ISAIAH 66: USE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

We sometimes don't realize how much the ideas and words of the Old Testament permeate the writings in the New Testament. The best resource for seeing these correspondences is a book that I have mentioned in several of my posts: Beale and Carson's Commentary on the NT Use of the OT. It is fairly common to read commentaries on the NT that give references back to the OT where appropriate, but the reverse is not as common. So as an example, I picked the above chapter at random out of Isaiah since that is one of the most quoted books in the NT along with the Psalms. Keep in mind that often the writers relied on the Greek Septuagint (LXX) rather than sticking closely to the Hebrew text. Here are some of the ways in which the NT writers utilized this chapter:

Isaiah 66: Aus proposes “that 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 is the result of a conscious reflection of Isa. 66...in order to create an end-time scenario that will comfort the persecuted readers and counter the false claim concerning the day of the Lord.”

Verse 1 // Matthew 5:34-35 The expression about the earth being God's footstool appears in both these passages.

Verse 1 // Matthew 23:1-2 Similarly, the picture of heaven as God's throne is borrowed from Isaiah.

Verses 1-2 LXX // Acts 7:49-50 Stephen quotes from the Septuagint very closely during his speech to the crowd. See Beale and Carson, p. 569 for a detailed comparison between the two.

Verses 1-3 // Mark 9:48 Mark changes the Isaian wording to the present tense. “Jesus addresses the warning to his newly reconstituted community, still struggling with its own 'idolatrous conceptions of being Israel.” (Watts)  Mark draws on this passage in Isaiah in verses 10-14 and 18-21 as well.

Verse 2 // Luke 18:13 God expects a chastened attitude from us.

Verse 3 LXX // Mark 3:29 The faithless Israelites had slandered God.

Verses 3-5 // Romans 10:21 There is the charge of rebellion, including dismissal of the word of the LORD.

Verses 3-6 // Mark 1:10 “Yahweh's advent also meant judgment on Israel's apostate leaders and temple dignitaries.” (Watts)

Verse 5a // John 9:24, 34 This intolerance is acted out in John's passage.

Verse 5a // John 16:2 The NT context probably refers to Jewish persecution, not Roman.

Verse 5a // Matthew 5:10 This beatitude concerning those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake is reminiscent of Isaiah's “Your own people who hate you and reject you for my name's sake.”

Verse 5b LXX // II Thessalonians 1:12 Glorification of the Lord is the theme of these passages.

Verse 6 // Revelation 16:1 In both cases, loud voices from the temple signal judgment beginning for the unrighteous.

Verses 7-9 // I Corinthians 15:51 God brings about deliverance in a moment, a twinkling of the eye.

Verses 7-9 // Revelation 12:2 Both contain symbolic pictures of a woman in child labor.

Verse 8 // Matthew 4:12-16 The theme of the Messianic child appears here.

Verse 10 // John 15:11 End time rejoicing is referred to in these passages.

Verses 10, 22 // Revelation 12:2 Continuation of the story of the woman in labor.

Verses 10-14 // Galatians 4:26-27 Although the Galatians citation is actually from Isaiah 54:1, the image of a woman singing with joy over her newborn child is also found in Isaiah 66.

Verse 11 LXX // Luke 2:25 Paraklesis in Isaiah “becomes a symbol for the arrival of the eschatological era when God fulfills his promises to Israel.” (Pao and Schnabel)

Verse 14 // John 16:22 This is another NT passage about a woman being joyful over a newborn baby.

Verse 14 LXX // Luke 1:78 “In Isaiah the verb anatello frequently appears in contexts of God's eschatological restoration.” (Pao and Schnabel)

Verse 15 // II Thessalonian 1:8 The presence of fire highlights God's judgment.

Verse 15 // Revelation 7:1 Winds are pictured as agents of divine judgment.

Verses 15-16 // Hebrews 10:27 Fire is a symbol of God's judgment.

Verses 15-16 // Matthew 10:34 “...fire and sword are the harsh aspects of every divine intervention.” (Kidner)

Verses 16, 23-24 // John 1:23 “All humanity will witness Yahweh's triumphant return to his holy people...” (Kostenberger)

Verse 18 // II Timothy 4:16 This describes the universal scope of God's plan of salvation.

Verses 18-21 // Romans 10:14 Both involve those people who have not heard of the Lord.

Verses 18-19 // John 20:27 Similarly, both concern the conversion of those who previously had not seen God's / Christ's glory.

Verses 18-23 // Ephesians 2:13-17 The future peace between Jews and Gentiles is portrayed in these passages.

Verses 18-24 // Mark 13:26-27 God gathers His elect. Kidner says that the “sign” may be the resurrected Christ.”

Verses 19-20 // Mark 1:2  Jerusalem welcomes her returning exiles as the mountains are leveled and trees spring up.

Verses 20-21 // Romans 15:15-16 Paul takes the image in Isaiah concerning the Gentiles' bringing exiled Jews to the temple as an offering and “uses a striking variant of this symbolism.” (Kidner)

Verse 21 // Romans 9:6 Isaiah's prophecy hints of a time when the concept of “Israel” will be re-defined to include the Gentiles as well.

Verse 21 // Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45 Even some Gentiles will serve in the temple as priests and Levites. This contrasts the situation Jesus rebelled against in Mark 11 where the Gentiles were in essence excluded from the temple worship entirely.

Verse 22 // II Peter 3:12-13 The key phrase “new heaven and new earth” appears in both these passages.

Verse 22 // II Corinthians 5:17 Paul includes those redeemed among the new creation.

Verse 22 // Revelation 21:1 In contrast to the present situation, the new heaven and earth will last eternally.

Verses 22-23 // Ephesians 2:13-17 These verses combine the idea of a new heaven and earth with the pilgrimage of all people to Jerusalem in order to worship.

Verse 23 // Colossians 2:16 Worship involving new moons and sabbaths is featured here. In the NT, observation of these special days is no longer binding on believers.

Verses 23 // Revelation 15:4 All nations will come to worship God.

Verse 24 // II Thessalonians 1:7-10 “This is the final divine intervention.” (Kidner)

Verse 24 // Mark 9:48 Jesus quotes directly from Isaiah here.

Verse 24 // Matthew 3:12 The unquenchable nature of the fire of judgment.

Verse 24 // Luke 16:24 Fire as an image of eternal suffering.

Verse 24 // Mark 8:37-38 The ultimate fate of those who rebel against God.

Verse 24 // Mark 3:29 God became Israel's enemy and hardened their heart; they will be put to death.

As you go through these parallels, note that some of the NT passages are direct or near-direct quotations from Isaiah, others contain similar phrases, and still others are related in theme only. For the last two categories, one could probably point equally to other OT passages in addition to Isaiah 66.

 

BIBLE INTERPRETATION: KNOWING EACH BOOK

Basic Facts Regarding the Whole Book: Questions to ask about it

I. WHO

a. Author

Often unknown – such as for Chronicles and Hebrews

A book may be named after the main character, not necessarily the author. For example, Samuel's death is recorded in I Samuel 25, leaving the rest of I Samuel and all of II Samuel for which he cannot have been the author.

Earlier sources may have been utilized – “Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred and how he reigned; are written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel.” (I Kings 14:19) Several such written records are alluded to in Chronicles also.

“Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you...” Luke 1:1-3   Luke explains that he started out with written sources based on eye-witness testimony and then did further research himself.

b. Audience This is usually even more important to interpretation than knowing who the author was. You may need to read between the lines. For example, was I Peter written mainly to Jewish or gentile Christians? The evidence could go both ways.

Jews                                    Gentiles

“to the exiles of the dispersion” (1:1)

                                        “do not be conformed to the desires that you formerly had in ignorance” (1:14)

                                        “you were ransomed from the futile ways of your ancestors” (1:18)

“you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people” (2:9a)

                                        “him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” (2:9b)

                                        “once you were no people, but now you are God's people” (2:10)

“conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles” (2:12a)

And then there is another case which doesn't seem to fit Jews or Gentiles: “You have already spent enough time in doing what the Gentiles like to do, living in licentiousness, etc. They are surprised that you no longer join them in the same excesses of dissipation.” (4:3-4)

Previous generations of commentators felt the book was addressed to Jewish Christians, but the consensus today is that it was written to a mainly Gentile audience. The deciding factors for this change of opinion are (1) the term “Gentile” is used by other New Testament writers to refer to any non-believers, not just ethnic Gentiles, and (2) there is the fairly clear implication in Paul's writings that terms such as “God's people” which once applied to Jews only are now applied to God's new people – all believers, Jew or Gentile.

It may not seem to be very important to pin down the original audience in this case, but some preterist commentators start out with the given that I Peter is addressed to Jewish Christians. Then they couple that assumption with the statement in II Peter 3:1 where Peter says this is the second letter he is writing to them. So they further assume that the first letter must be what we call I Peter, even though there is no indication that both were written to the same audience, and Peter may have written numerous letters to different audiences. With that background, they then state that all the warnings in II Peter about the destruction of Heaven and Earth are written in apocalyptic language which can't be taken literally. It really refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD since Peter's Jewish audience at the time would have understood the phrase “Heaven and Earth” to mean Israel, the Old Covenant or perhaps the Temple. (I have read all three explanations in their literature, none of them very convincing.) Notice that this whole chain of reasoning breaks if their original assumption regarding the audience of the book is incorrect.

II. WHEN: This question is often related to who the author is. It can be important, as in the previous example of II Peter. For example, if we knew for sure that the book was written after 70 AD, then the predictions in that epistle couldn't possibly refer to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

Daniel and Revelation: Most of the prophecies in Daniel match extremely closely the historical events during the Seleucid Empire after Alexander the Great's death, especially concerning the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes starting in 215 BC up to the Maccabean Rebellion around 167 BC. If the book was really written by Daniel himself during the Exile, then it is an amazing example of fulfilled prophecy. Most of it was so literally fulfilled, in fact, that liberal scholars are convinced it had to be written by someone else after the events had taken place.

The interpretation of Revelation will also vary drastically according to when it was written. The description of future events can't refer to destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD if the book was written after that date. On the other hand, if most of it was written as early as 30 AD by John the Baptist and supplemented by later Christian writings (proposed by one scholar), that will definitely skew in another direction how we view it. And then there are those who feel it was written in the 2^nd century AD, not by the Apostle John at all, in an entirely different historical context. The usual evangelical perspective is to place the book somewhere around 90 AD. Each school of thought bases its conclusions on hints they find within the text as to what the current historical events at the time of writing were.

The teachings of the OT prophets can best be understood if we know not only to whom they were writing (Israel or Judah), but also the time period. Was it during the monarchy, divided kingdom, Assyrian conquest, Babylonian exile, etc.? What was happening in history at the time? Any good study Bible will have a short introduction to each book giving the historical setting.

The cultural setting at the particular time and place is also very important in understanding the text.Take the issue of slavery. Several atheist groups have made a concerted effort in attempts to show how immoral the teachings of the Bible are in accepting the institution of slavery. But the conditions of most slaves in the early Roman Empire or the practice of slavery in Old Testament Israel were totally different from those in America before Emancipation.

A recent commentary on the book of Philemon by Barth and Blanke spends 100 of its 500 pages just to describe the cultural context, since it is so important to understanding the background of this short letter. Slavery in NT times was much closer to the situation of indentured servants in colonial America, and slaves sometimes held very responsible positions acting as scribes or doctors and could often buy their freedom. And in the OT there were rules to protect slaves, in contrast to almost all other cultures of the time.

Here is one verse in Philemon that has been interpreted in various ways. “If he (Onesimus) has wronged you in any way, or owes you anything, charge that to my account.” (Philemon 18)  I was always taught that Onesimus must have robbed his master of some money in order to skip town. This could be true, but the laws concerning slaves at that time in the Roman Empire state that if someone harbored a runaway slave, they might be required to reimburse the owner for hours of lost work. That may be what Paul was offering to do.

III. WHAT kind of book is it that you are reading? Consider the literary context.

Biblia = books, not book = a library.  As in a library, each genre of book must be read differently. You wouldn't approach a history book as if it were a sci-fi novel. Special hermeneutics are needed for each genre, and most of these are discussed in this series of posts. Keep in mind that the genre of some books is hard to pin down. Is Jonah a straightforward book of prophecy, an historical account, a fable, a parable or a satire? Or look at the Song of Songs. It has been called poetry, play, a collection of erotic love songs, pagan funerary songs, allegory, fictional short story, (auto)biography, wisdom literature, and pastoral literature. And it also contains dreams/nightmares.

IV. WHY was the book written? Consider the thematic context.

Usually, if you read a biblical book through at one sitting, you can get a reasonable idea of its main theme. Let's look at the book of Hebrews. One repeated idea in this letter is the superiority of Jesus to OT authorities such as angels, Moses, high priest, etc. This idea is confirmed if you look at how the overall book is organized. The parallels within the book sometimes provide a tip-off to its overall structure, which in turn helps to identify the book's main point of emphasis or theme.

The Structure of Hebrews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    II'. Exhortations (13:1-21)

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

If there were an exact center to this structure, that would definitely be where the book's emphasis was located. Since there isn't in this case, the most important passages are probably found at the beginning and conclusion of the book: God's new revelation. On the other hand, if you treat V and V' as one large section, you will reach exactly the same conclusion. From any of these approaches you can arrive at the consensus opinion: the author wrote it to a Jewish Christian audience to reiterate the importance of standing firm in the faith and not reverting to Judaism.

It is often not easy to figure out the overall literary pattern of a book, but here is a rough guideline that may help you at least pinpoint the most important passages. Often the main point will be found toward the center of the book. As you are reading through a book, look for passages with similar language, events, or themes. Go forward and backwards from there to see if there are other passages that match up to one another. Take Esther as an example. Here is the center portion of the book.

G. The Scepter is Extended to Esther (5:1-4)

    H. Haman is Summoned (5:5a)

        I. Esther’s Feast for King and Haman (5:5b-8)

            J. Haman with his Friends (5:9-14)

                K. The Plot Turns (6:1-11)

            J'. Haman with his Friends (6:12-14)

        I'. Esther’s Feast for King and Haman (7:1-10)

    H'. Mordecai is Summoned (8:1-2)

G'. The Scepter is Extended to Esther (8:3-4)

The center of the book turns out to be a passage you might be tempted to skip over since it just describes the king having a sleepless night and turning to a book in his library to put him to sleep. But the plot hinges on this seemingly trivial event which is full of coincidences. It demonstrates that the hidden hand of God is always behind human affairs, and that is the main point of the book, not the heroism of Esther and Mordecai.

V. WHERE are the events taking place? Where was the original audience located?

 A Bible atlas or maps in your study Bible are useful tools for following historical events, especially for following the various battles in the OT, the travels of Paul, or learning the background of the cities that Paul writes to. Knowing the location may give you additional insights, but I'll admit that you may need a commentary or good study Bible to point them out. Look at John's letter to the Laodicean church:

“I wish that you were either cold or hot...but because you are lukewarm..., I am about to spit you out of my mouth” (Revelation 3:15-16)   One standard interpretation -- God would rather have you totally opposed to Him than being a wishy-washy follower -- never seemed to make sense to me. But try looking at it as an obvious metaphor based on drinking water.

The two nearest cities to Laodicea were Hieropolis and Colossae. Hieropolis was known for its hot springs. People would drink the water for its therapeutic value. On the other hand, Colossae was surrounded by snow-capped mountains and would get their cold drinking water when snow melted. Laodicea had to pipe in its water supply from a spring over a great distance so by the time it arrived, any helpful minerals had precipitated out, it was lukewarm and practically undrinkable.

By this understanding, cold = bracing, refreshing—not indifferent.

Another example of the importance of geography is to consider the reunion of Jacob with Esau, as described in Genesis 33. Only by following the action on a map of the times can you fully appreciate the fact that Jacob purposely misled his brother into thinking that he would be following him back to Edom. Instead Jacob purposely headed off in an entirely different direction as soon as Esau left him.

 

JOHN 8:1-11 WOMAN CAUGHT IN ADULTERY

There are many questions regarding the meaning of this story, but the first one to address is a rather basic one – Does it even belong in the Bible to start with? I am rather conservative in my approach to the Bible, and so that question may seem strange to some of you. However, this is a real issue that needs to be tackled head on and not just dismissed. Since it involves textual criticism, I went to my go-to reference first: Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Here is what he says:

“The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming.” That evidence includes the fact that the vast majority of early manuscripts do not include it at all. In addition, the language used in this chapter does not resemble John's typical style of writing.

But Metzger adds, “At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which we subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places.” This can be seen in manuscripts which do include this story, but place it after John 7:36, 7:44 or 21:25. There is even one manuscript that places it in Luke's Gospel instead, after 21:38. They obviously felt the story was authentic but didn't know quite where to put it.

So at this point in the discussion, it is safe to say that, at the least, this story is historically true even if it may not have been written down by John. But I decided to explore this issue a little further using a tool that no one to my knowledge has yet applied to the controversy: literary structure. In my analysis of the Gospel of John (summarized in a post with the subtitle “Introduction to the Literary Structure”) I, as well as others. first proposed that the book consists of two parts: chapters 1-12 and chapters 13-21. Within the first part, one discrete section was identified as John 7-8. It possesses the symmetrical structure shown below:

The Structure of John 7-8

1. Opposition between Jesus and evil in the world (7:1-13)

    2. Jesus is sent from God (7:14-36)

        3. Jesus as the Living Water (7:37-52)

            (4. The woman caught in adultery: 8:1-11)

        3'. Jesus as the Light of the World (8:12-19)

    2'. Jesus sent from the Father (8:20-30)

1'. Opposition between Jesus and sons of the Devil (8:31-59)

Interestingly, this structural analysis John 7-8 gives mild support to the authenticity (at least at some time early in the Gospel’s formative history) of John 8:1-11. In the first place, its addition to the text between units 3 and 3' does not at all disrupt the symmetrical structure seen above. It merely transforms a six-part chiasm into a seven-part one, such as is present in two more sections in Part I.

Next to consider is the fit of the passage with the rest of the section above. In each of the other sections of Part I, all of the material contained therein is related thematically. Using that criterion, the narrative in question fares better than expected. One can detect several echoes of the particular details, themes and even specific words found in the undisputed passages of chapters 7-8:

    Attempts to execute a supposed lawbreaker (7:1,19-20,25; 8:3-5,40)

    “Where is he?” (7:11) // “Where are they?” (8:9) // “Where is your father?” (8:19)

    The law comes from Moses (7:19a,23; 8:5)

    No one keeps the law (7:19b; 8:7)

    Jesus teaches concerning right judgment (7:24; 8:7-11,16)

    Jesus teaches the people at the temple (7:28; 8:2b,20)

    Jesus stands / straightens up to speak (7:37; 8:7)

    No one lays hand on a supposed offender (7:44; 8:9-10)

    Pharisees make pronouncements concerning the law (7:49-51; 8:3-5)

    “At dawn he came again to the temple” (8:1) // “I am the light of the world” (8:12)

    An attempt to stone someone in the vicinity of the temple (8:2,5,59)

    “adultery” (8:3) // “fornication” (8:41)

    The presence of witnesses (8:4,17-18)

    Jesus acting as judge (8:5-11,26)

    Jews appeal to Patriarchs (8:5,33,52-53)

    The Jews as sinners (8:7,24,33-34)

    Jesus frees sinners (8:10-11,36)

    “Has no one condemned you?” (8:10) // “Which of you convicts me of sin?” (8:46a)

Lastly, it was proposed below that Section IC' is parallel to Section IC. In that context, it is interesting that Jesus tells an individual to “sin no more” in John 5:14 and 8:11. No firm conclusions can be reached concerning this problem passage on the slim, but provocative, evidence presented here, but perhaps the last chapter has not yet been written concerning the origin of John 8:1-11.

The Structure of John: Part I

A. First Passover (1:1-3:36)

    B. Samaritan Woman at the Well (4:1-54)

        C. Feast of the Jews (5:1-47)

            D. Second Passover (6:1-71)

        C'. Feast of Tabernacles (7:1-8:59)

    B'. Feast of Dedication (9:1-10:42)

A'. Third Passover (11:1-12:50)

Turning to the text of the story, it can be seen to also be arranged symmetrically, as the rest of John's Gospel:

The Structure of John 8:1-11

Setting: Jesus teaches in the Temple (1-2)

a. An sinful woman is brought to Jesus (3)

    b. Her accusers speak (4)

        c. Penalty of stoning (5-6a)

            d. Jesus writes on the ground (6b)

                e. They keep questioning Jesus (7a)

                    f. Jesus straightens up and talks (7b)                    

        c'. “Who will be the first to stone her?” (7c)

            d'. Jesus writes on the ground (8)

                e'. They do not reply, but leave (9)

                    f'. Jesus straightens up and talks (10a)

    b'. There are no accusers (10b-11a)

a'. “Sin no more” (11b)

Verses 1-2 For some reason I had always pictured this taking place in the open air near where the woman had been found. Instead it actually took place on the Temple grounds. The usual custom is followed here: the rabbi sat while his followers stood.

Verse 3 This is the only place in John's Gospel where the scribes are mentioned. The significance of this is not known to me, but it may indicate that this was a very important case to test Jesus with.

Verses 3-4 I have always been curious about several things regarding the scribe's and Pharisee's comments. First, where was the man involved if she had actually been caught in the act? He would have been equally guilty before the law. I have heard some teachers say that this was just another example of the male chauvinism found in the Bible. They preferred to punish the woman and let the man go free. Another possibility will be suggested at the end of the lesson.

Another interesting, and related, fact is that one could not be condemned without two eyewitnesses. So either two men actually saw her committing adultery (which would probably have been highly unlikely) or there is another explanation. The absence of any witnesses at this point in the story either shows that there were no such witnesses or that the trial had already finished and the only remaining question was the appropriate punishment.

Verse 5 The law referred to is found in passages such as Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:23-24.

Verse 6a makes it clear that they were not really interested in Jesus' opinion except in that it might be used to condemn him. They no doubt knew of his association with a wide spectrum of society including prostitutes and probably felt that he would somehow contradict the OT law.

Verse 6b is the most puzzling detail in the story since it is the only place in the NT where Jesus is actually said to have written anything. The NRSV Study Bible notes that one speculation was offered in a few ancient manuscripts. After “ground,” it added the words “the sins of each of them” to explain what Jesus had written. The only problem with that explanation is that it would have been impossible for any of the scribes and Pharisees to have easily read Jesus' writing in the dust of the paved area in the Temple, which was probably covered with colored tiles.

Verse 7 shows how insistent Jesus' questioners were in forcing an answer out of Jesus to use as ammunition against him.

Verse 8 has Jesus writing or scribbling in the dust again. My personal explanation is based on two occasions in junior high school when groups of bullies headed toward me while making threatening remarks. I just kept on walking and pointedly did not look any of them in the face as I passed, knowing that if I made any eye contact it would be an open invitation for aggression. I have been told that the same technique can also work when confronted with dangerous animals, but I'm not yet ready to try it out. I am convinced that Jesus did the same to allow the accusers space to slink away while not totally losing face. Parenthetically, this may also be an explanation of how Jesus earlier walked through the crowd that had led him to a cliff and tried to stone him (see Luke 4).

Verse 9-11 In contrast to the woman having to stand before a group of people, here she only has to face Jesus, and he will not condemn her.

In the Spring 2021 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, James McGrath has written an interesting article offering quite a different interpretation of this story. A few details in his proposal go contrary to what is actually written in the text, but others are worthy of consideration.

He points out that the Pharisees were noted historically for their avoidance of the death penalty whenever possible. Thus, he feels that they brought her to Jesus in the hopes that he might provide them with some reason for not enforcing it in this case. Of course, that apparently flies in the face of John 8:6, which says that they brought her to Jesus in order to trap him. However, it would be consistent with the fact that they left without much of a fuss and left the woman free to go.

McGrath next says that the fact they mention stoning as the required punishment points to Deuteronomy 22:23-27 as the specific OT passage they are referring to, and it applied to betrothed virgins. Thus, the reference to her being caught in the act may mean that her intended husband found out before or shortly after the marriage that she was either not a virgin or actually pregnant. If so, it would explain the absence of the the man involved, the absence of two witnesses, and (in the case of pregnancy) the reluctance of the scribes and Pharisees to stone her.

Finally, McGrath points out that in disputed cases of adultery (and that also applied to infidelity of a betrothed party), there had always been a rather strange sotah ritual described in Numbers 5:11-31 involving the woman drinking water that contained dust from the floor of the Temple. It was a rather innocuous procedure that would have resulted in an innocent verdict for the woman most of the time and was designed to protect the woman from baseless charges. Parenthetically, for some reason I chose that obscure ritual years ago as a passage to illustrate with one of my artistic constructions (see post entitled “Strange Waters Series”).

Apparently, an early rabbi had discontinued the sotah ritual by this time because he felt it was unfair to women to force them to take part in it while adultery among the men was so prevalent. Unfortunately, that left no other option but to enforce the death penalty instead. McGrath feels that when Jesus called attention to the dust on the Temple floor, he was doing so to suggest that the scribes and Pharisees should re-institute the sotah ritual. An intriguing possibility, but highly speculative.

 

SEVEN GODLY MEN AND A GAME OF CHESS

This title may seem better suited to a Sherlock Holmes Mystery or a shaggy dog story than a Bible lesson, and perhaps it is. However, it deals with a serious subject: sexual temptation. But first, let me review some of the rules of chess in case you aren't familiar with the game.

The purpose of the game is to checkmate the opponent's king, meaning that you have placed him where he cannot escape from your imminent attack. When you say “check,” that means that you have just moved one of your pieces so as to capture his king if he doesn't somehow get out of it. And there are three ways by which be can get out of check: move away from the danger, capture the piece that has put him in check, or place one of his pieces between your attacker and his king. The same three modes of escape also apply to escaping sexual temptation. In discussing these briefly, all of the examples will refer to men being tempted by women. However, the principles all apply to the reverse situation just as well (and perhaps even better).

Move away from danger

The well-known story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife told in Genesis 39 is a perfect example of this method. Joseph first tries to reason out of her attraction to him. But when that fails, he does the only thing he can – run out of the house and away from her. Unfortunately, in his case he leaves his clothes behind and she takes advantage of that fact to claim that he was the aggressor in the situation. Assuming that there is an application here, it might be that if we are trying to escape a specific sexual temptation, it is imperative to do so completely and not leave any lingering feelings behind.

By the way, I wonder whether Potiphar really believed her story or knew her, and Joseph, too well to fall for it. If he really had believed that a slave had attempted to rape his wife, he would not have hesitated to put him to death. On the other hand, to keep up appearances, he followed the best compromise by merely having Joseph jailed.

Capture the attacker

It is said that the best defense is a strong offense. This is seemingly a fool-proof method, but can also be an unwise move at times. Let me offer a fictional example first to demonstrate that point. W. Somerset Maugham wrote a famous short story entitled “Rain,” which was later made into a movie. In this story, a missionary is trapped with others in a house in the South Seas during a prolonged rainstorm. One of the others in the house is Sadie Thompson, who might be politely called a loose woman.

The rather self-righteous missionary, who is attracted to her despite himself, feels it is his duty to convert her by hammering at her unmercifully concerning her sinful lifestyle. At last, she seemingly gives in, but it is only to better seduce him into betraying his own principles. When he realizes what he has done, he commits suicide. One rather clear moral here is that we had first better be sure that we are not relying our own strength rather than that of God before attacking someone who can easily turn the tables on us.

King Solomon may also be a good example to consider. Of course, we all know that he started out well after God gave him wisdom as well as wealth. But one of the “duties” of a king in those times (and millennia later) was to make political alliances with other countries, and the best way to accomplish that was to marry the daughter of one of their kings or prominent citizens. Unfortunately, Solomon overdid it a bit and ended up with 1,000 foreign wives and concubines, who each brought their pagan religious beliefs with them. Solomon may not have been concerned at all that they would influence him spiritually, and he easily could have felt that his own godly influence would act on them instead. But apparently the pleasures of the flesh were too much for him, and he succumbed to them.

Examples such as that of Solomon may lie behind the NT injunction to not make mixed marriages with unbelievers. (II Corinthians 6:14)

Place someone between you and the attacker

I have a somewhat humorous story to illustrate this one. My father-in-law was a preacher, and he once told me something that had happened to him early in his ministry. One of the ladies who started attending his congregation was young, attractive, and unattached. She kept asking him to come over to her house because she had some things she wanted to discuss with him. At last he agreed to come over, but for some reason he was a bit suspicious of her motives.

He knocked at her door at the appointed time, and she opened the door dressed only in a flimsy negligee. He immediately shoved his mother, whom he had the foresight to take along, in front of him and started to introduce her. The woman slammed the door and only opened it again when she had gotten properly dressed. It was an awkward meeting that soon broke up without incident.

Having met his mother once myself, I can vouch for the fact that she was a more than adequate defense. However, the only sure defense in a case like that is to be armed with God's own strength.

Still sticking to the chess analogy as applied to sexual temptation, there are two additional cases to discuss.

Avoid being in check to start with

As trite as it sounds: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It is harder (but not impossible by any means) to be checkmated if you haven't first been in check. The premiere example of this is probably Billy Graham. He vowed early in his preaching career never to be caught in a situation where he was alone with any woman other than his wife. Because of that decision, which he firmly adhered to, he was completely free from any hint of sexual scandal throughout his long career. This was in marked contrast to the many other famous pastors and preachers whom we could all name who met their downfall by being seduced by the charms of fame, money and sex.

Most of the advice to young men concerning adulteresses and prostitutes given in Proverbs 2, 5-7, and 9 boils down to one thing – stay far away from them.

    “Keep your way far from her, don't even go near the door of her house.” (Proverbs 5:8)

    “Do not let her capture you with her eyelashes.” (Proverbs 6:25b)

    “She sits at the entrance to her house...and calls to those passing by... “Turn in here.” (Proverbs 9:14-16a)

Give in after a fight

On the flip side is an example closer to home for me. The minister who baptized me when I was a teenager had been pastor of the church for decades and was idolized by most everyone in the congregation. But then his wife died of cancer, and he was helpless without her. The wife of one of our deacons took pity on him and went to his house constantly to cook his food, do his laundry, etc. It was the inevitable “etc” that caused all the problems. One day, he left without warning taking the deacon's wife with him. The deacon was, of course, heartbroken and soon dropped out of the church. I saw the pastor years later when he was quite elderly and attending another church in town. He was still married to the deacon's ex-wife. It may have been a happy ending for them (although he had to leave the ministry entirely), but they left a disaster in their wake.

Concede defeat immediately

Then there are those who give in to temptation without even putting up a fight. King David is a great (or poor, as the case may be) example of this behavior. When he sees naked Bathsheba in her bath, he summons her to the palace and the rest is sordid history. Or is it her-story instead?

I once led a small group study on this passage of Scripture. Our group was generally not very talkative when it came to the discussion part of the lesson. However, they surprisingly came alive when I asked them what they thought about Bathsheba. There were two diametrically opposite opinions on the subject. On one side (and I was in this camp) were those who pointed out that Bathsheba had no choice but to obey the King's command and that she was totally innocent. And the fact that she was bathing to make herself ritually pure indicates that she was a devout Jewess despite the fact that she was married to a Hittite.

In the other camp were those who felt that Bathsheba was bored with her soldier husband being away from home so much of the time. So she decided to seduce the king to see what would come of it. As one woman in our group said, “You can't tell me that she didn't know that David would be looking on as she bathed!”

I am not 100% sure who was the seducer and who was the seducee. Personally, Bathsheba's subsequent naïve actions when she got caught in the middle of political intrigue as David was dying have convinced me that those were not the moves of a scheming and ambitious woman. In any case, David certainly did not put up much of a fight with his desires before he gave in to them. And just as in some of the sad cases above, there was disastrous fallout from his actions, beginning with Uriah's murder and then the death of David's first son by Bathsheba.

 

 

INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLES

The letters in the New Testament are an interesting blend of history, theology, ethical teachings, poetry and prophecy. Let's start with some basics.

Types of Ancient Letters

First – nomenclature. One opinion is that “Epistle” is just a fancy word for “Letter.” Another accepted definition: Epistle is more literary, more artistic in form. Of Paul's letters, Romans is probably the closest to a classical literary work and Philemon is the closest to an occasional piece. Another possible distinction is that epistles are usually meant to be read aloud to a group. I will use the two terms interchangeably. Next are the various categories of letters in the NT. They are divided into three types: first we have the letters to individual churches, followed by the pastoral epistles addressed to leading individuals in a church, and lastly the general (or catholic) epistles.

I heartily recommend Gordon Fee's book How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth for the whole subject of Bible interpretation, and I think his chapter on the epistles is especially good.

Here are some of his main points on how to approach the Epistles:

    1. Use a reference source for background information.

    2. Read through the letter in one sitting.

    3. Jot down brief notes on your observations.

    4. Note natural divisions within the letter (most translations will divide them into paragraphs).

    5. Follow the author's argument within each section.

The context of the letter

Reading a letter is like listening to one end of a conversation. So how do you determine why the letter was written in the first place other than just reading the introduction that might be in your study Bible?

    1. Sometimes the context is stated directly or strongly hinted at.

“It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you.” (I Corinthians 5:1)

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you...” (Galatians 1:6)

    2. Look for areas of emphasis in the letter.

“We declare...what we have touched with our hands...” (I John 1:1)

“Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” (I John 4:2)

    3. Tip-off phrases

“Now concerning”: matters about which you wrote (I Corinthians 7:1), food sacrificed to idols (I Corinthians 8:1), love of the brothers (I Thessalonians 4:9), times and seasons (I Thessalonians 5:1)

“We would not have you ignorant about” (I Corinthians 10:1; I Thessalonians 4:13)

    4. Look for statements that the author is responding to – he first quotes from their words and then adds his comments. Here is one possible example:

“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. (I Corinthians 6:12)

The situation is somewhat complicated due to the fact that ancient Greek usually included no punctuation marks. James 2:18: “But someone will say, “You have faith but I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. (NIV, RSV, NRSV, NEB, TEV)

Other translations place the last quotation mark:

    At the end of the verse: (Living Bible, NASB, J.B. Phillips, Amplified Bible)

    Others put it at the end of verse 19 or 23.

    Still others include no quotation marks: (KJV)

What about the general format used in NT letters? In some ways it begins more like an e-mail than a handwritten letter. In handwritten letters you have to skip to the bottom signature to find out who wrote the letter. By contrast, both e-mail messages and NT epistles start out in a more logical order by telling you who is writing and who the addressee is. Actually, NT epistles generally follow the format found in ancient Greek and Roman letters:

    Greeting: From and To

    Prayer

    Thanksgiving

    Body with Special Contents

    Closing: Personal Greetings and Doxology

In Paul's hands the letter form was expanded considerably in size, and there are other changes he made. The greeting Paul almost always uses in his letters is “grace and peace.” “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, a pastor and evangelist who died in 1928 and was founder of Biola University. I happen to agree with Torrey's conclusion, but unfortunately his facts are a bit off-base.

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.

    Grace.......Peace

    ----------------------

    Peace.......Grace

(Rom. 16:20; I Cor. 16:11,23; II Cor. 13:11,13;

Gal. 6:16,18; Eph. 6:23-24; Phil. 4:9,23; I Thess. 5:23,28; II Thess. 2:16,18)

By using these two words, Paul appropriates elements of both Roman and Jewish greetings of the time.

    Roman greeting: rejoice (chairein) ------ Paul's greeting: grace (charis)

    Jewish greeting: peace (shalom) ---------Paul's greeting: peace (eirene)

Paul expanded on the other elements of ancient letters to raise them to a new level. Look at the Thanksgiving section of I Corinthians (1:4-9) as an example:

"I always thank my God for you because of the grace of God that has been given you in Christ Jesus, since in every way you have been enriched in him, in every kind of speech and knowledge – just as the  Christ's testimony has been strengthened among you – so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ. He will also strengthen you to the end, so that you may be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful; you were called by him into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord."

This contains statements concerning the identification of Jesus as the Messiah, God's Son and our Lord, God's grace, the giving of spiritual gifts, sanctification, election, assurance of salvation, and the future coming of the Lord. There is at least a year of seminary level theology packed into these few verses.

However, not all NT letters follow the standard format, and departures from the norm may be significant:

Letter to Galatians

There is no thanksgiving, indicating that he didn't have much good to say about this church.

The Epistle of James

Greeting (1:1)

Special Contents (1:2-5:20)

This reads more like notes for a sermon than a letter.

Epistle to the Hebrews

Special Contents (1:1-13:19)

Prayer (13:20-21)

Personal Greetings (13:22-24)

Doxology (13:25)

Today we might include the last three elements in a short e-mail and then say “see attached” for a longer composition already prepared (Special Contents).

One portion of scripture we rarely consider along with the epistles are the seven letters to the churches in Revelation. They have their own common format:

    greetings

    praises

    condemnation

    warning

    promise

In the letters to Smyrna and Philadelphia there is no condemnation. For Sardis and Laodicea, no praise. But it is interesting to note that there is a promise even to those churches with nothing to praise, and a warning even to those with no condemnation.

There are those who see a chronological arrangement to these seven letters in which each church represents a certain church age. They even assign a church leader for each age who is supposedly the “angel” of that church mentioned in Revelation. The problem is that none of these schemes results in the assigned age resembling the characteristics given in Revelation for that particular church. For example, Thyatira is supposed to represent the Dark Ages, but it is the only church that has no threats or warnings attached to it. Also, Sardis is supposed to stand for the Reformation Period with Martin Luther as its angel. This happens to be one of the two churches which Jesus has absolutely nothing good to say about. I would be extremely skeptical about such an approach to these chapters in Revelation.

But there is type of order, not a chronological one, present for these seven letters.

1. Ephesus

2. Smyrna

3. Pergamum

4. Thyatira

5. Sardis

6. Philadelphia

7. Laodicea

The threat/warning component in each of the letters displays the clearest chiastic pattern, moving from threats of utter rejection for churches 1 and 7, to warnings of religious persecution for believers in 2 and 6, to opposition by Christ himself in 3 and 5. The letter to Thyatira in the center is unique in that its threat/warning is almost exclusively directed towards a false prophetess, not the church itself. This particular letter is also the only one in the series that uses the phrase “all the churches.”

Other evidence of chiastic pairings within these letters: (a) the similar condemnations of Ephesus and Laodicea, both including the word “love,” (b) promises to these same churches that both involve eating, (c) mention of a crown and a lack of a condemnation for churches 2 and 6, (d) the phrase “those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan” in letter 2 with the same two clauses reversed in letter 6, (e) promises involving new names and including the word “white” for churches 3 and 5, and (f) the identical opening phrase “The words of him who has” found only in letters 3 and 5.

But no matter what literary pattern may be present, we shouldn't lose track of the fact that these are real letters. They contain historical details that are accurate concerning each city at the time of writing. I gave the example in another lesson about the water supply of Laodicea holding the key to interpreting part of that letter. I could have also pointed out from that same letter the reference to eye salve, referring to the fact that a noted eye salve was manufactured in the region around Laodicea. Also note that the order in which the churches are addressed fits exactly the circular route that a letter carrier would have taken to visit each of them in succession.

Sometimes departures from standard letter format are used by the author to highlight the points of emphasis.

The Structure of II Thessalonians

I. Introduction

A. Thanksgiving (1:3-10)

B. Satan in Action (1:11-2:12)

A’. Thanksgiving (2:13-15)

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

A. Prayer (2:16-17)

B. Christian at Rest (3:1-15)

A'. Prayer (3:16)

I'. Conclusion

I Thessalonians uses the same general arrangement but with added expansions, indicating that perhaps it was written after II Thessalonians, not before it.

The Structure of 1 Peter

I. Introduction (1:1-2)

A Believer's Status before God (1:3-12)

B. Our Behavior in Light of this Status (1:13-25)

A'. Believers’ Status Before God (2:1-10)

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

A. Submission to Human Institutions (2:11-3:12)

B. Christ as Lord and Example (3:13-4:11) (ends in Doxology)

A'. Submission to Persecution and to God’s Institutions (4:12-5:11)

I'. Conclusion (5:12-14)

Note the similarity between this unusual arrangement and that in I and II Thessalonians. This brings up the question of who actually wrote these letters.

Role of an Amanuensis

“I Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord.” (Romans 16:22)

“See what large letters I make when I am writing in my own hand.” (Galatians 6:11)

“Through Silvanus... I have written this short letter...” (I Peter 5:12)

“Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians...” (I & II Thessalonians 1:1)

These passages indicate that it wasn't an uncommon practice for the New Testament writers to employ an amanuensis, or secretary. The main question is: what was their exact role? Did Paul or Peter dictate the letters to them word for word, or did an amanuensis function more like an executive assistant who would take down the necessary details and polish up the author's language and put it into an acceptable literary format to be approved by Paul or Peter before it went out?

Note that Silvanus happens to appear as the amanuensis used in I Peter and is listed as a co-author of I and II Thessalonians. Co-authors were usually felt to be added by Paul as a sort of courtesy to those who happened to be with him at the time of writing. But in the cases of I and II Thessalonians, Paul actually uses the plural “we” throughout his letter, unlike his other letters. The probable involvement of Silvanus in composing I & II Thessalonians and I Peter can be seen in the unusual format used only in these three NT letters.

I mentioned this to someone at church and he was so upset that he went to our pastor and demanded that I not be allowed to teach Sunday school any more. His reaction was a little over the top considering that:

    (1) This scenario would help counter skeptics' argument that a mere fisherman couldn't have produced such polished Greek grammar as we find in I Peter. 

    (2) And it shouldn't affect our acceptance of these letters as Scripture when, after all, we accept the inspired authorship of Paul's other companions Mark and Luke, neither of whom was an apostle. And, of course, there is the Book of Hebrews and only God knows who wrote it. The ultimate author in all cases is the Holy Spirit.