, God grants the sign that Abram requested and he is held up as the ultimate example of faith in the Bible. It would be a good discussion topic to see what caused the different divine responses between these two situations. It goes to show that we mortals can't always trust external behavior to be a foolproof tip-off to someone's spiritual state; only God can do that.

Genesis 15:9 God tells Abram to fetch a heifer, a goat, a ram, a turtledove, and a pigeon.

Observe that these are representative examples of all the ritually clean animals acceptable for sacrifice to God. There is possibly some deep symbolism in the fact that the first three animals are specified to be three years old. If so, this would be parallel to other passages such as Genesis 41:25-30 and Judges 6:1,25.

Genesis 15:10-11 Abram does as God commanded and cuts all but the birds in two. He then keeps the birds of prey from feasting on the carcasses. The cutting of the animals in two is usually explained as the origin of the Hebrew phrase “to make (literally, “cut”) a covenant. And the meaning of the ritual is said to invoke a curse on the one or ones making the covenant, expressing the thought: “May I be treated like these animals if I break this covenant.” See Jeremiah 34:18 for this usage. Wenham feels that it may also be behind the rituals in Judges 19-20; I Samuel 11 and Amos 5:17. However, Wenham rightly points out that in this present case it is God who makes the covenant and passes through the animals. And it is unlikely that He would be pronouncing such a curse upon Himself.

Next is the question of the underlying meaning, if any, behind the birds attempting to feast on the carcasses. Several evangelical commentators express the opinion that the animal carcasses represent the descendants of Abraham while the birds of prey are the pagan nations. Thus, by Abraham's actions he is protecting his future offspring from attack by others who would destroy them.

Genesis 15:12 At sundown, Abram falls into a deep sleep with a fearful darkness descending on him. We see here the sometimes ambiguous relationship between divine dreams and visions.

Genesis 15:13-16 God predicts that Abram's descendants will be in captivity for 400 years before they are released to return to their own land. J.B. Payne and others explain that this prophecy corresponds very closely to what actually happened. Thus, Exodus 12:40 says that the Jews will live 430 years in Egypt and Canaan. But the latter time period can be calculated as 33 years by piecing together the date notices in Genesis 30:25; 31:41; 41:46-47; and 45:6. That leaves 397 years of Egyptian captivity.

Genesis 15:17 When the sun goes down and it is completely dark, a pot full of smoke and a flaming torch pass between the pieces of the dead animals. This only adds to the eerie atmosphere surrounding the whole episode. And it is certainly the most unusual theophany found in the Bible, although God does appear elsewhere as or in a fire or flame (i.e. Moses seeing the burning bush, the pillar of fire at night to guide the Israelites in the wilderness, the fire in the middle of Ezekiel's vision of the divine throne, tongues of fire at the Day of Pentacost, etc.).

Genesis 15:18-21 In such a manner, God gives Abraham the land of Canaan as his descendants' possession. This is probably an appropriate place to comment regarding the various covenants which God appears to make with Abraham. P.R. Williamson does a good job of sorting them out:

    Genesis 12:1-3 lays out briefly two promises: (1) that the Patriarch will be the founder of a great nation with many descendants and attendant land to possess, and (2) he will bring future blessings on all the other nations.

    Genesis 15 confirms Promise #1.

    Genesis 17 anticipates Promise #2.

    Genesis 22 confirms Promise #2.

Several commentators note that the promise of land in Genesis 15 is not said to be an everlasting covenant as is the universal promise brought about through Abraham's seed, Jesus Christ. However, many premillennialists dispute that claim and support the modern state of Israel in any attempt they may make to reclaim all the land promised in Genesis 15.

A.P. Ross concludes: “The principles in this chapter are essentially the same for any age. Today people become the people of God by faith as well, and their faith brings righteousness before God (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6)...By his covenant which he made by his own blood, however, our Lord has guaranteed that his Word is sure and that neither death nor oppression can destroy his promises (Heb. 7:20-25; Rom. 8:31-39).”

    

         

 

WHO OR WHAT IS THE ISRAEL OF GOD? (GALATIANS 6:16)

As part of his closing benediction to this letter, Paul says: “As many who walk by this rule, peace be upon them and mercy and [or “that is] upon the Israel of God.” This turns out to be a particularly hard verse to interpret, and it has given rise to two different basic views. R.H. Cole says, “A strong case can be made for both views.” Martyn concurs when he states, “Arguments have been advanced for each of these readings, but no satisfactory consensus has emerged.”

So what are the basic problems with this verse, and what are the two different view that are vying with one another? Let's start with the second question first. It all boils down to the fact that some commentators see two different groups being described in this verse: those who “walk by this rule” and the “Israel of God.” But others feel that the two phrases describe the same group of believers.

As to why it is not easy to sort out these two issues, we must deal with questions of context, punctuation and translation simultaneously. But to make it clearer, let me try to describe each of these issues separately.

Context

Starting with the first part of this verse, the phrase “this rule” obviously points to something Paul had previously said. The controversy centers around exactly what that reference is to. Answers range from close contexts to more distant ones:

Bruce: “The kanos [rule] is apparently the principle just laid down [v. 15] about the 'new creation': the reference then is to members of the new humanity who are guided by this principle, in contrast to those who maintain the continuing validity of circumcision and similar legal requirements.”

Martyn and Guthrie similarly go slightly further afield in Galatians, pointing to the fact that the same word for “walk” appears in 5:25 as in 6:16a, thus meaning “to lead one's life by.”

Ciampa cites additional passages within Galatians such as 3:7,26,29; 4:5-7, etc. as the pertinent context for Paul's thoughts in 6:16. Based on these verses, he concludes that “it seems most likely that the reference to the 'Israel of God' in 6:16 is a reference to the church as the eschatologically restored people of God, which now clearly includes both Jews and Gentiles.”

And Martyn appeals to Galatians 3:15-29 to settle this question in the same way.

Briggs capsulizes the above opinions in saying: “This rule has been summarized in v. 15 but is in fact the standards of Christian faith and behavior Paul has advanced throughout the letter.”

Brauch also points to 6:15 as the context for 6:16a. But he deduces that the “new creation” in that earlier verse contains both Jews and Greeks, as evidenced by Paul's writings in Galatians 3:28 and II Corinthians 5:17. And this creation “is established by grace and through faith. That is the 'rule' (or principle) to which Paul refers in this saying.”

Mikolaski uses additional writings of Paul in order to paraphrase 6:16 as follows: “If one should speak of religious rules, then let a benediction rest on those who live by the principle of new life in Christ. These are the true Israel of God, heirs to Abram (cf. 3:14; Phil. 3:3).” John Stott similarly goes back to Galatians 3:29 and Philippians 3:3 in order to explain 6:16.

Ridderbos: “This rule comprehends everything he has said. It points to the new norm and measure. The cross of Christ forms its point of departure, and the new creature forms its realization. Everything must be measured by its standard.”

But what about the rest of v. 16 with its unique phrase “Israel of God”? Here too there are varying views regarding its origin:

Guthrie explains, “The phrase occurs nowhere else in the New Testament so there are no parallels to which to appeal for a decision.” His personal feeling is that there is only one group to which Paul refers in Galatians 6:16, the Church. So to explain the strange reference to Israel at the end of Galatians, he says, “No doubt Paul introduces this reference to Israel not only because he is echoing it from the Psalm [Ps. 125:5, which says 'peace shall be upon Israel'], but also because he wants to assure the Galatians that they will not forfeit the benefits of being part of the true Israel by refusing circumcision.”

Ridderbos (and others) cites the standard Jewish benediction Shemoneh Esre which Paul may have been aware of. It reads in part: “Grant peace, salvation, and blessing; grant favor, grace, and mercy to us and to all Israel, thy people.” But Paul gives it new meaning since, as in Romans 9:7, Israel designates the new Israel; “its scope goes out to include in the widest sense all believers whatsoever, the new people of God.”

Translation

Most issues in the Bible regarding word definitions involve words that are rare. But in this case, a large part of problem of interpretation involves the extremely common Greek word kai, usually translated as “and.” But as a number of scholars point out, it can equally be translated as “i.e.,” “that is (to say),” or “in other words.” Thus, if the kai coming right after “mercy” in the last part of v. 16 is meant to mean “and,” then Paul had two separate groups in mind. But if it is translated as “even” or “that is” as in NIV, then there is only one group of people receiving this blessing.

Punctuation

Closely related to the above issue is how to punctuate the sentence. Keep in mind that the original Greek had no punctuation the way we do today. In the quote from Galatians 6:16 with which I began this post, I purposely left out a key comma because there is a controversy as to where one should put it. If you place it after “mercy” you end up saying that blessings of peace and mercy are given to one group, which can be defined as either those following “this rule” or as the “Israel of God.” On the other hand, placing a comma after “them” results in a sentence in which a blessing of peace is given to those following the rule while a blessing of mercy rests on the Israel of God. Most evangelical scholars whose writings I have consulted go with the first option except for those of a dispensational leaning who follow their distinctive theological approach to Scripture stressing God's relationship with the nation of Israel while downplaying somewhat the present mainly Gentile dispensation.

Additional Arguments

A number of scholars subscribe to the interpretation that the blessings in this verse apply to only one group. They include L. Morris, B. Witherington, G.W. Hansen, J.L Martyn, and W.B.Hunter, just to name a few besides those already quoted above.

Silva points out the most obvious reason in favor of this view: “[S]ince the letter as a whole focuses on the unity of God's people, it is difficult to believe that at the very end of the document he would introduce an ethnic distinction.”

In a similar vein, Coad states, “that it is only a faithful remnant of the natural Israel is surely out of harmony with the letter...”

One the other hand are those who see two separate groups in Galatians 6:16.

John Walvoord advances as an argument for this viewpoint the fact that “everywhere else in the Scriptures the term Israel is applied only to those who are the natural seed of Abraham and Isaac, never to Gentiles.” In rebuttal, refer back to the arguments advanced in the “Context” section above in relation to the interpretation of this phrase.

Additionally, Martyn says, “Gal 6:16, I Cor 10:18, and Rom 9:6[-7] are not to be put on a single level, but they do show Paul's creativity in coining arresting – and differentiating – expressions having to do with Israel.” One could also appeal to the phrases found in I Peter such as “a holy priesthood” (2:5) and “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people” (2:9) which take descriptions originally applied to the Jewish people and transfer them to the church instead. Similarly, we could cite the Letter of James addressed “to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion.” Although dispensationalists insist that those designations merely prove that those two letters were written to ethnic Jews, that is not the scholarly consensus on the subject by any means.

The only other real argument advanced in favor of two separate groups concerns the two blessings that are given: peace and mercy. It has been said that when Paul uses these two words together elsewhere in his writings, “peace”always comes after “mercy.” And therefore there must be some significance to the observation that at the end of Galatians he should suddenly reverse the usual order. That is explained by them saying that Paul gives a blessing of peace on the believers (the first group) plus a blessing of mercy on the non-believing Jews (the second group). This makes sense, according to those who reason in this fashion, since it is the latter group who needs God's mercy, not the believers who already possess it.

There are at least two ways to counter this second argument. In the first place, Morris points to several NT passages where the blessing of mercy is given to believers. The second argument is related to a fact I have pointed out in several other places when discussing the literary structure of the NT Epistles, especially those of Paul. He generally begins his letters by pronouncing a blessing on the recipients of “grace and peace” in that order. However, whenever “peace” appears at the end of his epistles in conjunction with “grace,” that order is always reversed. Thus, “grace and peace....peace and grace.”

So first note that Galatians ends with a three-fold blessing of peace, mercy, and grace (6:16-18). Now look at those occasions when “mercy” appears at the start of a letter by Paul. At the beginning of the Pastoral Epistles I Timothy, II Timothy, and Titus (variant reading) as well as in II John, we find it as part of the triad “grace, mercy, and peace.” Yes, mercy does precede peace in all those cases, however that is only when it is part of an opening benediction, not part of the letter's conclusion. So what we in fact have is a complete reversal of that triad in these letters at the end of Galatians, as completely predicted by Paul's usage elsewhere. Thus, “grace, mercy and peace....peace, mercy, and peace."

There is one final issue regarding those who see two groups of people represented in Paul's blessing. Even among those who feel that way, there is no unity as to who constitutes the second group, “the Israel of God.” D.K. Campbell says that the phrase refers to believing Jews at the time of Paul's writing, as do Ryrie and Walvoord. The problem with this interpretation is pointed out by Hoekema and others in that those particular Jews are already included in the phrase “those who follow this rule.” Therefore, it makes no sense to break these believers out as a separate category.

A more consistent interpretation, if one should still feel that two different groups of people are in mind, is to treat the second group as “those Israelites who will come to their senses and receive Christ, but have not yet done so.” (P.E. Leonard) F.F. Bruce agrees with this basic approach but tends to limit this group more to the remnant of believing Jews in the eschatological future.

 

NEW TESTAMENT LETTER FORMAT

 

Today when we write a letter, or more likely an email, we really don't think about putting it into any sort of acceptable, formal format. That was not true in New Testament times, however. There was a more or less standard model utilized in Greek and Roman letters, even the most commonplace ones.

William Barclay quotes one such early letter in his commentary on Romans, and it is given in full below with the separate elements indicated by the Roman numerals.

I. “Apion sends heartiest greetings to this father and lord Epimachus. II. I pray above all that you are well and fit; and that things are going well with you and my sister and her daughter and my brother. III. I thank my Lord Serapis [a god] that he kept me safe when I was in peril on the sea. IV. As soon as I got to Misenum I got my journey money from Caesar – three gold pieces. And things are going fine with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a line, first to let me know how you are, and then about my brothers, and thirdly, that I may kiss your hand, because you brought me up well, and because of that, I hope, God willing, soon to be promoted. V. Give Capito my heartiest greetings and my brothers and Serenilla and my friends. I sent you a little picture of myself painted by Euctemon. My military name is Antonius Maximus. I pray for your good health. Serenus sends good wishes, Agathos Daimon's boy and Turbo, Gallenius' son.”

I = opening greeting; II = Prayer; III = thanksgiving; IV = special contents; V = conclusion containing special greetings and/or a prayer or benediction.

Note that even in the example above there is a little fluidity in how the above author arranged his material. Thus, the final portion contains not only the special greetings but also an item that could have been included in the special contents and a short prayer as well.

The chart below pictures where these elements occur in the NT epistles, leaving out Item #IV for the sake of convenience:

letter                     opening greeting         prayer         thanksgiving                      conclusion

Romans                 1:1-7                          1:9-10            1:8                                    15:33-16:21

I Corinthians         1:1-2                          1:3                 1:4-9                                 16:19-24

II Corinthians        1:1                             1:2                 1:3-7                                 13:11-14

Galatians               1:1-2                         1:3-5                                                         6:18

Ephesians              1:1                            1:2-14             1:15-23                              6:21-23

Philippians             1:1                           1:2                  1:3-11                                 4:19-23

Colossians             1:1-2a                      1:2b-11           1:12-14                               4:7-18

I Thessalonians     1:1a                          1:1b                2:9,13-15                            5:23-28

                                                               3:10-13;5:17  3:9; 5:18

II Thessalonians    1:1                           1:2,11-12         1:3-10; 2:13-15                  2:16-17

                                                                                                                                  3:16-17

I Timothy             1:1-2a                        1:2b                 1:12-17                               6:21b

II Timothy           1:1-2a                        1:2b                 1:3-5                                    4:18-22

Titus                     1:1-4a                       1:4b                                                              3:15

Philemon             1:1-2                         1:3                     1:4-7                                   1:23-25

Hebrews                                                13:18-19                                                      13:20-25

James                  1:1a                           1:1b

I Peter                 1:1-2a                        1:3-9                  4:11b                                   5:11-14

II Peter                1:1                             1:2                                                                 3:18

I John

II John                 1:1-2                          1:3                    1:4                                        1:13

III John               1:1                              1:2                    1:3                                        1:15

Jude                     1:1                             1:2                                                                  1:24

From this chart, you can see a few items that stand out. Among Paul's epistles to the churches, note that he really didn't have any thanks to give for the Galatians. Next is the fact that only I & II Thessalonians and I Peter have a doubling up of one or more letter elements. I don't feel that it is coincidental that these three epistles were written with the aid of Silvanus. So his possible involvement in the authorship of these letters is discussed in more detail in my post titled “I Peter: Introduction to the Literary Structure.” The fact that there is really no opening salutation at all in Hebrews and I John cause some scholars to feel that one or both of these compositions may have started their lives as something other than letters to particular audiences.

Two additional notes are in order concerning Paul's letters especially. He elevated the genre of letter to a new high as great literature by expanding on most of the elements present in standard Greek and Roman correspondence of the time. Also, when it came to the special contents section of his letters, he generally begins with a theological discussion to set the stage for a following application unit and a concluding note of a more or less logistical nature regarding travel plans for himself and/or colleagues.

TITHES AND OFFERINGS: WHY?

This is a companion post to another one concerned with the when and where to giving, and it gets down more to the heart of the matter. Since the teachings in the New Testament seem concentrate on that issue than the Old Testament does, let us concentrate on NT examples as we begin discussing the overarching question of why we give in the first place.

Assessment

At least one of the forms of support for the Jewish temple was the assessed Temple Tax (see Exodus 30:11-17 and Nehemiah 10:32-33). It amounted to about one day's wage annually. Matthew 17:24-27 may refer to this tax, and T.E. Schmidt feels that this passage may indicate that the tax was no longer compulsory by Jesus' time, at least for the Christians.

One friend of mine in school said that his family no longer attended church ever since it began a building campaign. Apparently, one evening a church official called on his family at home and explained to my friend's dad that a group had gotten together and estimated what his annual income was. Based on that estimate, the man handed the father an assessment for his expected share of the costs.

Following an OT model for giving may have appeared to be “biblical” to that particular church, but it is in stark contrast to the situation of the early church in regard to special offerings described Acts 5. See Peter's comment to Ananias in v. 4 regarding the sale of his extra land to donate to the early church group: “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal?”

It is rather hard to be the sort of cheerful giver that God loves when we are forced into giving.

While most church groups today would not go as far as to demand a certain amount of money from their parishioners, it is often made crystal clear to the congregation that tithes and offerings are part of the requirements for all believers if they wish to go to heaven. The congregations in which my wife and I were raised were by no means the most legalistic ones around at the time, and yet practically every week it was hammered into us from the pulpit that we had to tithe, attend all church services, read our Bibles, and invite others to church if we were to call ourselves Christians.

Duty

This leads us to another common motive for giving. In NT times, the most scrupulous of the Jews at the time were the Pharisees, and yet it would be very hard to characterize them as loving or joyful in any way from the biblical evidence. They went so far as to tithe the herbs they grew in their gardens, but it appears that they were acting strictly out of duty. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus does not counsel them to give up this practice, but instead he bawls them out for doing it while continuing to ignore the weightier matters of justice and mercy. Apparently, they were following in the exact footsteps of their ancestors with whom, we are told in Micah 6:6-8, God was not pleased. That was because they did give their offerings, but at the same time had neglected justice and kindness – the very things that God really required of them.

Guilt

So what other reasons inspire people to give if there is no compulsion present and they can't be motivated by a sense of duty? Even in the secular world, guilt can be seen as a very powerful force. Just look at any plea on television on behalf of a pet shelter or starving orphans in the world. These appeals tug at one's heartstrings while filling us with a sense of guilt if we do not respond. And the Christian world is by no means exempt from this sort of powerful approach to our pocket books. We are well aware of popular TV evangelists and megachurch pastors who rake in money with the pretext that their valuable ministries desperately need the cash so that they can continue doing the Lord's work. Too often, the sad truth of where the money actually went sometimes leaks out and brings great damage to the cause of Christ instead.

But just to illustrate that this same sort of appeal can operate on a much smaller scale, I will tell the story of the worst sermon I have every experienced. I heard it when I visited a very small church with my future wife before we were married. She knew the congregation very well, and they could probably be characterized as very sincere and loving Christians drawn mainly from the blue collar working class.

Every year, they would have as a guest speaker the pastor of another church who also ran his own Christian “college” on his church grounds.

His annual fund raising appeal consisting of brow-beating the congregation into submission by comparing their lack of dedication to Christ to his own life of sacrificial service. At one point he told us that we all needed to quit our jobs and take up full-time ministry. He then said (and I remember it very clearly), “But you will say to me, 'Preacher, if we all did that, who would do all the other work in the world.' I tell you, 'None of you has the guts to do what I do!'”

After taking up what was, I am sure, a sacrificial offering for his ministry, he drove away in a new Cadillac worth easily twice what any other car in the church parking lot was worth.

Hope of Gain

Another insidious motive for giving is typified today by the popular churches who teach the Prosperity Gospel. A favorite proof text for these Christians is Malachi 3:10 – “Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in my house, and thus put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts; see if I will not open the windows of heaven and pour down for you an overflowing blessing.” Preachers thus tell their congregations that the more they give to the church, the more money and possessions God will bless them with.

One quick rejoinder to this teaching is found in Mark 10:29-30 when the disciples ask what they are going to get in return for following Jesus. He replies that in this life they will get a hundred-fold return in family, houses, and fields. And in addition they will get eternal life in the time to come. On the surface, this would certainly appear to be another Prosperity Gospel proof text. That is, except for a few points left out of that rather heretical teaching.

For one thing, Marcus points out the obvious fact that “there is a striking contrast between the plethora of benefits promised for 'this time' and the single reward guaranteed for the coming age, which implies that the latter, eternal life, is more valuable than all the advantages of the present age.” Also notably missing from the prosperity message are two element found in the NT text: (1) One of the promises for this age is actually persecution and (2) the hundred-fold blessings in this age are clearly referring to what we have at our disposal through being part of a sharing and caring Christian community. They have nothing to do with any economic blessings we can expect to get to spend on our personal desires.

As a footnote to this point, we more orthodox evangelical Christians should not get on our high horses and criticize the “name it, claim it” crowd too much without first considering that we often carry out our acts of giving with the sole purpose of buying a place in heaven so that the more we give, the bigger our mansion there will be. My personal feeling is that this is the reason we are given so little detail regarding life in the afterlife; if we knew more, it would all too likely bring out the wrong motives in us. By contrast, Tammy Faye Bakker once said on her TV show that she was getting so many blessings from living the Christian life, she would continue doing it even if it weren't true. What a reason for being a Christian!

Acclaim by Others

Jesus directly tackles this motive for giving in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:2-4) . He contrasts the hypocrites who make a great show of their giving (“They already have their reward.”) with the appropriate action, expressed hyperbolically, of not letting your left hand what your right hand is doing. Of course, even this injunction can be taken too far to the point of not even wanting to give a check or money in an offering envelope because the church treasurer will find out how much you are giving. But I certainly think it might rightly discourage the practice in some churches of having plaques around the building indicating who donated which pew, communion table, stained glass window, etc.

The practice of korban is another example of a practice used by some of the religious leaders in Jesus' day. They apparently made a great show of how much they were giving to the temple even though some of it should have been earmarked for the more private support of their own elderly parents. (Mark 7:9-13) Paul calls believers such as that “worse than infidels.” (I Timothy 5:8)

Faith

You may be surprised to see this as listed as one of the inadequate motives for giving, so let me explain myself. What I am specifically addressing is the common practice of “faith-promise” giving. The idea seems to be a good one: commit yourself to give to God a set amount of money which may seem to be a stretch for your current budget. Strike out in faith and start giving that extra amount. By doing so, you will find God blessing you in surprisingly unexpected ways with enough money to meet your commitment to Him.

Notice that this is not exactly the same as the Prosperity Gospel in that your goal is not to accrue more for yourself, but to devote all this extra money to God instead. It appears to be a much more noble goal, but there is one pitfall. If for some reason you do not find yourself blessed with these additional resources, you are then placed in the inevitable position of having basically made a vow to God which you cannot fulfill. Putting yourself in that position is cautioned strongly against in both the OT and NT. The other pitfall is that you may give the promised money anyway and thereby get in over your head financially so that you find yourself asking the church to bail you out. Keep in mind that the usual pattern of giving described in the Bible is to give of what God has already blessed you with, not what you hope He will bless you with in the future.

This last point leads logically into the conclusion. If all of the above are inadequate reasons for giving our resources to God, what are the only acceptable motives? Obviously, it is to give it back to Him in grateful thanks for the many blessings He has given us and in a spirit of love toward those who will benefit from these tithes and offerings as they are used to continue the teaching of the word to believers as well as spreading the word to others.

 

WHY WAS THE BOOK OF ACTS WRITTEN?

To many Christians, there is an obvious answer to this question. The book was written because the Holy Spirit directed Luke to write it. Or we might point to the obvious fact that if Acts were not in the NT, we would be completely in the dark as to how the death and resurrection of Christ somehow led to the establishment of all the churches mentioned in the Epistles. As Neil puts it: “in his two-volume work he builds a bridge between the two.” But naturally, such simple explanations concerning the purpose behind Acts are not enough for biblical scholars, as I will demonstrate below.

Pinning down the exact reason behind Luke's writing the book is complicated by a number of factors. First, there is the question as to the way in which Luke's Gospel and Acts are bound together as a two-part composition. Then, in the opening verses of Luke we are introduced to the recipient of the book, Theophilus, of whom we know nothing – not even whether that was his real name or a pseudonym (meaning “God lover”). Related to that problem is the fact that his designation as “Most Excellent” may indicate that he was some sort of Roman official or perhaps it was “simply a piece of politeness.” (Marshall) And if we jump to the end of the book, we are treated to the strange conclusion in which the fate of its major character, Paul, is just left up in the air. Finally, there is the overarching question as to whether there even has to be one purpose behind the book or if there could equally well be a number of themes which Luke had in mind.

Raymond Brown notes that Bock lists eleven proposals for the purpose behind Luke-Acts. We will not discuss each of these ideas since some have been fairly well discredited by now. For example, Pervo treats it as an ancient historical novel written to entertain and edify its readers. Other more likely possibilities (and some of them are related to one another) are discussed below with their variations.

I will begin with five proposals cited by Brevard Childs:

1. Describing how Christianity spread geographically.

2. Transitioning from Judaism to Gentile Christianity.

These first two reasons are basically the same as the general, and obvious, reason mentioned above and fall into the general category of an historical document. G.E. Ladd is one who subscribes to this as the primary motive for Luke's writing: “It therefore should not be surprising that many good critical scholars believe that Luke has given us a trustworthy picture of the life and thought of the Jerusalem church.”

“Behind Theophilus we may imagine a group of interested readers of some culture and position who are beginning to take an interest in the strange happenings which took place in Palestine and the Near East from A.D. 27 onward.” (Trenchard)

3. A defense for the legitimacy of Christianity within the Empire.

“His concern is with offering a legitimization of the new proclamation...His purpose is directed to securing the faith of Christian believers, both for the present time and beyond.” (Childs)

The test case as to whether the Roman government would include Christianity as one of the acceptable forms of religion allowed within the Empire was going to be the trial of Paul. Therefore Luke may have been writing to influential Roman citizens and officials in order to convince them to support the view of the new religion's legitimacy. (Bruce) In favor of that view is the fact that whenever Roman officials are mentioned (from Pilate to the account of Gallio in Acts 18 to the centurion on board the ship in Acts 27 to the relative freedom Paul was allowed while awaiting his trial in Rome), it is generally in a fairly favorable light.

R.E. Brown objects that Roman officials would hardly have taken the time to read the whole of Luke-Acts. However, a slight variation on this theme first espoused by Streeter takes care of Brown's objection. i.e. that Theophilus was actually the lawyer assigned to defend Paul in his trial before the emperor, and Luke-Acts was prepared by Luke to provide him the background information he needed to prepare his defense. W. Neil does not wholly subscribe to this view but admits that it would certainly explain why Acts ends where it does, on an unresolved note.

On the other hand, Neil states categorically that “Luke is not primarily defending the faith, he is proclaiming it.”

4. Transition from Jesus' earthly ministry to that of the Spirit.

Many popular writers lean toward this general understanding. For example Lloyd Ogilve calls it a biography of the Holy Spirit, and John Stott titles his commentary on Acts The Spirit, The Church, and the World.

5. The fulfillment of the Old Testament promises to the the Jews accompanied by the establishment of the Universal Church including the Gentiles as well.

This last reason is also one personally espoused by Childs, and it is expressed differently by various scholars.

“In it we see the working out of one aim; God's purpose to bring salvation in all of its fulness to all.” (J.B. Green)

The promise and fulfillment theme “is no small factor in the motivation of Luke as he gathered up the tradition about Jesus and the movement that began with him.” (Fitzmyer)

“Promise/fulfillment is a pattern characterizing the relation not only between the Old Testament and Luke but also between Luke and Acts.” (Craddock)

“Christianity had by the time of the writing of Luke-Acts expanded from a small Jewish sect to a major religious movement embracing Jews and Gentiles alike. Luke explains this phenomenon as the response to Jesus as the promised Messiah and the offer of His saving work to all people.” (Inch)

6. A series of biographies beginning with Jesus and ending with Paul.

Talbert came up with this idea based on supposed parallels in secular Greek and Roman writings. Critics point out that there really are no such similar documents. Another more or less biographical rationale for Acts is mentioned by Toussaint: a legitimization of Paul's apostleship by comparing it to that of Peter.

7. There were actually difference purposes behind the writing of Luke's Gospel and that of Acts. The critic Dibelius proposed that the Gospel was written for a Christian audience while Acts was written for private reading by educated pagans. Neil's insightful response to this was, “Surely he is writing both for the Church and for the world, and above all for the Church in the world.”

R.E. Brown appears to agree somewhat with Neil on this point: “the Lucan writings could help the Christian readers/hearers in their own self-understanding; Christians needed to know that there was nothing subversive in their origins, nothing that should cause them to be in conflict with Roman government...In addition, Gentiles addressed by Luke-Acts could thus be assured that their acceptance of Jesus was no accident or aberration but part of God's plan reaching back to creation...”

These opinions are echoed by Fitzmyer who says that the main purpose behind Acts was “to build up that [Christian] community and to win over Gentiles to it.” 

8. There was an eschatological reason for Luke's writing. 

Ellis states that “in the events produced by the Spirit in Jesus' pre- and post-resurrection missions the kingdom itself is being manifested...Nevertheless, the kingdom also remains in the future, and its coming is associated with the parousia, the glorious appearance of Jesus at the close of the age. Luke is quite interested in distinguishing these two stages in the manifestation of the reign of God.”

Toussaint concludes that Luke wrote his book for an eschatological purpose “to show how it is God's intention for His millennial kingdom to include a population of believers taken from Jews and Gentiles during this Age.” It is doubtful that even a majority of his fellow dispensationalists would agree in deriving this rather specific theme from the text of Luke-Acts.

9. There are multiple reasons for the writing that were all important to Luke.

Several scholars conclude after considering all of the options that no one overarching theme is sufficient to account for all of the material contained in Luke-Acts.

    “It is history written by a theologian and a preacher.” (Neil)

    A.R. Cross concludes that the genre of Acts includes biography, theology and history.

    “Acts [is] a historical monograph with a proclamation.” (Fitzmyer)

    Ellis: “To be a concerned theologian does not necessarily make Luke a less concerned historian.”

The amazing achievement of Luke-Acts in introducing all of these themes within one large book speaks to both Luke's genius and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

II KINGS 3:4-8 ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

In 1868, an Arab sheikh showed a German missionary a 4-ft. high basalt slab. The missionary expressed interest in buying it and did a paper rubbing of the inscription. But a fight broke out between the missionary's servants and the Arabs, and so negotiations were broken off. The Arabs thought something valuable must be hidden inside, and so they heated it in a fire and poured water on it to break it in pieces. The pieces were then carried away as magic amulets to bless their grain.

An alternative story is given in Biblical Archaeology Today, 20 (3), 2 to account for the breaking of the slab. According to this tradition, some Turks were brought into the negotiations, and the Arabs broke the stone on purpose to keep them from getting it.

Eventually about 2/3 of the slab, called the Moabite Stone or Mesha Stela, was recovered and it now resides in the Louvre. The writing was shown to be in ancient Moabite, closely related to the Hebrew language. And Hadley explains that this stela (dated to the 9^th century BC) actually contains the first existing example of writing in the fully developed Hebrew script. With the help of the original paper rubbing of the stone, the missing portions have been reconstructed, containing the phrase “House of David.” This confirms the early use of this term for David's dynasty, formerly believed by critics to be a late addition to passages such as II Samuel 7:26 and I Kings 2:24.

The monument turns out to have been erected by King Mesha of Moab, and it reads in part: “Omri, king of Israel, humbled Moab many days because Chemosh [god of Moab] was angry at his land. His son [Ahab] followed him, and he also said this, but I have triumphed over him and over his house.” Then there are details about how he took back the cities that Israel had occupied. Among those details is the story of Mesha fortifying several cities to the north in order to protect against any Israelite invasions. Mabie feels that this could explain why King Joram of the Northern Kingdom chose to attack Moab from the south instead of the more expected northern approach, an account found in II Kings 3:8.

Thus, one important feature of this ancient inscription is that it confirms the story found in II Kings 3 and specifically mentions the two biblical names Omri and Mesha.