SCRIPTURE TWISTING: MINOR ERRORS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

II CORINTHIANS 6:1-7:1

This chapter can be roughly outlined as follows:

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

        B. Supporting Scripture (6:2a)

            C. Application (6:2b)

                D. Personal Testimony (6:3-13)

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

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

                            3. in honor

                                4. and dishonor

                                4'. in ill repute

                            3'. and good repute

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

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

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

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

            C'. Application (7:1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II Corinthians 6         Old Testament Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

BALAAM: ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

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

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

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

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

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

 

ANSWERING ATHEISTS: HISTORICAL ERRORS IN THE BIBLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

both facts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

just as Moses was during the same general time period.

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

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

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

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

 

CONVERSIONS IN THE BOOK OF ACTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

NOTES ON I SAMUEL

I Samuel 1:5 lit. “a portion of one pair of nostrils”

I Sam. 1:14 Eli apparently has no spiritual discernment. It was common for worshipers to overeat and 

drink at religious feasts. Most people prayed aloud at the time. Eli should have given his advice to his 

own sons instead.

I Sam. 1:24 The Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls have one three-year old bull instead of three 

bulls. This is consistent with the mention of one bull in the next verse and with Genesis 15:9.

I Samuel 2:8   Hannah's prayer is “quoted” in Psalm 113.

I Samuel 3:2-3 Appropriately, Samuel is positioned near the ark to tend the fire during the night while 

Eli is further away and has eyes too dimmed to see properly.

I Samuel 8-9 The Qeiyafa Ostracon found in 2008 and written in proto-Hebrew has been deciphered 

by one scholar and said to come from King Saul's time. It contains the following that are in the biblical 

text: (a) the need for judges who will not oppress the foreigner and those less fortunate, (b) the 

installation of a king, (c) the existence of servants who serve the king, (d) the injunction not to oppress, 

but to serve God, and (e) the designation of a new monarch. (Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 

2012)

I Sam. 9-10 Negative associations at start of Saul's career are hinted at: He is Benjamite from Gibeah, 

the scene of the infamous events of Judges 19; son of Kish ("a man of valor") is the same term used for 

the Benjamites in Judges 20 that were killed; "smallest tribe" hearkens back to the reason they were the 

smallest tribe; he is chosen by stepwise lots--only other occurrence is in Joshua 7:11 where Achan is 

identified as the offender; tribes are summoned to Mizpah where they had earlier mustered to 

exterminate the Benjaminites; Saul's sending dismembered pieces of animals out to tribes is similar to 

Judges 19 story also. (Kenneth Cohen) Also see Judges 19.

I Sam. 9:19-22 The context indicates that bama is a structure that may include an eating chamber, not 

just an altar.

I Samuel 13:14 Several commentators state that "man of his own heart" = "a man of God's own 

choosing" and has nothing to do with David's attributes. Kaiser (Ethics, p. 274-5) says on the basis of 

similar phrases in I Samuel 2:35 that a "man after God's own heart" = "one who does God's will." But 

that applies only in his official duties, not necessarily in his private life. This is quoted in Acts 13:22.

I Sam. 13:19 There had been no adequate translation for pym ("file"?) until a small round weight was 

found with that inscription. Instead of "they had a file for the mattocks," the phrase now reads "the 

charge for sharpening the plowshares and for the mattocks was a pym (a fraction of a shekel)."

I Samuel 14:17 Critical scholars for years doubted that Edom was even a civilized nation at the time of 

David. Recent archeology has shown that they had a sophisticated mining and smelting operation 

during this time.

I Samuel 15:3 see the note to I Samuel 22:19.

I Sam. 15:17 Poor self-esteem is at the root of Saul's problems (E. Jones). This is different from 

David's humility in the presence of God. Saul is inwardly directed while David is outwardly directed.

I Sam. 15:22 One translation reads, “I have listened to the command of the LORD.” “Then what do I 

 hear?”

I Sam 15:30 He still wants to preserve his prestige with the people.

I Sam 15:32 God's will is done but not by the intended party.

I Samuel 16:11 youngest = the runt of the litter

I Samuel 17:1 Neither strong army could attack without crossing a river and charging up a mountain.

I Sam. 17:4 The oldest Philistine inscription found at Gath, scratched in a piece of pottery with a 

needle-like instrument contains two proper names. One is Goliath. It dates to about 100 years after the 

biblical Goliath.

I Sam 17:11 Saul up to now could rely on his greater height and strength. His advantage now fails and 

he doesn't know how to cope with the situation. (Cassidy)

I Sam. 17:32 The Septuagint reads, "Let not the king's heart fail."

I Sam 17:40 Five stones, not just one. Even with faith in God's provision, one should still take normal 

precautions.

I Sam 17:52 See Joshua 15:36.

I Samuel 18:1-9 Jonathan embraces David's future role as king while Saul resists it.

I Sam. 18:10 See Judges 9:23.

I Samuel 19:13 See II Samuel 6:16.

I Samuel 22:19 Similar language to 1 Sam. 15:3 shows Saul's perversion of God's command

I Samuel 24:6-7 The seriousness of his action has been explained in two different ways: (1) A 

cuneiform tablet from Mari (located in present Syria near border of Iraq) states that a professional 

prophet would enclose with his prophecy a lock of his hair and a piece of the hem of his garment as a 

guarantee of the accuracy of his prophecy. (2) Sometimes an impression of the hem of an important 

person in a clay seal would be used as a signature.

 

SYMMETRY IN THE APOCRYPHA

Various forms of literary symmetry are almost the hallmark of the books in the Bible, both OT and NT. It would be enlightening to look for the same type of order and symmetry in other proposed additions to the Jewish and Christian canon. The main problem with this proposed exercise is that if no such marks of “divine”structure are detected, one can still not state with any surety that they do not in fact exist. The next best approach is to canvass the literature for supposed examples of chiasm (mirror-image symmetry) or parallel cycles that have already been identified by others and critique those literary structures. The following random examples, given in rough chronological order, are not by any means exhaustive, but perhaps indicative.

Bel and the Dragon

The Apocrypha consists of OT additions to the Bible accepted by Roman Catholics and some other Christian denominations as part of the Canon to one extent or another. Some of these are not stand-alone books but short additions to existing OT books. Almost without exception, these short additions have the effect of disrupting the symmetry already found in those books. However, some books found in the Apocrypha, such as those to the book of Daniel, also represent complete stories which can be compared with the tales in the first part of Hebrew/Aramaic Daniel. Here is such an example.

Capitalizing on insights of Bruyn and Jordaan, one can construct an overall scheme of sorts that connects the two stories encompassed by the above title:

A. Bel is revered by Babylonians

    B. Daniel says it is not a living god

        C. King is angry and confronts priests

            D. Test proposed

                E. Daniel exposes the deception

                    F. Priests and their families are killed

A'. Dragon is revered by Babylonians

    B'. Daniel says it is not a living god

            D'. Test proposed

                E'. Dragon is destroyed

        C'. Babylonians are angry and confront the king

                    F'. Daniel is given over to them

A. Daniel put into lions' den

    B. Lions not fed

        C. Habakkuk is taken to Babylonian

            D. Daniel praises God

                E. Daniel is fed

        C'. Habakkuk is returned

            D'. King praises God

A'. Daniel is taken out of the lions' den

    B. Lions are fed

The theme of food / eating helps to unite the three stories, and there are a few hints in the text that do the same thing, i.e., three items of food given to each idol (vv. 3 and 27), sheep as food (vv. 3 and 32), and the number seven (vv. 32 and 40). In addition, the first two stories, with their mostly parallel arrangement, end on two open notes: (a) the false idols have been exposed to the king for what they are, but the king has not yet turned to the true God, and (b) Daniel's fate is left in the air. Both of these concerns are alleviated in the third story which, in keeping with its closed chiastic form, resolves these two issues. However, complete symmetry and more verbal parallels are lacking in this addition to the Book of Daniel.

The Book of Tobit

Murai analyzes this apocryphal book as a series of four interlocking chiasms. Only one of these chiasms will be discussed as a typical example of Murai's technique, but similar difficulties beset the other three sections.

A. Departure of Tobiah (4:1-6:1)

    B. Capture of Magic Fish (6:2-9)

        C. Recommendation of Marriage (6:10-18)

    B'. The Marriage (7:1-8:3)

A'. Prayer of Tobiah and Sarah (8:4-9a)

Insurmountable problems with this analysis include the following:

1. The topical summaries of the various units neither accurately capture the gist of each identified section nor provide any hint of the proposed parallelisms shown above.

    a. One would expect that “Departure of Tobiah” would be matched up with his section entitled “Return of Tobiah” (9:1-10:13) but he sees no parallelism between the two.

    b. From the section descriptions, one would expect to pair C and B' together.

2. Murai does provides keys to the more specific verbal parallels he identifies, but most of them are vague similarities or only involve small portions of the sections themselves.

    a. A and A' are identified as parallels strictly by the word “heaven(s)” and the fact that it occurs in a prayer in each case. The latter is not even true since its occurrence in A is part of a pious wish. In addition, this is a very uneven pairing of 43 verses in A with only 5 ½ verses in A'.

    b. B and B' are paired a little better since the magic item obtained in the former section is utilized in the parallel one. However, the pertinent verses in B' only represent the final two of a 21-verse unit.

By contrast, H. Efthimiadis-Keith defines the structure of the book as being broadly chiastic with the first section A (1:1-7:9a) outlining the effect of traumatic events on Tobit; followed by a center section B (7:9b-10:13) in which the positive effect of Tobias' marriage brings about a reversal in Tobit's life as evidenced in the final third of the book (Section A'). However, the approximately ten specific reversals she lists for A' do not line up in any orderly manner with the equal number of traumas in A. Also, her section divisions are in no agreement with those of Murai.

The Prayer of Manasseh

Breck has proposed a 10-part chiasm for this short work based wholly on thematic pairings of verses. There is always an inherent problem with this approach, especially in this case where the entire work centers around only one theme, sin-repentance-forgiveness. As a test of his proposal, a study of repeated language in the prayer was conducted to see if duplications matched up with his section divisions.

The following repeated words/phrases do help to confirm Breck's analysis:

A-A' heaven

B-B' for thou art the Lord / for thou, O Lord, art

    repent

    mercy (also in Section C)

D-D' sin (verb) (also in Section C)

E-E' sin (noun)

    multiply

On the other hand, a larger number of words and phrases are repeated in non-matching sections. They include: wrath, sinner, evil, transgression, beseech thee, save, unworthy, for ever, glory/glorious, and repentance. Breck's own judgment on a possible chiasm in on of the Dead Sea Scrolls applies here as well: “But at best the parallels are thematic rather than verbal and can arguably be explained as simple and random repetition of key ideas.”

The Wisdom of Solomon

The Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha notes that although this book was probably written by a single author, “The literary style of the book varies from poetic patches of high lyrical quality to plodding and pedestrian prose.” That same unevenness appears to evidence itself in the literary structure of the book. Sigvartsen finds one major section of the book, 1:1-6:21 which appears to possess a degree of literary symmetry, in contrast to the rest of the book. His analysis appears to be a fairly good representation of the structure of these verses. In addition, one can note that there are even weak verbal markers at the start and conclusion of sections A (“righteousness”), B (“reasoned”), and A' ("O kings / O monarchs").

A. Rulers enjoined to pursue wisdom (1:1-15)

    B. Speech of the ungodly (1:16-2:24)

        1. Introduction (1:16-2:1a)

        2. Speech (2:1b-20)

        3. Conclusion (2:21-24)

        C. Four contrasts (3:1-4:20)

            1. The just vs. the wicked (3:1-12)

            2. Sterile woman/the eunuch vs. generation of the wicked (3:13-19)

            3. Praise of virtue vs. useless fruit of the wicked (4:1-6)

            4. Premature death of the just youth vs. the wicked (4:7-20)

    B'. Speech of the ungodly (5:1-23)

        1. Introduction of judgment scene (5:1-3)

        2. Speech (5:4-13[14])

        3. Conclusion of judgment scene (5:14[15]-23)

A'. Rulers enjoined to pursue wisdom (6:1-21)

    1. Kings exhorted to understand and learn (6:1-8)

    2. Positive motives for learning wisdom (6:9-21)

It is even possible to firm up the symmetry in the above proposal by recasting Section C as a modified chiasm:

1. Premature death of the righteous not understood (3:1-9)

    2. The ungodly will be punished (3:10-13a)

        3. Fruit of the undefiled (3:13b-15)

            4. Fruit of adulterers (3:16-19)

        3'. Fruit of the virtuous (4:1-2)

1'. Premature death of the righteous not understood (4:7-17)

    2'. The ungodly will be punished (4:18-20)

Psalm 151

This is seven-verse psalm is part of the Orthodox canon but not widely accepted elsewhere in Christendom. There are several barriers to ascribing canonical status to this apocryphal work ascribed to David:

1. It disrupts the overall form of the Psalter (see my post "The Psalms: Introduction to the Literary Structure").

2. It only exists in Greek (although it appears to be a compilation of two separate Hebrew psalms found among the Dead Sea scrolls).

3. It is not written in poetic form at all.

In spite of these barriers, Father Breck defends it by detecting an overall chiastic form to the psalm. His assigned pairings of verses are only vaguely thematic in nature: the humility of David vs. the greatness of his victory, David the musician vs. David the warrior, and the Lord's acceptance of David vs. His rejection of David's brothers. And Breck's descriptions of the last contrasting pair do not even do justice to the meanings of those verses. In addition, absolutely the only verbal confirmation within these contrasting verses is the presence of “Lord” in the last pairing.

Keeping in mind that the above examples are about the only ones in the whole Apocrypha even proposed to have symmetry at all, one can easily see that these additions to the Bible do not exhibit the literary excellence seen in either the OT or NT books, whose writings bracket the Apocrypha in time of writing.