Corrected 20
November 2006
Exploring The Bible
H.A.Whittaker
First Published 1965
THE CHRISTADELPHIAN,
404 Shaftmoor Lane, Birmingham, B28 8SZ, UK
2nd and 3rd Editions
1984, 1992
BIBLIA 23 Thirlmere Avenue, Standish, Wigan, WN6 OAT, UK
Internet Edition
2006
www christadelphianbooks org
CONTENTS PAGE
FOREWORD 3
PREFACE 5
1. A BUSINESS-LIKE
APPROACH 7
2. MARKING YOUR
BIBLE 10
3. FIRST THINGS
FIRST 15
4. A CHAPTER OF
ODDMENTS 22
5. READ WITH CARE 25
6. MARGINAL
REFERENCES 29
7. ASKING QUESTIONS 36
8. PARALLEL
NARRATIVES 40
9. "WHAT DOES
THIS REMIND ME OF?" 46
10. THE CONCORDANCE 51
11. USE YOUR
IMAGINATION 58
12. SYMBOLIC
LANGUAGE 63
13. TRACE THE
ARGUMENT 69
14. STUDY THE
CONTEXT 76
15. MODERN
VERSIONS 81
16. "TYPES OF
US" 87
17. PARABLES AND
MIRACLES 95
18. A SERIOUS KIND
OF TOKEN 103
19. A BOOK AT A
TIME 106
20. "LET THEM
ALONE: THEY BE BLIND LEADERS OF THE BLIND" 112
21. IT ALL DEPENDS
ON YOUR FRAME OF MIND 117
22. CHRIST IN ALL
THE BIBLE 123
23. "LORD, IS
IT I?" 132
APPENDICES
1. QUESTIONS ON
GENESIS 1 138
2. HINTS AND
SUGGESTIONS ON EXODUS 2: 11-15 140
3. WORTHWHILE BOOKS 142
PREFACE
The author of this
book was invited by the Glasgow (South) Christadelphian Ecclesia to speak at a
conference of young people on the topic: "How you can get more out of your
Bible." The conference over, its sponsors pressed for publication. The
author has taken the opportunity to include more detail here and there, and to
add an extra chapter or two, but the general pattern of the original talks has
been followed.
There is bound to be
much that is unsatisfactory about so small a volume as this dealing with so
vast and important a subject. So readers are asked to make allowances for the
difficulties involved.
The circumstances
which brought this book into being are responsible for several of its
characteristics—the personal touch, which came easily enough when the talks
were originally given in Glasgow, and which may perhaps help to lighten the
heavier chapters; the omission of many aspects of Bible study which some would
consider to be top priorities; the heavy loading with the author's personal
enthusiasms (this is not an apology for them!); and the omission of
"perhaps", "peradventure" and "it may be". On
this last point it is not amiss to mention that high confidence over
conclusions reached in Bible study, is less often warranted than is commonly
assumed. So opportunity is taken here to remind the reader that though the tone
of these chapters may at times seem to be dogmatic, the writer is not unaware
of his own fallibility. All experienced teachers know that to hedge around with
provisos and uncertainties the instruction given is to cancel out much of its
value and to dull its impression on the mind. Hence the approach here.
It would be churlish
not to acknowledge how much the writing of this book has depended on the
author's invalid wife. Every chapter has received its share of her appreciation
and/or ruthless, criticism. She also typed the manuscript. The advice given on
page 8 is not flippant.
One thing more. A
strong appeal is made here to readers not to be content to be always spoon-fed
in Bible instruction. If these chapters do not send readers back to the Book to
explore and study and think for themselves, they have failed, utterly in their
aim.
PREFACE TO THE
SECOND EDITION
"No!" 1
said into the telephone very decisively, "I can assure you there are no
copies of Exploring the Bible to be had. The supply was exhausted long
ago."
But that insistent
demand at the other end of the line was the last straw needed to break the
camel's back. Within a week or two this new edition was on the way.
It is hoped that
this little book is still readable, in spite of the crop of anachronisms which
has sprung up in the space of twenty years - such things as mention of G.C.E.
(O-levels, now), and Charles Laughton records (now collectors' pieces), and the
Two Version Bible (now gone beyond recall), and the almost Victorian
exhortation to pencil-sharpening (today, a 0.5mm. propelling pencil). Some of
the versions discussed have almost disappeared, and instead we have the N.I.V.
and the Jerusalem Bible, both admirable but not faultless. The old Appendix 3
recommended books now scarcely obtainable. 1 am not sure that the in part re-written
version is much of an improvement.
It has been possible
to correct a few misprints - unimportant oddments chiefly. And.the
added Index (thanks to my good friend E.B.) may possibly improve the book's
usefulness.
How it is regretted
that C.M.P.A's fine gesture in first publishing Exploring at the ridiculous
price of four shillings and sixpence (22 pence!) cannot" be emulated.
Alas, it is not in my powers to swim against the roaring tide of inflation,
that crazy phenomenon of our highly intelligent civilisation.
C.M.P.A. (404 Shaftmoor Lane, Birmingham 28) still publishes volume 2 ‘Enjoying
the Bible’, and the Biblical material in it is, 1 hope, quite as stimulating as
that which Exploring offers.
PREFACE TO THE THIRD
EDITION
In view of Bro.
Harry's death in January 1992 before this reprint was undertaken, chapter 15 on
Modern Versions has been brought up-to-date by using his recommendations from
"Letters to George & Jenny" which he wrote in 1988. Otherwise,
the book remains unchanged.
1. A BUSINESS-LIKE
APPROACH
“If the Bible is
God's voice to every man that has ears to hear (which it demonstrably is), it
is for every man by himself, and for himself, to seek to understand it, and to
extend the benefit he may have received.” ROBERT ROBERTS.
It must be your
first aim to get to know the Bible facts in really familiar fashion. A ready
familiarity with the text itself is an absolute necessity.
As a means to this
end, no better device than the Bible Companion has been produced. There are
those who are not specially fond of this daily grinding away at five or six
chapters from three completely different parts of the Bible. Variations have
been invented, such as reading three portions from the first Old Testament
assignment, then next day three portions from the New Testament. Some prefer to
read Amos or John or Romans through at a sitting", so as to maintain
connection.
But all such
"improvements" notwithstanding, you are strongly advised for at least
your first five years in the Truth (and probably for a good deal longer) to
stick rigidly to the Bible Companion pattern of daily readings. It will give
you an over-all acquaintance with the facts of Scripture which is invaluable in
itself and without which progress of a yet better sort will not come easily.
And when you read,
read always slowly and with attention to detail. It is surprising how little of
what is read in any one chapter is retained clearly in the mind. In one of his
books Burgon challenges his reader to go slowly
through Genesis chapter 1 and then put the Bible aside and answer accurately
twenty questions (Appendix 1 on page 138) about the facts that he has just
read. The writer has still to find anyone who can score more than twelve
correct answers!
Once in an informal
Bible discussion class the speaker had a sudden lapse of memory and appealed to
the twenty Christadelphians present to help him with the name of the old man
who succoured David on the occasion of his flight from Jerusalem at the time of
Absalom's rebellion. And although those present had been reading the Bible
steadily for periods varying between five and forty years, none was able to
supply the missing name. So read with attention. Get familiar with the smallest
details. With this object in view, use any means which present themselves for
widening your knowledge.
It is far less of a
Christadelphian custom than it ought to be that the Bible is discussed at the
meal table. One forms the impression that there are today comparatively few
Christadelphian homes where this is normal. Even at a Fraternal Gathering,
where one might ordinarily assume that people are in a mind to discuss over
their meal of fellowship the Truth which really binds them together, good Bible
talk is a rare commodity. The trend in recent years has hardly been in the right
direction.
Yet "iron
sharpeneth iron" especially when sparks of Bible knowledge and elucidation
are being struck. One recalls with pleasure and gratitude the American home
where each place at table was set with half a dozen small cards each bearing a
somewhat out-of-the-ordinary Bible question. As the meal proceeded, each person
in turn read out a question and then looked around for the readiest answer. The
arguments, discussions and investigations which those questions provoked were
good for all concerned. Bread of Life was served with the meals at that table.
Another piece of
advice which goes logically with what has just been emphasized is that you
marry a wife (or husband) that you can talk to freely about the Bible and with
reasonable expectation of an intelligent, helpful response. In the Truth
married life should mean more than home-building, mutual enjoyment and
family-rearing. The home where animated conversation about the Word of God is
not a normal everyday thing is an emasculated affair.
In most
Christadelphian ecclesias there are one or two outstandingly knowledgeable
brethren. Some ecclesias, but not many, are blessed with more than one or two.
Use to the full the frequent openings which come your way to pick the brains of
such people, or the time will come when you will look back on these neglected
opportunities and reproach yourself bitterly. Accept every invitation which
conies your way to visit their homes—and always go with a Bible in your hand.
And if conversation does not readily turn in the direction of helpful Bible
topics, blame yourself.
The chances that
fall to you to button-hole one of these walking encyclopaedias after a Bible
Class or at the end of some other meeting should be taken full advantage of.
That snatch of conversation before you go home may often be of more profit than
the entire meeting which has preceded it.
But – another
warning – you would be well advised not to argue with these venerable
patriarchs in the process of brain-picking. What they offer may not invariably
sound convincing, but you should always think it over carefully before
jettisoning it altogether. By all means give yourself the luxury of a further
question with a view to eliminating some objection which your mind has lighted
on, but be careful not to take this process too far or the fount of wisdom may
dry up; the sweet waters may become bitter.
2. MARKING YOUR
BIBLE
“Writing maketh an
exact man.” FRANCIS BACON.
EVERY time you learn
some new thing—a piece of out-of-the-way information which throws light on an
obscure passage of Scripture, a neat explanation of a long-standing difficulty,
the name of a book which will supply useful knowledge on a particular subject,
a simple association of two Bible passages which illuminate each other—whenever
you encounter anything which might conceivably be of value one day, make a note
of it somewhere.
Of course, you have
a blotting-paper memory and can carry these details easily, so the note is not
necessary. But please accept an emphatic assurance that one day your memory
will not be as good as it is now, so it would be well to start the note-taking
habit right away.
But you do not see
your middle-aged brethren busy taking notes! Alas, no—and the more shame on
them for not setting you a good example and doing what they know to be needful
for themselves.
Another warning
against dependence on that keen memory of yours. It may not be really as
retentive as you think it is. Your self-assurance in this matter may actually
be an indirect excuse for your own laziness—an evasion of the effort, small
though it be, which is called for in the use of pencil and paper when you would
rather merely listen or talk.
One recalls a Bible
Campaign when a drenching downpour ruled out the afternoon's normal activities.
The oldest campaigner present seized the opportunity and turned the next two
hours to greater profit. The pages of his Bible turned back and forward, and
one valuable exposition followed another in quick succession—a rare experience.
At the end of it he looked round with grey eyes full of reproach: "See,
I've shown you this afternoon some of the finest ideas 1 know, and not one of
you has made a note about a single thing!"
Sure enough, some
time later one of his hearers with a sponge-like memory had to ask him to
repeat the explanation he had given of Paul's puzzling words in 1 Cor. 15: 39,
R.V.: "There is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another
flesh of birds, and another of fishes". This time the explanation went
down on paper as soon as it was received, and since then has been useful many
times over. As might be expected, the order significantly corresponds with
Psalm 8: 7, 8, R.V.
The present writer's
own progression in note-taking may not be without interest. It began on odd
scraps of paper which invariably got lost. Then followed a series of shabby
little notebooks tucked inside the cover of the Bible to the serious detriment
of its binding. One graduated next to an imposing array of student's exercise
books, with each item written up in its proper place (this was the phase when
there was as much pride in the system as there was zeal for ideas—the machine
was becoming master of the man). The acquisition of a wide-margin Bible stopped
all that. Since then Bible and commentary-have lived inside the same Covers.
This matter of
note-making in one's Bible is so important to any who are intent on the
acquisition of wide Bible knowledge as to merit a special section to itself. If
you expect to do this sort of thing over a period of twenty or thirty years it
is going to be worth while to develop a good technique from the start. There
are those with experience who would not concur with all the recommendations
listed here, but each of them has proved to be of value to somebody. You will
need to find by experiment which methods suit your own-style best:
(a) Mark your Bible in pencil, not in ink. Of
course ink is more legible, especially too if your pen has an extra-fine nib.
But alas, ink is also indelible, and—if you are going to be a Bible student of
any quality—the day will come (often!) when you will want to replace some of
your notes with something better. Blessed is the man that is prepared to
believe that his first thoughts were not infallible! Then, too, you will find
that in many Bibles a pen has an unpleasant habit of writing on both sides of
the paper at once. So pencil every time.
(b) But what sort of pencil? You will find that
anything softer than HB tends to smudge as the years go by. There is a loss of
legibility and a provoking defacement of the page opposite. On the other hand a
4.H or 6H point is too hard; it makes an impression on the thin paper, in
effect writes on both sides at the same time and is difficult to erase. You
will probably find a good-quality H or HB best for your purpose.
(c) Do not be content with any sort of point on
your pencil. If you are to write small and clearly, it will need to be needle
sharp. Bounce the point gently on the back of your hand. If it does not give a
clear sensation of pricking, it is not sharp enough. A slim razor-blade
sharpener is the ideal tool for producing such a point, costs only a few pence,
and can be carried everywhere.
(d) Always have a good eraser handy. Some are
worse than useless, either leaving a nasty smudge behind (your fault possibly
for letting it get dirty or greasy), or tearing the flimsy page, or rubbing up
a rough surface or even a hole. You will soon find by experiment the best for
your purpose.
(e) A slim four or
six inch ruler is a useful tool to tuck inside your Bible. Not only does it
make a good book-mark when you are hunting up passages, but it provides the
necessary straight-edge to help your underlining. Never—repeat never!—do your
underscoring free hand. The steadiest set of nerves cannot guarantee always to
do such a job neatly and efficiently.
(f) To pick out a
specially useful passage listed in your central column references, it is
sufficient to underline it and put a pencilled ring round the tiny letter or
figure in the text which steers you to it. Any other single reference which you
discover for yourself can be written in the margin or in an available space in
the middle column or in the tiny space which is often left to you at the end of
the verse.
(g) Be very sparing
of underlining. This has been so much overdone by some enthusiasts as to defeat
its own object, which is presumably to enable something of special importance
to catch the eye. The best way to find key passages quickly is to remember
whereabouts they come on the page. If you are going to use the same Bible for twenty
years at least (and this should be your aim) the development of this faculty
can be invaluable.
(h) The underlining or marking of different Bible
themes at the side in different colours finds a good deal of favour in some
quarters. The drawback here—and it is a big one—is the laboriousness of it all.
One cannot be for ever carrying around the battery of coloured pencils or
complete pharmacy of coloured bottles which this system calls for. Others avoid
these snags by inventing a code of capital letters by which to pick out
passages relevant to various themes.
Thus D =The Devil
M=Mortality of Man
S=Sacrifice, and so
on.
A scheme such as
this is better because it is capable of greater extension and less tedious
operation. But—it has to be said—both schemes are really signs of immaturity in
Bible study. By all means try one of them. After a year or two you will want to
leave it behind and also that copy of the Bible which you have so gaily
decorated.
(i) Economy of space is all-important in Bible
annotation. Therefore teach yourself to write small. This is one of the big
advantages of a really fine point on your pencil—your writing can be shrunk to
half the normal limit of legibility and still be read with ease.
Another great
economy of space and time can be made through the employment of your own system
of abbreviations. Such space savers at Xt (Christ), S. of M. (Son of Man), Aton.
(Atonement), Rtness (Righteousness), Kdom (Kingdom), Pr (promises). are
immediately recognizable.
(j) Notes which involve no more than three or
four words can usually find room in the margin against the appropriate verse.
For anything longer than that the strip of space at the top and bottom of the
page is worth its weight in gold leaf. With care a quite surprising amount of
useful information can be readily available there. If, then, you wish to add a
longer note or a longer series of references against a given verse, put a
capital A against it, and then at top or bottom of the page repeat this A and
the note you wish to add. Against another verse B will appear similarly. This
system employed over the years on a wide-margin Bible will turn it into a
commentary also. Some like to use Greek letters instead of capitals. The only
advantage is that of greater distinctiveness to the eye—and a certain
intellectual snobbery!
(k) When you strike an idea round which a widespread
series of Bible passages clusters, you will find it advantageous to collect all
of these together in the margin against one of them, and then put a
cross-reference to that place against the others: e.g. it is useful to assemble
against Num. 27:17 all the other passages where that luminous phrase "go
in and out" occurs. But then how is one to make sure of finding that key
passage? By including it in an Index to Notes at the beginning of your Bible.
Many students' Bibles are equipped with built-in indices of this kind. These
are a great asset.
(l) Most Bibles have a few blank pages at the
beginning and end, and perhaps also between the Testaments. All such space is
to be hoarded and used with the utmost care as open-boat survivors ration their
food and water. These pages are, of course, to be used in emergency, when the
lesser spaces are hopelessly inadequate to take something important.
(m) When to make a
note, and when not? The answer to this uncertainty is: When in doubt put it
down. You never know what strange little bit of information is likely to prove
valuable in the days to come. And, after all, you have already equipped
yourself with an eraser, so it will easily rub out a year or two later.
(N) A final warning in this section. Do not let
your Bible marking become an end in itself. Bible marking is not Bible study—it
is only an aid to study, a time-saver (ultimately) and a stimulus to later
meditation. If you detect in yourself the slightest flicker of pride in a page
well-plastered with annotations, then do not stop this practice, but do take
precautions to see that others do not know about them. Let them remain your own
private world.
3. FIRST THINGS
FIRST
“The heavenliness of
the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent
of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God,)
the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other
incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments
whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God.” Westminster
Confession, 1647.
"ALL Scripture
is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable." 2Tim.3:16
This is a faithful
saying, and worthy of all acceptation. If the Bible were not The Unique Book,
there would be no point in this present attempt, or any such, to recommend the
careful study of it and ways by which its Truth may be better known.
Yet another faithful
saying—again with all acceptation, but how ruefully—is this: "The children
of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light."
The stark miserable
truth of this in its application to knowledge of the Scriptures may be seen by
certain simple tests.
The first consists
of a number of representative questions taken at random from a recent G.C.E.
examination paper in the subject of Bible Knowledge. As you read them through,
ask yourself what would be the quality of your own written answers. If your
memory of school examinations has not grown dim, you will recall how the writing
of answers reveals the shabby inadequacy of reading and preparation not
thoroughly done.
1. Explain what is
meant by the "Servant Songs". Give a description of one of them, and
indicate what "servant" you consider it refers to.
2. Write notes on
three of the following:
(a) The proclamation
of Cyrus.
(b) Zerubbabel the
son of Shealtiel.
(c) Sanballat the
Horonite.
(d) Priests and
Levites.
(e) The image of
jealousy.
3. Give three
illustrations used by Ezekiel to enforce his teaching, and explain their meaning.
4. Show, with short
quotations, what teaching is found in the Psalms on three of the following
subjects:
(a) Disbelief in
God.
(b) Sorrow for sin. .
(c) Patriotism.
(d) The fate of the
wicked.
(e) The omniscience of
God.
5. State the chief
ways in which the Fourth Gospel differs from the three other Gospels in its
presentation of the life of Christ. How do you account for the differences?
6. Write notes on
three of the following:
(a) The good
shepherd.
(b) The visit of the
Greeks to Christ.
(c) The new
commandment.
(d) The Antichrist.
(e) The elect lady.
7. Explain the parts
played by Caiaphas and Pilate in the crucifixion of Christ, and give a brief
estimate of the characters of both men.
8. Say what were the
points in Paul's teaching and conduct which aroused the antagonism of the Jews
and led finally to his arrest.
9. Illustrate from
the Acts of the Apostles the attitude of the Roman Empire to the Apostolic
Church.
Now, how do you feel
about it? Is there a slight feeling of uneasiness or maybe shame? But,
remember, questions such as these are to be answered in examination after only
one or two years' preparation at the rate of three or four hours a week (and
very often with little or no home background to help), whereas you as a
faithful Christadelphian have been reading the Holy Scripture daily for years,
you have listened to hundreds of Bible discourses and discussions, and maybe
before that were soaking up Bible knowledge in Sunday School from a very early
age. How do you compare with the children of this world who answer these
questions in G.C.E. merely in order to have another subject listed on a
document of academic achievement:
Another test of a
different kind: "All Scripture is profitable" which is certainly more
than can be said about many of life's occupations. Then how does the time you
spend on novels magazines and newspapers compare with the time you give to the
Bible and books about it? And how much of your time given to conversation is
devoted to clothes, television, cars holidays, the peculiarities of other
people, and similar unprofitable topics, by comparison with your time talking
about the Bible and its worthwhile world? Or, put it another way, when you have
some of your best friends in for an evening, what son of topics do you
naturally gravitate to? Or—differently again— is it not true that you become
more animated in conversation about some matters than others? Which are the
topics which really waken you up?
One suspects that
there will be few readers of these words who, quietly honest with themselves in
such tests as these, do not feel some qualm of conscience thereafter.
William Law
(1686-1761) wrote in his Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life that the root
cause of spiritual mediocrity is lack of intention and deliberate purpose in
the life of the believer:
"It was this
general intention, that made the primitive Christians such eminent instances of
piety, and made the goodly fellowship of the saints, and all the glorious army
of martyrs and confessors. And if you will here stop, and ask yourselves, why
you are not as pious as the primitive Christians were, your own heart will tell
you, that it is neither through ignorance not inability, but purely because you
never thoroughly intended it."
Let it be granted
that where certain aspects of a devout and holy life are concerned, William Law
is over-stating his case or over-simplifying the issue. But what he has written
here fits perfectly the problem of one's attitude to the Bible in daily life.
The rewards of Bible
reading and study do not come in five minutes. If there is lack of serious and
prolonged application to this Book then expectation of full knowledge and real
profit is in vain.
And, conversely, any
Christadelphian who over a lengthy period of time gives more time and effort to
the mastering of some other subject, to the passing of some examination, to the
acquiring of some specialized qualification than he gives to the Word of God,
stands self-condemned in that very thing. The words may read harshly, but no
amount of excuse-making can evade their stark truth. If the Bible really is the
only book in the world to have come to us from God, then it demands and
deserves more, and better, attention than any other—than all other—books. Is such
a view unrealistic? How can it be? Paul wrote "All Scripture is
profitable..." In another place, he described it as "the Word of God,
which effectually works in those who believe". Did he mean what he said,
or are these words just rhetorical flourishes? If Paul was right, there is a
transforming and guiding power about this Book which you must harness to your
life. You just cannot afford not to!
Then by all means be
business-like and thorough in the way you go about your Bible reading. It
deserves something better than the easy-going haphazard attitude with which it
is so often treated.
In 1962 a number of
young Christadelphians and also a group of college students (S.C.M.) were asked
to indicate the usual where and when of their Bible reading, and the results
came out like this:
Bible Reading Christadelphians SCM Students
1. Where?
(a) In an armchair 30 7
(b) In bed 2 16
(c) In bus or train 0 0
(d) During meals 0 0
(e) At a table 6 0
2. When?
(a) Before
breakfast 1 4
(b) Between
breakfast and tea 4 0
(c) Between tea and
bed 40 7
(d) After going to
bed 1 15
Other answers
included:
On the bed 3
1
Beside the fire 0 2
"On my knees at
bedside" 0 1
In spite of the odd
and perhaps rather depressing picture presented by these figures, the fact has
to be faced that according to general human experience the mind is freshest and
most efficient early in the morning and also that a book is studied sitting at
a table—else why are classrooms and reference libraries equipped with desks and
not with armchairs and settees?
The Christadelphian,
then, who has equipped himself the devout "intention", referred to by
William Law, will choose as a general rule to read his Bible sitting at a table
or desk, paper and pencil handy.
The advantage of
this is enormous. Not only is such a posture conducive to alertness, but the
making of notes and the marking of details in the text are more readily done;
and if occasion arises for consulting the concordance or reference book there
is not the inertia to be overcome of climbing out of the bed or armchair.
Let any reader
follow this pattern for, say, six months, and thereafter there will always be
uneasiness and distaste for any of the more easy-going methods which are so
much more popular simply because they are easy-going.
And as to when
Bible-reading is best done, hear William Law again: "I take it for
granted, that every Christian that health, is up early in the morning; for it
is much more reasonable to suppose a person up early because he is a Christian,
than because he is a labourer, or a tradesman, or a servant, or has business
that wants him."
"We naturally
conceive some abhorrence of a man that is in bed when he should be at his
labour or in his shop. We cannot tell how to think anything good of him, who is
such a slave to drowsiness as to neglect his business for it."
"Let this
therefore teach us to conceive how odious we must appear in the sight of
Heaven, if we are in bed, shut up in sleep and darkness, when we should be
praising God; and are such slaves to drowsiness, as to neglect our devotions
for it... On the other hand, sleep is the poorest, dullest refreshment of the
body, that is so far from being intended as an enjoyment, that we are forced to
receive it either in a state of insensibility, or in the folly of dreams."
"Sleep is such
a dull, stupid state of existence, that even amongst mere animals, we despise
them most which are most drowsy."
"He, therefore,
that chooses to enlarge the slothful indulgence of sleep rather than be early
at his devotions to God, chooses the dullest refreshment of the body, before
the highest, noblest employment of the soul; he chooses that state which is a
reproach to mere animals, rather than that exercise which is the glory of
Angels."
"Extreme
opinions" you say? Perhaps they are, but you know yourself that this
emphasis is in the right direction.
Anthony Trollope who
personally organized the system of postal deliveries in every county of the
British Isles—this in itself an adequate memorial to a life's work—left an even
more massive memorial in the shape of several shelves-full of novels all of
which were written between the hours of 5 and 7 a.m.
A famous French
scientist, who had the good sense to realize that the habit of rising late was
likely to be the ruin of his career as a scholar, bribed his servant with the
promise of money for every occasion when he was hauled out of bed before 6 in
the morning. There were many desperate occasions and often volleys of curses,
but the servant was resolved on having the money and he did his job resolutely,
thus earning also the lasting gratitude of his master.
Readers of this
chapter probably have neither money nor servant, and will most likely have to
fall back on the aid of a cheap alarm-clock, placed in a remote corner of the
bed-room so that the needful bleary-eyed sprint round the furniture will add to
its efficiency.
There are doubtless
those for whom the foregoing recommendations are invalidated by temperament,
personal disability or home circumstances, but for every one in such case there
are probably ten who would profit from the effort to adopt a regimen of this
kind.
But whenever or
wherever your regular Bible reading is done, let it be preceded by a prayer. It
is hardly reasonable to expect to understand God's Book without first asking
the Author's blessing on your attempt.
Beware, however, of
multiplying words in your prayer. One recalls how the communal Scripture
reading at a Bible campaign was introduced by a prayer which at first was no
more than a quite simple sentence but which snowballed within a couple of weeks
to ten minutes of eloquence with phrase piled on phrase. Instead:
"Lord, grant
that the opening of Thy Word may give light and understanding to one who is
simple."
Or again:
"Consider,
Lord, how 1 love Thy precepts. Quicken me by them, according to Thy loving
kindness."
Or:
"Father, this
is Thy Book. How can 1 understand, except Thou guide me!"
4. A CHAPTER OF
ODDMENTS
“Let a man attempt
to repeat a parable, or relate one of our Lord's miracles, in the words of
Scripture,—and he will sufficiently perceive the importance of the practice
here recommended. He will be amazed to find how small a portion of what he
never got by heart, he is able to produce from memory; and how very
inaccurately he renders what he thinks he can recall.” JOHN WILLIAM BURGON.
EVERY young Christadelphian who has aspirations
towards Bible knowledge should certainly contrive to get himself appointed as a
Sunday School teacher—and for this purpose the older the class the better.
Without any question
the most admirable way to learn something thoroughly is to teach it to somebody
else. The telling of a Bible story will fix the details in your own mind as
nothing will, only take care that it does not fix details of your own invention!
Going over a paragraph of Scripture verse by verse with your class will often
bring to your notice something of value which you should have seen before but
had not.
The development of
the knack of asking your class thought-provoking and often unexpected questions
will mean also the sharpening of that same faculty for your own personal
benefit in private study. And conversely if you do not teach yourself this immensely
useful trick of asking, asking, asking questions, you will never be much good
either as a teacher in Sunday School or as a student in the God’s class.
In yet another way
make use of your youth by setting yourself to learn by heart a stock of
"desert-island" chapters. Set to work on Isaiah 40 and 53 and 55, on
a dozen favourite Psalms, on the story of the blind man in John 9, on the
entire Epistle of the Ephesians and the Letters to the Churches. This recommendation
comes from the heart of one who neglected to do so in early life and,
regretting it ever since, has desperately tried to make good the omission later
on, only to fail dismally.
Ridley, the Oxford
martyr in the Reformation, learned by heart whilst a student almost all the
epistles of Paul:
"Mine own dear
College" (wrote Ridley, shortly before his martyrdom,) "in thy
orchard... 1 learned to recite without book almost all Paul's Epistles; yea,
and 1 memorised all the New Testament Epistles, save only the Apocalypse. Of
which study, although in time a great part did depart from me... the profit
thereof 1 think 1 have felt in all my life-time, ever after."
Today even learning
the correct order of the epistles of Paul is deemed a burdensome task! Whose
are the better standards? —the sixteenth or the twentieth century's?
Again, learn before
it is too late the invaluable habit of unselfconsciously reading the Bible in
bus or train or cafe or park, and you will add to your life many hundreds of
hours of useful application which would otherwise go wasted. Do this often
enough to think nothing extraordinary of it, so that you are neither proud of
the act nor half-ashamed of it. After all, when proper standards of judgment
are used, it is others who should be red in the face because they do not read
the Bible in the bus. And on these occasions be sure to have your pencil always
handy, if it is only to put a dot in the margin here and there to remind you of
some new idea to be pursued or some difficulty to be investigated, when you get
home.
For those who really
mean business in their Bible study, the question is sure to arise sooner or
later: Shall 1 learn Greek or Hebrew, and if so which?
The answer to this
cannot be the same for all who ask it. Some have no flair for languages at all.
But many young people have the opportunity to do Greek as a G.C.E. subject at
school. This choice should be made, even if it means a dismal exam, result in
one subject. The gain will be greater than the loss, for the Greek of the
gospels is easy Greek, and even G.C.E. Greek (failed) may still mean that you
are equipped to learn more from your New Testament than you otherwise would.
Those who have
opportunity to read Greek as a subsidiary subject at the university and do not
make use of it must reckon themselves blameworthy in this thing, inasmuch as
they deem easier or greater academic success more important than facility in the
Word of God.
It should, of
course, be remembered that serious differences exist, both in syntax and
vocabulary, between classical Greek and the everyday Greek in which the New
Testament was written. But any sort of Greek done at school or university gives
a marked and lasting advantage in more exact Bible study.
It is usually
considered that a knowledge of Hebrew does not repay the painstaking student to
the same extent as Greek, but no time spent on it is wasted. Could the effort
to know at first hand the tongue of Abraham, Moses, David and Isaiah be written
off as useless?
But (and this is
important) let there be no amateurish nibbling. Either learn the
language—whichever it is—properly, sitting at the feet of an adequate teacher
and giving all diligence to the study over a long period, or leave it alone
altogether. The tyro trying to be erudite does not realize what an irritating
or amusing spectacle he is to others.
In any case, whether
your learning in these departments is profound or defective, be careful to
leave it out of your discourses, writing or conversation. The place for the
original tongues is in the study.
5. READ WITH CARE
“The Bible should be
studied at least as laboriously and exactly as any other book which has to be
completely mastered. Every expression, every word, must be weighed; patiently,
thoughtfully, systematically, reverentially.” JOHN WILLIAM BURGON.
THE first and most
necessary qualification if you would really make progress in your grasp of
Bible teaching is that you learn to read concentrating on the details. Be
attentive to note what the words say and not what you suppose that they say or
would like them to say.
The common
assumption every Christmas-time, that because there were three gifts brought
there must have been three wise men who brought them, is often made the ground
for superior remarks about popular ignorance of the Bible. And in the same
breath it is often pointed out that Matthew's gospel says nothing about
"kings" (except king Herod) but speaks only of "wise men".
That they were kings is an early Christian fancy, a kind of back inference from
Isaiah 60: 3, whilst their names— Melchior, Balthasar and Caspar—are an
entertaining fabrication from the Hebrew and Septuagint text of Psa. 72: 10.
But how many who
read these words and have had their share of merriment over popular ignorance
about the wise men have themselves been caught out in a slovenly reading of the
nativity record? The moving fantasy that these men journeyed on week after week
guided every night through mountains, forests, and deserts by a star going
before them is simply not in the text (have another look at Matt. 2: 2, 9).
Nor, for that matter, does the record say that they came ultimately to
Bethlehem. Indeed, the common assumption that they arrived within a few hours
or days of the birth of Jesus is hardly borne out by the text. Note Matt. 2:
16, and use the analytical concordance and lexicon on the words for "young
child, children, babe" in Matt. 2:11, 16 and Luke 2: 12; and ask yourself
whether the incident in the temple with the aged Simeon could have happened
with safety after the visit of the wise men, and why if the munificent gifts
had already been received, Mary brought the small offering (Luke 2: 24) of the
poorest of the people (Lev. 12: 8).
This need for care
in getting your facts right cannot be too strongly emphasized, especially to
those who hope one day, in the grace of God, to be teachers of others. How
often, both in public discourse and private discussion on Bible prophecy has
been heard declared concerning Jerusalem that in the last days "half the
city will be taken", yet see again Zech. 14: 2. And how much more often
has it been stressed that Noah could convert only his own family "even
after a hundred and twenty years of preaching"? One is constrained to ask:
Does Gen.6:3 warrant that interpretation? And the most optimistic answer can
be: "Possibly, hardly probably, and decidedly not certainly." On the
other hand Gen. 6: 18 is decisive against this “120 years preaching” inasmuch
as Noah's firstborn was born only 100 years before the Flood (Gen. 5: 32 and 9:
28, 29), and at the time of the first warning to Noah the three sons were all
married men.
Even a writer whose
book has worthily nurtured several generations of Christadelphians in the study
of detail in Scripture can be caught nodding. In his ‘Undesigned Coincidences’
Blunt makes much of the point that before the feeding of the multitude Jesus asked
Philip: "Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?" (John 6:5).
And why was the enquiry addressed to Philip? Because, says Blunt, they were
near to Bethsaida (Luke 10) and Philip belonged to that place (John 1:44 and 12:21),
so he should know; he was the obvious one to ask. Thus, Blunt adds, two gospels
tell a story harmonious even in small "unimportant" details.
But John 6: 6 itself
supplies the reason for the question being put to Philip. It was "to prove
him" as one who needed proving (John 14: 8, 9). Nor was Philip the only
one to come from Bethsaida. Peter and Andrew hailed from the same town. And
when Jesus said: " Whence shall we buy bread...?" his words were not
bound to mean "From what place—?" but could signify: "Out of
what resources...?" There is also a distinct possibility that the shores
of Galilee had two Bethsaidas, miles apart. So in this instance the point is
not as conclusively made as may seem at first sight (Lk. 9:10; Mk. 6:45).
One can afford to be
charitable to such as Blunt, for he has been a help to many, and his reverence
for the Word of God was an example to follow. But it is not so easy to be
tolerant of the superior attitude of modern criticism which quotes "the
kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the
children of Israel" (Gen. 36: 31) as a decisive argument that Genesis was
not written by Moses but must have been compiled after the time of David. The
careful reader will have already observed that the preceding chapter (35: 11)
has this divine promise to Jacob: "A nation and a company of nations shall
be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins." One would think it
evident to any of ordinary intellect that these passages were written with
direct reference to each other.
In a thousand places
a careful attention to the facts and details of Scripture will bring a stimulating
reward.
By simply reading
with your eyes open you will discover that these are two aspects of Peter's
walking on the water; first to failure and almost to death, then with ease and
success—and you will note with gladness what it was that made all this
difference (Matt. 14: 29, 32). You may perhaps surmise whether there was
another occasion when he walked on the water (John 21: 7). You will observe
that the Messianic King, of Isaiah 11, wears two girdles (verse 5) and is
therefore a High Priest also (Lev. 8: 7 - Or is this Isaiah passage another
example of the familiar parallelism in Hebrew prophecy and poetry?). You will underline in Matt. 20: 14 the words
"go thy way" and thus pick out in the parable of the labourers the
main point of it all, through oversight of which so many have ended in fantasy
or perplexity. You will excitedly compile a list of passages like Gen. 28: 10,
18, 29: 10, 31: 40, and 32: 24, and then make a mental apology to the memory of
Jacob for having written him off as a milksop. His mother's favourite he
certainly was, but what weakling would walk forty miles in one day (as the
narrative seems to imply), would raise up a stone pillar single-handed, would
roll away a stone normally shifted by several men, would endure years of hard
toil exposure, would wrestle with an angel? Yet no special erudition is needed
to learn these things, but only a certain reverent care in reading.
This chapter could
continue to the end of the volume, doing no more—and no less—than emphasize
this simple truth, that there is far more in the Bible on the surface than most
readers ever dream of. Yet how often does one scamper through four or five chapters
in twenty minutes? The "daily readings" have been “done".
There is a more
excellent way.
6. MARGINAL
REFERENCES
“Such quotations of places to be marginally
set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.”
KING JAMES 1. One of King James' personal instructions to the translators of
the Authorized Version of 1611.
"Search into the deep things of God,
not from men's theories, but from His own words."
CHARLES KINGSLEY.
FOR the ordinary
student of the Word of God there is no single tool available to match marginal
references in general helpfulness. It is a token of the laziness of this
generation and its disinclination to serious application to the Bible that
editions with marginal references are going out of fashion. How many besides
Christadelphians make serious use of them? For that matter, how many
Christadelphians do so?
Yet as a help to
finding your way rapidly and easily about the Book there is nothing to compare
with an intelligently-compiled set of marginal references. In a thousand ways
they come to your assistance, saving you endless trouble and frequently handing
to you, ready made, some of the most stirring ideas the Bible can provide.
One tremendously
important field is the ready identification of New Testament quotations from
and allusions to the Old Testament. There is enough in this aspect of Bible
study to keep any painstaking student occupied for a lifetime.
This is the kind of
thing that happens: The familiar and perhaps rather wordy prophecy of Jesus
about "father divided against son, and son against father; mother against
daughter, and daughter against mother; mother in law against her daughter in
law, and daughter in law against her mother in law" (Luke 12: 53) would
not easily be recognized by most as a quotation from the prophet Micah except
with the aid of marginal references. But there it is in Micah 7: 6—and immediately
the query is provoked: Does Jesus use this language of the prophet just because
it happens to say what he wants to say? or is this the Lord's own intimation
that Micah 7 tended to be read as a prophecy of the preaching of the gospel and
the work of Christ?
By refusing to be
fobbed off with the first of these explanations without proper investigation of
all the possibilities one is led by this clue to the understanding of one of
the most comprehensive and thrilling of all Old Testament Messianic prophecies.
Though certainly not one of the easiest!
Another example of
this kind is in Luke 23: 30, the sorrowful lament of Jesus for sinful
Jerusalem, when the women of Jerusalem lamented for him: "Then shall they
begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us."
This time the reader
is directed to Hosea 10: 8, where once again the question arises: Is this a
handy prophetic phrase quoted as one might quote Shakespeare today: "To be
or not to be, that is the question"? (Hamlet) or is it an actual citation
of a prophecy of designed Messianic content?
At first glance the
reaction is almost sure to be: Certainly not the latter, there is nothing about
Messiah there. But the eye wanders over the page and in a few quick minutes
collects the wing "echoes" of the gospel story:
(a) "The days
of visitation" (9: 7).
(b) "They have
deeply corrupted themselves, as in the days of Gibeah" (Gabbatha?) (9:9).
(c) "He will
remember their iniquity, he will visit their sins" (9:9)-
(d) "The
firstripe in the figtree... their root is dried up, they shall bear no
fruit" (9: 10, 16).
(e) "From the
birth, and from the womb, and from the conception... Though they bring up their
children, yet will 1 bereave them... A miscarrying womb, and dry breasts" (9:
11, 12, 14).
(f ) "All their
wickedness is in Gilgal" (Golgotha? same root)
(g) "For the
wickedness of their doings will 1 drive them out of mine house" (9: 15).
(h) "All their
princes are revolters" (9: 15).
(i) "My God
will cast them away, because they did not hearken unto him: and they shall be
wanderers among the nations" (9: 17).
(j) "Israel is
an empty vine, he bringeth forth fruit unto himself" (10: 1).
(k) "We have no
king (but Caesar!) and the king, what can he do for us?" (10: 3).
(1) Swearing falsely
in making a covenant" (10: 4).
(m) "For the
glory... is departed from it" (10: 5).
(n) "The thorn
and the thistle shall come up on their altars" (10: 8).
(o) "And they
shall say to the mountains, Cover us;
and to the hills, Fall on us" (10: 8).
(p) "At
day-break (R.V.) shall the king of Israel utterly be cut off" (10: 15).
(q) "When
Israel was a child, then 1 loved him, and called my son out of Egypt" (11:1).
Any one of these,
standing by itself, might read rather unconvincingly as having anything whatever
to do with Jesus and Israel's rejection of him. But two out of the list are
specifically given such an application in the New Testament, and as regards the
rest even if the less obvious ones are discarded there still remain far too
many with verbal relevance to the same theme for the whole thing to be
dismissed as coincidence. Yet who, reading Hosea without John's gospel to guide
him, would ever have dreamed of seeing here a prophecy about Christ?
Examples of this
sort are far more numerous than is generally believed. The New Testament's
methods of interpreting the Old Testament are not such as a modern scholar
would normally dream of employing. There is special need for humility here so
that one may be instructed in these mysteries.
"God is His own
interpreter, And He will make it plain.''
All this started
from a marginal reference against Luke 20:30. It would be too optimistic to
assume that every marginal reference will lead to such unusual findings. A
large proportion of them are of little value, and no wonder, for they are not
part of the inspired text, but merely the work of fallible men. However the
marginal references in the Interlinear Bible and the Two Version Bible reach a
very high standard, especially the former. Those in the Schofield Bible are
worthless. The New Testament with Fuller References (Oxford University Press)
is almost too thorough.
Again, without any
question the great Promise made to David in 2 Samuel 7 finds its true fulfilment
in Jesus the Messiah. Even if the language of the Promise were not sufficient
in itself to establish this, the New Testament says so in unmistakeable fashion.
Marginal references steer the reader to Hebrews 1:5, where the words "I
will be his father, and he shall be my son", are given their proper
application to Jesus. Doubt, if there were any, is set at rest.
But there remains
the enigma of the words: "If he commit iniquity 1 will chasten him with
the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men" (2 Sam. 7:
14). How can words: these have any kind of reference to one who was to be Son of
God and sinless? Here, again, marginal references come to the rescue by
indicating Psalm 89 as a commentary on this passage. A quick perusal of the
Psalm picks out verses 3, 4, 19, 26 to 36 as making allusion to 2 Sam. 7, and
in particular the equivalent to the words just quoted meets the eye in verses
30,: "If his children forsake my law... then will 1 visit their transgression
with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes."
So it is clear from
this that the words do not refer to Messiah but to those who are reckoned as
seed of David because they belong to Messiah, the son of David (a parallel idea
to Abraham's seed" in Gal. 3: 29). In 2 Cor. 6: 18 Paul clinches this
interpretation by similarly applying, "I will be his father, and he shall
be my son", not to Christ but to those who are in Christ.
An inspired
exposition such as this is much to be preferred to a dubious tinkering with an
obscure Hebrew phrase to make it mean "in his suffering for iniquity 1
will chasten him...", a translation about which there can be no certainty,
(Psalm 91:3: "the pestilence which is a punishment for iniquity" is
the nearest approach to such a use of the Heb. Word). even though it has the
authority of Dr. Adam Clarke and of respected Christadelphian writers.
A great many special
lines of study can be pursued by means of good marginal references. This
chapter concludes with three illustrations of the kind of thing that is meant.
Prov. 25: 6, 7:
"Put not forth thyself in the presence of the king, and stand not in the
place of great men: for better it is that it be said unto thee, Come up hither;
than that thou shouldest be put lower in the presence of the prince whom thine
eyes have seen."
Even if the ear does
not readily catch the echo, marginal references immediately steer the reader to
Luke 14: 8-10. Jesus took this proverb and turned it into a parable (for
certainly the place in Luke is not intended as a lesson in propriety when in
high society).
Prov. 25: 8:
"Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the end
thereof, when thy neighbour hath put thee to shame."
Once again the
marginal reference to Luke 12: 58 is hardly necessary. And once again Jesus has
turned a proverb into a parable.
These two examples
coming together set an enquiring mind roving ahead: Can it be that here Jesus
is instructing how best to use the book of Proverbs—by turning them all into
parables relevant to the problems of the gospel? What a wonderful field
—utterly unexplored as yet—opens up here before the mind's eye! Imagine a
Mutual Improvement Class at which half a dozen speakers were each given a
proverb to turn into a parable. This would be mutual improvement of the best
sort!
But more than
this—there arises the further speculation: If Jesus quarried two of his
parables out of the Book of Proverbs, how many more did he get from the same
source? This is where marginal references really come into their own. Here is a
fascinating line of research. The present writer has followed it through only
spasmodically, and yet has been rewarded with a if approximately twenty! Others
will doubtless be eager to follow it out more thoroughly. The Book of Proverbs,
somewhat neglected in Christadelphian circles, begins to take on a new importance.
And now a different
kind of example.
Daniel's prayer
(Dan. 9: 3-19) for the restoration of Jerusalem followed on a careful study of
"the books" (i.e. the Bible; Gk. biblia means books) and of Jeremiah
specifically. His prayer contains further references to Jeremiah; for example;
verse 15=Jer. 32: 20, 21; verse 18=Jer. 25: 29. But it also has recognizable
allusions to other parts of the Old Testament as well. To trace them with
marginal references and concordance can be a laborious task, but the result is
satisfying, for it now appears that Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah and
Ezekiel (a contemporary!) were all included in "the books" which made
up Daniel's Bible.
The marginal
references go further and establish that some years later, when Nehemiah prayed
for the peace of Jerusalem, he closely modelled his prayer on that of Daniel,
so presumably he already had a copy of the Book of Daniel included in his Bible!
Lastly, marginal
references can be a bulwark against modern critcism.
It has come to be
one of the "settled conclusions" of modern scholarship that Isaiah
chapters 40-66 were not the work of Isaiah, the contemporary of Hezekiah, but
of two unidentified writers at the end of the Babylonian captivity. In two ways
marginal references supply first a big difficulty, and then an insuperable
obstacle in the way of such a conclusion.
Disregarding for the
moment the four historical chapters, Isaiah 36-39, chapters 35 and 40 would
normally be consecutive in the prophecy. Marginal references quickly reveal a
connection between the two. When more personal combing of the phrases follows,
it is found that chapter 35 has no less than seven direct contacts with chapter
40, one with chapter 41, one with chapter 42, and is quoted verbatim in chapter
51: 11.
The fairly likely
explanation—some would say, the obvious explanation—is that it is the same
Isaiah in the later chapters, writing about the same things and using his own
characteristic phrases (compare the unconscious repetitions of phrase in
different chapters of this book!). Any other explanation is by comparison
unnatural and unconvincing.
But now the hunt
moves to Jeremiah who wrote a hundred years after Isaiah and at the beginning
of the Babylonian captivity. Jer. 10: 1-16, so the marginal references reveal,
has at least six references to "Deutero-Isaiah" who is supposed to
have flourished about 70 years after his time! No, it will not do to say that,
vice versa, "Deutero-" is really the one who is quoting Jeremiah. A
comparison of the parallel passages soon shows who is the quoter and who is the
quoted.
The modernists
realize that that is not the way out. Instead, they claim that Jeremiah is all
of one piece except for this section which, they say, has been interpolated
from a later writer (this blithe assumption—and it is nothing else—would then
allow time for this Deutero-Jeremiah to quote Deutero-Isaiah!).
But even this
desperate device is of no avail. Again marginal references make it evident that
the entire prophecy of Jeremiah, and not just his chapter 10, is dotted with
quotations from Isaiah, a large proportion of them being from
"Deutero-" (e.g. chapter 11:19, an outstandingly clear example).
There is no answer to this. Isaiah chapters 1-66 must have been in existence,
all of it, in the time of Jeremiah, and included in his Bible.
Of course it has to
be recognized that belief in the unity of "Isaiah" is not without its
problems, but this is not the chapter or the book for the discussion of such
interesting matters. The subject is mentioned here only because the painstaking
use of references can be the means of furnishing a forceful contribution to the
pros and cons of a much controverted topic.
7. ASKING QUESTIONS
“Nothing but an
untrammelled individual knowledge of the Bible will satisfy the earnest
curiosity that would know what the truth is.” ROBERT ROBERTS.
No one can expect to
go far in Bible study except he have or develop a well-sharpened faculty for
asking questions. The ability to answer questions, to find the solution to
problems and difficulties, will come with experience. But if there be no lively
curiosity in the first instance which reads every verse and every phrase with a
large question-mark against it, progress will be: better than meagre. It
matters little at the moment whether you can find the answers to the problems
or not. Many of the answers will be supplied by others, because if your mind is
full of questions they are bound to crop up frequently in your conversation.
Many more solutions will arrive of their own accord with the passing of time
and your growing over-all knowledge of the Bible. Quite a number will remain
with you all your days without any convincing answer—suitable reminders of your
own fallibility and limited powers, but not (it is sincerely hoped) as seeds of
unfaith.
Some questions leap
instinctively to the minds of all Bible readers—such things as:
What was it Jesus
wrote on the ground?
What were the
questions the boy Jesus asked the venerable doctors of the law in the temple?
Why does Psalm 14 come twice in the Psalter?
Why are women
mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus? And why these four?
Why are there four
historical chapters sandwiched in the middle of Isaiah's 62 chapters of
prophecy?
Why should Joseph,
the only outstanding Old Testament character about whom nothing derogatory is
recorded, and who is one of the most remarkable types of the Lord Jesus, marry
an Egyptian wife, and she the daughter of a high priest of base idolatry?
What sort of a woman
was Bathsheba? How should her character be assessed?
Why did Jesus say to
the rich young ruler: "Sell all, give to the poor, and follow me"
when he had other wealthy disciples to whom apparently he commanded no such
thing?
Why was Jonah found
sleeping placidly through the terrifying storm when he was the cause of it, and
apparently knew that he was?
Was David right to
feign madness as he did at the court of Achish?
What was the reason
for that strange opening of the graves and resurrection of saints when Jesus
rose from the dead?
When Jesus came to
the disciples walking on the water, why should John record: "then they
willingly received him into the ship"? Does a thing as obvious as that
need to be recorded?
What precisely does
Paul mean by eating and drinking unworthily?
Jesus says in
Revelation: "Behold, 1 come quickly"; then why after another 1900
years has he not come yet P1
A list like the
foregoing is one that anybody can compile in a matter of a few minutes by the
simple process of flicking over the pages of a Bible.
Many of the
questions which spring to the mind are the sort to which no definitive answer
is possible. Several examples of this are included in the list just given:
e.g., it is hardly likely that what Jesus wrote on the ground will ever be known
in this age; a likely guess is as near as one can hope to come to a solution of
such a problem.
(By all means write
to the author about any of these things, but please accept his assurance now
that he does not have a convincing answer to quite a number of them!)
It is well therefore
to appreciate in advance that there are many problems of this nature, and for
that reason to be suitably undogmatic about any conclusions which may be
arrived at.
If, however, you are
going to develop any degree of thoroughness your Bible study, you must be
prepared to assemble just such a battery of questions concerning the details in
any portion of Scripture which you may find yourself studying. Even the most
familiar Bible passage can provide plenty of opportunity for further
exploration.
Take for example the
story of Moses' first attempt to deliver his people (Exodus 2: 11-15)— a mere
five verses telling a story lave known intimately since you were very young.
There is enough to keep you going for an hour:
(a) Verse 11: "when
Moses was grown." Does the recapitulation and commentary in Acts 7 and
Heb. 11 interpret this?
(b) Verse 11:
"his brethren." At what age would Moses come a think of the
Israelites as "his brethren"?
(c) And what
indication is there here about Moses' character, that he was prepared to think
of this race of slaves as "his brethren"?
(d) Verse 11:
"an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew." A personal quarrel, or to be
explained by chapter 1: 11?
(e) Verse 12:
"when he saw there was no man"—to help or to hinder? In what other
places in Scripture does this phrase come? Are they relevant?
(f) Verse 13: "behold." Why this interjection of
surprise?
(g) Verse 13: Why
this quarrel? Suggest possibilities.
(h)Verse 14:
"Who made thee a prince over us?" Suggest possible answers to this
question. What other men in Scripture were similarly thrust aside?
(i) Was Moses
justified in this interference? (Is your answer a Biblical one? If not,
consider the bearing of Acts 7: 25 (see R.V.), Deut. 9: 24, Heb. 11: 26).
(j) Is there a
contradiction between this verse 14 and Heb.11: 27?
(k) Verse 15:
"When Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses." Why should
Pharaoh take notice of the slaying of an unimportant underling by Moses? Wasn't
life cheap in those days?
(1) Verse 15:
"he sought to slay Moses." Can any inference be made from chapter
18:4?
(m) Verse 15:
"Moses fled." What inference may follow from Acts 7: 30 (note R.V.:
"fulfilled")?
(n) Verse 15:
"he sat down by a well." Why should such a trivial detail be given here?
Use your concordance on that verb before you jump to conclusions.
(o) Explain Heb. 11:
26: "the reproach of Christ", with reference to Moses.
(p) In Heb. 11: 26
find the meaning of "had respect" and its special point with
reference to Moses.
If a brief
straightforward narrative already familiar in all its details can supply so
many lines of enquiry, what should happen when you come to tackle (say) a
chapter in Isaiah or Romans about which you know almost nothing?
Do not let the
difficulty of finding answers to some of your problems distress you unduly.
Carry these conundrums about with you. They will provide the finest
conversational gambits and talking points with your fellow Christadelphians
that you could wish for. And by getting them going on a problem you will
benefit them also, as well as yourself when—as is bound to happen
sometimes—"iron sharpeneth iron" and you stimulate each other to a
joint solution.
If a satisfactory
answer to your problem is not forthcoming, write it on a fly-leaf of your Bible
in a place specially reserved for unsolved difficulties. One day, sooner or
later, you will have the pleasure of using an eraser on it.
When you have spent
an hour or so on the questions about Moses, you may be interested to compare
notes with the author in Appendix 2 on page 140.
8 . PARALLEL
NARRATIVES
“As to the Gospels
we are not to think that we have ever read them enough because we have often
read and heard what they contain. But we must read them as we do our prayers,
not to know what they contain, but to fill our hearts with the spirit of them.”
WILLIAM LAW in "Christian Perfection".
Many things are told
in the Bible twice over, or maybe more times than that (perhaps on the
principle enunciated in Gen.41:32 ). The four gospels are the most obvious and
most important example. But there is also the historical ground common to Kings
and Chronicles (and for the reign of Hezekiah four chapters in the middle of
Isaiah).
There is also
copious New Testament use of and comment on Old Testament history—consider the
copious allusions by Jesus to Adam and Eve, Abel, Noah and the Flood, Lot and
Sodom, Moses at the bush, in the wilderness, smiting the rock and making a
brazen serpent, David and the shewbread, Solomon and the queen of Sheba, Jonah
and the whale, Elijah and the famine. Rarely are these references made without
supplying some line of interpretation which the ordinary eye would not see. So
by all means give attention to the help thus made available to you.
There is also a
great field for study in a chapter like Acts 7— Stephen's great historical
review which for some reason (what reason?) brought both intense conviction and
bitter resentment to the hearts of his learned audience. Stephen—"full of
the Holy Spirit and of wisdom" (6:3), "full of faith and of the Holy
Spirit" (6: 5), "full of grace (R.V.) and power" (6: 8),
irresistible because of his "wisdom of the Spirit" (6: 10),
"with his face as it had been the face of an angel" (6: 15), and
"full of the Holy Spirit and seeing the glory of God" (7: 55)—was
doubtless better equipped to interpret the Old Testament than you are, so sit
at his feet and learn all you can. The problems of Acts 7 are problems of his
making simply because he is so far ahead of you. There is an excellent chapter
on this in John Carter's Oracles of God.
But the great field
for comparison of parallel narratives is the four gospels. Apply yourself
diligently to this and you will enjoy many wonderful experiences; the gospels
will open out with a fullness of glory which you never suspected; indeed there
will be occasions when the wealth of material at your disposal is almost
bewildering.
They will also
provide many headaches with their seeming differences of emphasis and
"contradictory" statements of fact. Only see to it that your reaction
to these "contradictions" is not in the direction of supreme
confidence in your own powers of judgment and lack of confidence in the
gospels.
The instance comes
to mind of the well-educated Scot who confessed that his days of faith and
Bible-reading came to an abrupt end when he noticed that one of the gospels
tells of Jesus being arrayed in a purple robe whilst another says it was
scarlet. Is not this rather pathetic? Did it not occur to this acute mind to
find out whether in ancient times colours were as precisely defined as in these
days? And did it never occur to him that there may be such a thing as a purple
robe lined with scarlet, or vice versa? Every hospital nurse on her way to duty
wears a blue or a scarlet cloak according to whether you see her back or her
face. And this ready-made rationalist was a doctor! Was there ever a more
obvious example of a man wanting to disbelieve? "If any man willeth to do
His will, he shall know of the doctrine." (John 7:17)
So at every point of
uncertainty give the gospels the benefit of the doubt—but only for a time. The
day will come when they will need your long-suffering no longer, for given a
fair hearing they will build up in your own mind (and your affections) such an
impregnable position that your faith in them is safe for ever.
Indeed the time will
come when the discovery of another "inconsistency", instead of furrowing
your forehead and giving you a vague feeling of guilt for doubting the
dependability of these four witnesses, will impart a certain thrill of
anticipation for experience will teach you over the years that a problem of
that nature is very often the door through which you move, perhaps only after a
good deal of groping, to a new and satisfying discovery.
There is, for
example, the seeming discordance between Matthew and Mark (usually so very
close together) over the payment of Judas by the chief priests. Matt. 26: 15
has "They covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver"—R.V.:
''they weighed unto him...". Literally the text is: "they put to
him" or "they stood to him". Undoubtedly the idea is that they
paid him the money there and then, for the Greek text quotes verbatim the
Septuagint version of Zech. 11: 12 (see your marginal references) where the
Hebrew text is certainly free from any ambiguity.
Over against this is
Mark's version: "they promised to give him money." (chapter 14: 11).
Yet Judas was in possession of the thirty pieces of silver a short time after
this.
You have only to
imagine yourself in the place of one of these unscrupulous villains making a
deal with a traitor and to ask yourself, "How would 1 have gone about
it?", and the solution is obvious.
Would you not, in their shoes, offer a token payment and the bulk of the "reward"
when the job was done? The thirty pieces of silver were a down payment with
promise of the rest—ten times as much?—when Judas had done all he promised to
do.
And now another
difficulty disappears along with this one—: the question why Judas, greedy of
money, was content to betray his Master for such a comparatively trivial sum
when he could certainly have driven a much harder bargain—for, remember, these
chief priests had at their disposal all the annual revenues of the temple, and
much more besides. They would undoubtedly have been willing to pay a great deal
more in order to be rid of this troublesome Nazarene.
You can tackle for
yourself the problem of the cleansing of the temple (John 2; Mark n; Matt. 21;
Luke 19)—once or twice? And the problem of the anointing at Bethany — once or
twice? And the differing order of the three temptations (Matt 4. Luke 4). And
the healing of the blind man (or men?) as Jesus entered (or left?) Jericho
(Matt. 20; Mark 10; Luke 18). There is much to be learned from all such
instances.
Concerning this last
example it may perhaps be instructive to list possible explanations of one
aspect of the "difficulty", and then leave you to weigh the pros and
cons:
(a) Luke being a
Gentile and writing for Gentiles, mentions the modern Jericho built by the
Romans, whereas the others, being Jews, write with reference to the old Jewish
city a short distance away. Jesus was entering the one but leaving the other.
(b) "As he was
come nigh" (Luke 18: 35) might perhaps read "whilst he was near
to".
(c) Between Luke 18:
37 and 38 one should interpolate a lapse of time during which Jesus entered
Jericho, stayed with
Zaccheus, and was
then interrupted in his progress as he left the city.
It is a good idea
whenever you find yourself faced with any difficulty of exegesis (and not just
when it is a "contradiction") to write down all the possible
explanations you can light on— either by your own wit or the suggestions of
friends or the books you consult—and then carefully weigh one against another.
Often there is some detail which is decisive in favour of one of them.
It would be a pity
if you were to jump to the conclusion that the only reason for studying the
gospels in parallel is to find and explain contradictions. That is only one—and
a minor one—of the many advantages which come from the pooling of gospel
resources.
How often, for
example, does one hear the words quoted: "He did not many mighty works
there because of their unbelief" (Matt. 13: 58) as a demonstration that
the miracles of Christ depended as much on the faith of the people concerned as
on the divine power with which he was endowed? One wonders how the son of the
widow of Nain had faith as he lay dead on the bier; and whether it was the
faith of the blind man, who knew nothing about Jesus (John 9: 35-38), which
gave him his sight; and whether the sinful paralytic at Bethesda with more
reverence for the Jewish leaders than for Jesus, was healed because he had
faith for it; and whether it was the faith of peter which urged a fish to pick
up a shekel on the sea bottom and then come straight to his net; and whether
Malchus got his ear back because of his faith in Jesus.
What is this but
careless reading of the gospels, the more especially too since the parallel
narrative tells how they "rose up , and thrust him out of the city, and
led him unto the brow of the hill... that they might cast him down
headlong" (Luke4: 29). No wonder his own city saw few of his mighty works
“because of their unbelief" — what a powerful understatement of truth!
Read your parallel
gospels with care, and in a hundred places fresh light will be shed on the
ministry of Jesus from the printed page
You will find, for
example, that Jesus gave three separate reasons for not patching an old garment
with a piece of new cloth, and all of them with meaning and force for the occasion
when he gave them. You will learn much about the apostles and their families by
a careful comparison of the lists of the
Twelve and also of
the women who witnessed the crucifixion. You will have "the kingdom of
heaven suffers violence" (Matt.11:12, a puzzling phrase!) satisfyingly
explained for you. You will hear the parable of the sower more completely
expounded by the Lord than you have imagined. You will have a picture of the
storm on the lake vivid enough to quicken your pulse more than any television
show. You will rejoice in a better understanding of the Transfiguration. You
may find that there are four (or is it six, with 1 Cor. 11 and John 6?) gospel
records of Christ establishing the memorial meal, and not three as you
supposed. And you will be amazed at the number of times Pilate pronounced Jesus
"Not Guilty". Indeed if you have not already spent a lot of time on
this aspect of Bible study you are to be envied as having such a wonderful
unexplored country awaiting your eager eye, and all unspoiled.
This chapter has
been almost entirely about the study of the gospels in parallel. But the same
thing in principle awaits you elsewhere also.
You have already,
doubtless, explained to your Jehovah's Witness caller the truth about the Satan
who "provoked David to number Israel" (1 Chron. 21: 1); the simple
but startling parallel in 2 Sam. 24:1 is not to be thrust aside. But have you
thought of explaining the Uzzah debacle (2 Sam. 6) by the explicit details in 1
Chron. 15? Or have you established what happened to Elijah according to the
narrative of 2 Kings 2 by what is also told about him in 2 Chron. 21?
Again, once you are
satisfied that certain Psalms belong to the reign of David and certain to the
reign of Hezekiah, these can be used to make intimate contact with the
psychology and spiritual stress and strain of the Lord's anointed in the crises
through which each of these kings passed.
Likewise, when you
are satisfied that Isaiah's prophecies are to all intents and purposes contemporary
with the reign of Hezekiah, you can learn almost as much more about
Sennacherib's invasion from Isaiah as from the history, including the means
employed by the angel of the Lord in that great destruction.
Similarly, you can
discover far more about the last four kings of Judah from the prophetic
chapters of Jeremiah than you will find in Kings and Chronicles put together.
Indeed, nearly
everywhere you go in the Bible where narrative or history is involved you are
liable to find a parallel somewhere—in psalm, homily, exposition, prophecy or
prayer. If you neglect any of these you are the loser.
Footnote: Since
there has been so much written in this chapter about studying the four gospels
side by side, it is logical to go on from there and recommend the best gospel
"harmony" available. For ordinary purposes that by J.M. Fuller (S.P.C.K.)
is handy and adequate. So also is Gospel Parallels (Nelson). Sooner or later you will want something
better. In that case: Harmony of the Gospels, published by Black.
9 . WHAT DOES THIS
REMIND ME OF?
“The infallible rule
of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself; and therefore, when
there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture, (which is
not manifold, but one,) it
must be searched and
known by other places that speak more clearly.” Westminster Confession, 1647.
This chapter is
rather more difficult. An alternative title for it would be: Make your own
marginal references; for that, in effect, is what it amounts to.
It may be taken as a
fairly safe assumption that the best compilation of marginal references ever
assembled has together missed far more than it has gathered. So it behoves you
to fill up the omissions by assembling your own.
It has been
suggested that the Christadelphians could compile the finest Bible commentary
in the world by assigning one book of the Bible to each of 66 capable brethren
who would then specialize over the years in collecting Bible passages
illustrative of each word, phrase and idea. The pooling of these would result
in the most compact and most dependable commentary ever made.
Whilst you are
waiting for that to happen, be assiduous in your efforts to do it for yourself.
Those which you painstakingly and laboriously collect for yourself will far
outweigh in personal value what one day in the very uncertain future you may be
able to purchase in a book.
This is the kind of
thing that you will wish to find room for in the margin of your Bible (using
"margin" in the sense of "top and bottom of the page"
also): You want to convince some orthodox friend (that word
"orthodox" is a misnomer; it is who are orthodox!) that he is
misusing the familiar passage about "the Father's house of many
mansions" (John 14: 2), when he refers it to Christ and the believer going
to heaven. If John 2: 16 is in your margin, the task is very much easier. If
besides that you also have Mark 11: 17; 2 Chron. 2:1-6; Isaiah 2: 2-6; Eph. 2:
19-22; 1 Peter 2: 5, or others out of the scores available in the concordance,
you are in a position to challenge him: "Show me one place where the
Father's house is not a temple on earth!"
Or, again, brooding
over the description of the tabernacle candlestick in Exodus 25, it suddenly
dawns on you that this mention of "shaft, branches, buds, flowers" is
the description of a symbolic tree, and the mention of almonds also makes it an
almond tree. The association of
cherubim in the tabernacle takes your mind to the story of Eden where there
were cherubim and a tree of life.
Evidently, then, God chose the almond tree to represent the tree of
life—because in the Spring it is the first of the trees to awaken into life?
Next, you will recall that when Aaron's rod budded, it "bloomed blossoms
and yielded almonds". So it became a
Branch of the tree of life, and was laid up in (or, by) the Ark of the covenant
as a symbol of him who died and came to life again, whose name is The Branch,
and who is now hidden from ordinary sight in the Father's presence. Your mind
will go on to recall other allusions in Proverbs to the tree of life, all of
them taking on new meaning now that the association with Jesus is established.
And it will be strange indeed if your thought does not travel on to the gospels
and its story of a tree of death which became for you a tree of life. This idea has no sooner taken root than you
will suddenly see fresh reason why the apostles repeatedly referred to the dead
wood of the cross as a tree—to them it was the tree of life. This lovely theme
continues with the representation also of the ecclesias of Asia Minor as a
seven-branched candlestick (not six-branched, as some would aver)—a tree of
life being tended by the Second Adam that it may bring forth more fruit.
This is not the end
of the search, but if you go no further than this, you will then wish to
assemble together somewhere a genealogy of references which will make this
catena of ideas readily available.
Exod. 25: 31-33 Gen.
2:9
Num. 17:8; Zech.
6:12; John 19: 5
Prov. 11: 30; 15: 4
and 13:2
Acts 5: 30 and 13:
29
1 Peter 2: 24
Rev. 1:13
And doubtless you will
wish to add others like Psa. 1:3; Ezek.47: 2-12; Rev. 2: 7 and 22: 13, 14. Thus
a remarkable cluster of ideas can be assembled together on the space of a
postage stamp, to be for the rest of your life immediately available in the
margin of your Bible against Gen. 2: 9.
Similarly you have
only to look in the concordance at such words as "sting",
"subtlety", "guile", "heel", "bruise",
and immediately a dozen allusions to the serpent in Eden leap at you from the
printed page, including that quite astonishing one in the Messianic Psalm 41
where the traitor appears in the role of Righteous Vanquisher and the Servant
of the Lord as the Serpent! Does this furnish an inspired insight into the
psychology of Judas in betraying his Lord?
When in the course
of your Old Testament reading you come across the words "innocent
blood" it will be strange if your mind, on the alert with an eager
"What does this remind me of.
does not
instinctively seek a connection with the words of wretched Judas: "I have
sinned in that 1 have betrayed innocent blood." It is unlikely that every
occurrence of that phrase is a clue to a prophecy or typical foreshadowing of
the death of Christ, but it would be surprising indeed if not a single one
proved to be that. The present writer is inclined to find this true of three of
them, but these are uncertain matters and must be left to individual research.
This element of
uncertainty inevitably enters into Biblical interpretation in many places.
Especially is it common experience that what seems to be crystal clear to one
appears to be only imperfectly demonstrated or of dubious value to another, In
this matter of seeking out the deeper meanings of the Word of God there is
great need for toleration of the views of others and lack of dogmatism concerning
one's own.
Again, what does
this remind you of? Matthew's account of' the feeding of the five thousand
(Matt. 14) says that Jesus sought and then provided food for the crowd
"when it was evening". The feeding of this great crowd would not be
accomplished in much under two hours, and yet at the end of it, the narrative
continues: "And when he had sent the multitude away, he went up into a
mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there
alone." Strange, that the coming of evening should be mentioned again
after this fairly considerable lapse of time! Recall here that this was at Passover
(John 6:2), and it was laid down in the Passover law: "the whole
assembly... shall kill it between the two evenings" (Exod. 12:6 marginal
reading). Link this with the exposition Jesus gave next day in the synagogue at
Capernaum, for there he identified with himself both the meal he had provided
and the lamb of the Passover (John 6: 26-35, 51-58), as some of them were to
realize more clearly at the next year's Passover in Jerusalem. Thus Matthew's
double reference to the evening appears to provide a deliberate link with the
Passover type.
And what does this
remind you of: "treading under foot the Son of God, and counting the blood
of the covenant... an unholy thing" (Heb. 10: 29)? And this? "Do you
think that 1 cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently (i.e. right
now) give me more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matt. 26: 53). Both of
them may likewise remind you of Passover. When they do, are they worth a place
in the margin of your Bible?
Again, try reading
Col. 4: 2-6 slowly, and ask yourself: What does this remind me of? Is there
here, perchance, a reminiscence of Daniel at the court of Nebuchadnezzar?
You have noticed, of
course, that both Peter and Paul healed a man who was "lame from his
mother's womb"; and that they both worked a punitive miracle also—against
Ananias and Elymas. How far does that correspondence in miracles go? By this
time you should be expecting to find that they correspond all through—and you
will be right. Try it, and see for yourself. And then ask: What is the reason
for this close similarity of miracles?
To most people
Jeremiah is rather a dull prophecy (shame on them that they should think so!),
and yet it is shot through with this kind of thing (what are you reminded of
this time?):
“Sing with gladness for Jacob... Behold, 1 will bring them from the north
country... and with them the blind, and the lame, the woman with child and her
that labours with child together: a great company shall return thither. They
shall come with weeping, and with supplications will 1 lead them... He that
scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his
flock" (Jer. 31: 7-9). Nearly every phrase has taken your mind to the
Genesis story of Jacob's return from serving Laban. Further on in the chapter
you can read of "Rachel weeping for her children", and such words as,
"After that 1 was instructed, 1 smote upon my thigh... Set thee up way
marks (Jegarsahadutha; Gen. 31: 47)... set your heart towards the highway, even
the way which you went", and in the previous chapter, "the time of
Jacob's trouble"; thus it becomes obvious that these things are there by
design. But why? What design? Is
Jeremiah saying that Israel's experience in coming again to the Land of Promise
is to be repeated in the experience of Israel, his sons, in the twentieth
century?
Never for a moment
can there be a relaxing of vigilance in your reading of Scripture. But always
the enquiry must be in your mind: What does this remind me of?
A recent letter from
a keen 17 year old ended with this: 'please tell me what is the link between
the cloven hoof of the clean beasts in Lev. 11 and the cloven tongues as of
fire at Pentecost! " It was rather depressing to have to reply "None
at all, so far as 1 know", for though the example was an unfortunate one,
the instinct was right, to enquire about a possible worth-while connection on
the basis of occurrence of an unusual word. That boy should go a long way.
10. THE CONCORDANCE
“At a time when the
authority and character of the Sacred Record is, sadly, assailed on various
grounds; when devout attention is denounced as Bibliolatry, and other standards
of opinion referred to; it is a paramount duty in all that cleave to the Word
of God, to "search the Scriptures" more intelligently.” WILLIAM
WILSON, compiler of Bible Lexicon and Concordance.
“Hebrew roots make
grand kindling when fired by the Spirit of God''. Harrington Lees
No student of the
Word of God who values his time or efficiency can afford to be without a good
concordance. As a labour saving device it is worth every penny paid for it.
For those who have
some Hebrew and Greek there is nothing in this department to compare with the
Englishman's Hebrew Concordance and Englishman's Greek Concordance, put out in
the last century by Bagster. These are wonderful compilations.
Happily their finest
virtues were taken over, and in some respects improved upon, when Young brought
out his Analytical Concordance. All the donkey work in the compilation of this
great volume was really done for Young in advance in the two works just
mentioned. All he had to do was to transliterate the Hebrew and Greek terms,
and re-arrange according to the advantageous system which he had lighted on,
and count the number of occurrences listed under each head. He also added his
own English equivalents, and this proves to be the one weakness in an otherwise
wonderful aid to Bible study. Those using Young's Concordance are warned not to
follow too slavishly the translations given there of the Hebrew and Greek words
listed. By far the safest guide in this matter is to consult the lexicon
section at the end of the volume and note the number of occurrences of the
various ways the word is translated.
For example, the
Hebrew Lexicon in Young's has this entry under the heading KOHEN:
chief ruler 2
priest 725
prince 1
principal officer 1
From this it is
immediately evident that the proper meaning, the only meaning, of KOHEN is
"priest", Yet in the body of the concordance, under the heading
PRIEST, Young has: "Priest, prince, minister, kohen"; which is
utterly misleading to those who happen to consult this place and do not look
any further. It will be obvious to the meanest intellect that the four
outstanding passages where "priest" is not the translation have been
imperfectly rendered. By suggesting "prince" and
"minister", Young is misleading those who depend on his scholarly
authority as well-nigh infallible.
It is a thousand
pities that Young did not hit on yet another improvement in his public
benefaction—that of printing the Hebrew words in the lexicon with suspended
small-type vowels, so that all words belonging to the same root would occur
neatly grouped together. In the same way some useful device could have
profitably brought together the various Greek verbs formed by adding a variety
of prefixes to the same root. But this is gilding the lily! Young's
Concordance, with the one proviso already mentioned, is a magnificent tool for
the study table.
There are those who
prefer Strong's Concordance, a most scholarly work which is even more detailed
and complete than Young's. Here certainly the definitions are much more
satisfactory. But the chief drawback is the system upon which it is based. This
makes it more tedious and time-consuming in the using, and if on average you
are going to use your concordance once a day for thirty or forty years, a
saving of (say) five seconds per reference is ultimately going to add quite
appreciably to the useful part of your life.
For those who do not
want the refinements of the bulkier concordances, good old Cruden is the
obvious next choice, especially since it is usually possible to save half the
cost on this by going to the nearest good second-hand bookshop or market bookstall.
Certainly Cruden's will do you very well whilst you are saving up the twenty
pounds or more for a good edition of Young's.
And now you have got
a concordance, how best to use it? And for what specific purposes?
There is, of course,
the primary value of the volume in telling you quickly where a particular
phrase is to be found in Scripture. For instance, someone quotes you
"Absent from the body, present with the Lord" to prove what you know
to be untrue, and you have a vague idea that the context of the passage will
show the suggested meaning to be untrue. But how to find the passage so as to
be in a position to reason from the context? The concordance tells you within
seconds if you look up one of the salient words in the phrase remembered. Here
obviously you disregard "body" and "Lord" as being too
common, and look up "absent" or "present". Against either
of these you find only a small group of passages, and so your eye lights on the
one that is needed immediately.
Or again, you may
wish to make sure you have fully covered the ground in the course of a survey
of some particular topic, e.g. the words "elect, election", or a
study of the work and character of Titus. Then a reference to the appropriate
place in the concordance will direct you to all the evidence available.
A little intelligent
work with Young's can often save you from being "led up the garden
path" by a flamboyant claim to specialized knowledge. Your friend, the
Jehovah's Witness, will try to persuade you to believe in an invisible coming
of the Lord on the grounds that the Greek word for the second
"coming" is parousia, which strictly means presence, whence he infers
(with somewhat inadequate attention to logic) an invisible presence of Jesus
since 1914.
You promptly look up
"coming" in the concordance and find such passages as these listed:
1 Cor. 16: 17:
"I am glad of the corning of Stephanas" (his invisible coming?
Remarkable!).
2 Cor. 7:6:
"God comforted us by the coming of Titus" (coming invisibly?
Astonishing!).
2 Thess. 2:8: "Whom the Lord shall destroy with the
brightness of his coming" (a bright invisible coming? Bewildering!) There
is a lot of this bogus scholarship about. Ponderous expositions of John 1: 1
have been built on the idea that Logos (which please pronounce with short
vowels as in "pop off", and not "pope off") does not mean
"Word" but "reason" or "purpose", thus giving the
profound and impressive thesis:
"In the beginning God had a Purpose, and the Purpose was with God,
and the Purpose was God." Has the level-headed, intellectually-satisfying
Christadelphian faith reached such depths as that?
Reach out for Young's
Concordance again and find against the word LOGOS in the lexicon section this
illuminating and factually incontrovertible catalogue of occurrences:
account 8
cause 1
communication 3
doctrine 1
fame 1
intent 1
matter 4
mouth 1
preaching 1
question 1
utterance 4
reason 2
rumour 1
saying 50
show 1
speech 8
talk 1
thing 4
things to say 1
tidings 1
treatise 1
word 208
Word 7
words 4
work 2
do 1
It needs no more
than the intelligence of a child to see that this word means Word or that which
is spoken, and that Reason or Purpose is at best a remote connection. Even in
the two passages where Logos is translated "reason" (there is only one
really; Most editions of Young have a strange misprint here, the better
translation would be "word" or "utterance".
If our nebulous
expositors would only go a step further and use their Young's Concordance on
that key word "beginning", and examine a little more carefully the
sense in which it is used in the writings of John, so that the Apostle may be
his own interpreter, light of a very different colour and intensity would be
thrown on what has been made into a needlessly complex problem.
There is nothing to
equal the effectiveness of a concordance in its power to expose the uncertain
foundations of a theory.
But also, more
positively, the concordance is essential to impart clarity to your ideas where
they tend to be vague and shapeless. This is especially true of the study of
many of the abstract terms employed in the Scriptures. The fact is that the
Bible uses amazingly few abstract terms, for Hebrew—its foundation language—is
essentially one of pictures, e.g. "glory" is "weight" (2
Cor. 4: 17), and "usury" is "a bite". And since New
Testament Greek was written by Jews nurtured on the Old Testament the same
characteristics carry over to it also.
It becomes therefore
a cardinal principle of Bible interpretation that if you have to choose between
two explanations of a phrase or passage, one of which is abstract or general in
idea, and the other concrete, definite, precise, the big probability is that
the second is the more correct.
Thus a careful and
patient study of the concordance will reveal results of this nature:
In the New Testament
"joy" means especially "joy in fellowship", an association
of ideas to which there is hardly an exception. And "peace" rarely
means "absence of strife" but very often "peace with God",
i.e. reconciliation.
Similarly,
"patience" in the New Testament is not at all the passive, colourless
virtue of the modern dictionary, but is the much more rugged characteristic of
"doggedness"—the very quality needed by a cross-country runner when
he feels that he would like more than anything else to lie down and die. Paul
would probably have approved of the modern slang "guts" as an
equivalent.
Almost wherever you
turn, it will be your experience that these vague shapeless words were neither
vague nor shapeless to those who used them.
The modern word
"meditation" conjures up the idea of thoughts drifting hazily and
indefinitely where they will, or nowhere at all, but always in an equally hazy,
equally indefinite atmosphere of "devotion" (a word the apostles had
no use for). A quick reference to Young's Concordance soon sets this right by
revealing that Bible words translated "meditate, meditation" all have
to do with speech and talking! So true meditation is not a vague musing about
God in a garden or on a mountain top or out at sea in a boat, but it is a
literal talking to Him, i.e. prayer, or a talking about Him to one another
(Mal. 3: 16).
This kind of
discovery goes on almost endlessly. The familiar words "mercy and
truth" which come so often in the Old Testament both together and
separately are found to have reference usually (and maybe more often than that)
to God's Covenants of Promise to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David. They are
called His Truth because He has sworn by Himself that these things shall be;
even past history is not more certain than their eventual fulfilment. And they
are called His Mercy because they express His gracious kindness and because
they involve the unmerited forgiveness of sins.
In the New Testament
the function of these two words seems to be taken over to some extent by the word
"grace". It is not good enough to say "Grace means the favour of
God" and thus lightly dismiss one of the loveliest words in the apostolic
vocabulary. Is it any more explained by such a substitution?
Again the
concordance and a certain amount of midnight oil together serve to reveal that
"grace" is the apostolic equivalent of "forgiveness of
sins" (which term is largely confined to the gospels). And since the root
idea of "grace" is that of a gift, the reason for this usage is
readily apparent, for what greater gift could God give than forgiveness in
Christ? From that all else follows.
But this notion of
"grace" as meaning "a gift" also goes off in a somewhat
different direction. There are in the New Testament many instances where
"grace" means the "gift of the Holy Spirit", as it was
experienced in the early church. This is an aspect of the subject which has
suffered quite undeserved neglect, yet it should be obvious enough from the
words themselves:
Grace = Greek charis
Holy Spirit gift = Greek
charisma
Those who have not
yet attempted to follow out this investigation in detail with the concordance
open beside them have some grand discoveries awaiting them.
Other similar fields
for exploration can be only briefly indicated, and the work left to the reader
who is also a student.
"The Most High
God" is a rather unusual name which turns out to be almost always
associated with God's purpose with the Gentiles, except in the Book of Psalms.
Another divine title
"The Living God" occasionally points a contrast with lifeless idols,
but more often means, "The God of the Living Creatures", i.e. the God
of the Cherubim of Glory. One passage after another is found to have this
association.
The word
"reprobate" (Jer. 6:30) is found to mean "tested as metal is
tested, and thrown out as inferior quality".
"Covetousness"
in the New Testament mostly carried the specialized meaning of coveting a woman
you have no right to.
"Anger"
and "wrath" between them turn out to be the equivalents of two
completely different Greek words, one signifying an uncontrollable outburst of
indignation (orge), the other a cold calculating hostility (thumos).
The Hebrew words for
"pleasure", "acceptable" (ratzah, ratzori) are never far
away from the idea of sacrifice well-pleasing to God. The corresponding New
Testament word (euarestos) has much the same meaning.
The New Testament
word for "creation, create" is found in almost every occurrence to
mean the New Creation in Christ— a clue which lights up not a few difficult
places.
Even the very ordinary
word "place" mostly means, in the Old Testament a holy place, an
altar, a sanctuary. And this idea frequently carries over to the New Testament
also, with quite startling results here and there.
This exploration of
meanings and usages of Bible words and phrases can be a fascinating affair,
often unexpected in its results, sometimes really exciting. It is always
profitable. But the Roman motto holds true NON SINE PULVERE PALMA, "If you
want the highest reward, you must sweat for it".
11. USE YOUR IMAGINATION
“Weak is the effort
of my heart, And cold my warmest thought; But when 1 see thee as thou art, I'll
praise thee as 1 ought.” JOHN NEWTON.
A chapter with such
a heading as this would doubtless be deemed highly appropriate in a book on
amateur dramatics or fiction-writing, but its appearance in a sober discussion
of how best to study the Bible may well cause eyebrows to lift. Nevertheless it
is stoutly maintained here that in the study of any Bible narrative the use of
the imagination can be a big help towards the proper understanding of some
incidents, and can also save the student from perpetrating howlers.
It has to be
remembered that most Bible narratives are tremendously compressed, and provided
one keeps the imagination on a tight rein it can help wonderfully in filling
out the picture in accordance with common-sense and ordinary experience.
Abraham and Isaac
ascended the mount of sacrifice. Genesis 22 says simply: "So they went
both of them together." What would not a modern writer of psychological
novels make of such a situation as this!
"And he said,
Throw her down." Again, the death of Jezebel invites purple writing of a
different kind—the frantic grab, the brief desperate struggle, finger nails
writing in blood the marks of their owner's eager love of life, the tearing of
a costly royal robe, the short high-pitched shriek of terror; the dull heavy
thud; the imperious shout to the horses, the loud clatter of hoofs and rumble
of chariot wheels, and then the intermittent growl of dogs quarrelling over a
royal repast. The Bible has all this in a handful of one-syllable words. The
rest is left to the reader. But how much the reader misses if he fails to fill
out the details.
This habit will not
only make an enormous difference to your appreciation of Bible narrative, but
can also save you from serious mistakes which the less contemplative reader is
liable to.
Saul was himself the
giant to match Goliath—"from his shoulders and upward he was higher than
any of the people". Yet more than once there has been merriment at the
idea of his equipping the stripling David with the armour which had been made
for his own massive frame! No wonder David rejected it!
But here imagination
has not gone far enough. If David were the half-grown youngster that is usually
pictured, would Saul have been so lacking in commonsense as to think his own
armour would be anything but a hindrance? The fact that he did make the offer
should rather become the ground for the inference that David, although the
"baby" of the family, was now grown to a stature comparable with
Saul's. Note that David's reason for refusing Saul's accoutrements was not:
"They are too big for me", but: "I have not proved them"—he
was not used to them. But he had proved the God of Israel!
So the Sunday School
picture-book illustration of a smooth-cheeked school-boy, five feet without his
sandals, going out against Goliath, can be quietly dropped.
It also needs a
proper use of the imagination in order to realize just how great was the
sacrifice Zaccheus made for the sake of seeing and hearing Jesus—a sacrifice
not only of repaying fourfold, but of dignity also, and to most little men this
is a matter of no small importance. Imagine, then, the gratuitous rebuffs and
imprecations he would receive from that dense throng round Jesus as he vainly
tried to worm his way through— it was too good an opportunity to miss, to score
off a publican in this fashion. And does not the thought of this man climbing a
tree and balancing precariously out on a limb appeal to the imagination? And
when Jesus bade him come down, would there not be smothered titters in the
crowd at the sight of this despised income-tax man making such an exhibition of
himself? And how much dignity would there be about this undersized citizen of
Jericho as he stood there before Jesus, the focus of a hundred pairs of eyes,
gasping for breath through the unaccustomed exertion, an unseemly tear in his
expensive attire, and his headgear all awry? If ever a man publicly humiliated
himself for the sake of Jesus, it was Zaccheus. But what a reward was his — to
have Jesus stay at his house!
There are plenty of
incidents in the gospels which invite an exercise of the imagination. There are
others from which the imagination shrinks — Jesus in Gethsemane, the agony of
the crucifixion. But it is precisely here where the disciple has a
responsibility to enter into the sufferings of his Lord. Apart from any
personal tribulation, this is one way in which it is possible to "fill up
that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ". So do not shirk this
duty. It is not possible to have too full and real a conception of what the
suffering and shame of the cross meant to the One who endured them.
Concerning one
incident associated with the crucifixion, a further exercise of imagination
leads to a more probable and more satisfying filling out of the story than has
been achieved by any modern novelist. But let it be freely stated at the outset
that there is no Biblical foundation for the suggestion about to be made, so it
may be discarded out of hand by those who can see nothing in it. On the other
hand, there may well be something in it.
The Roman soldiers
gambled at the foot of the cross as to who should have which of their
recognized perquisites — the shirt, girdle, headgear, sandals and coat of the
crucified Jesus. The first four were quickly assigned to one or the other, and
then came the problem of the seamless coat. "Let us not rend it, but cast
lots for it whose it shall be."
A few yards away
stood a group of women, one of whom had very probably made that coat with her
own hands. To see it now tossed across to a Roman soldier to the accompaniment
of a rough jest would only add to the poignant wretchedness of the occasion. But
what would they do with these garments?
Doubtless the
intention was to trade them for a few drinks at the nearest tavern as soon as
they were off duty.
What, then, are the
probabilities that John or Joseph of Arimathea or even one of the women would
step across to those hard-bitten men with the question: "What will you
take for them?"
And now the
imagination leaps to the morning of resurrection. When the risen Jesus was
first seen by the disciples he did not appear "bound hand and foot with
grave clothes", as Lazarus, but was fully clad like any other person. It
is surely not irreverent to enquire: "Where did Jesus get his clothes
from?" A possible answer is, of course, that the angel who rolled away the
stone also supplied this need—as no doubt he will in the resurrection of the
just and unjust. But another possible answer is that someone had acquired them
early on the day of crucifixion, had them laundered that very day, and was at
the interment to say: "Put these by his side. He will be needing
them."
Pure imagination,
this, from start to finish, and yet somehow it has a touch of seemliness about
it. Others may think altogether differently, and are welcome to think so. But
there is surely something specially apt in the symbolism of Jesus receiving
back the very garments he had worn before, only now sweet and clean, never
again to know the blood, sweat, tears and dust with which they had been soiled.
One of the finest
helps to realistic mental re-creation of Bible scenes is to read them aloud.
When you can ensure solitude, either in a room (Jesus and Thomas) or in the
middle of a field (David and Jonathan) or at the top of a mountain (Elijah and
the priests of Baal), this declaiming aloud of dramatic scenes from Scripture
can be a great help.
From the point of
view of its public worth, the dramatic presentation of Bible stories does not
move one to enthusiasm, but memory recalls the gusto with which a group of
youngsters from Yorkshire put over scenes in the life of David. Whatever the
effect on their audience, that Scripture story will always live powerfully in
the lives of those young beginners.
Another group of
young people did the Trial of Jesus as a dramatic reading. Each was handpicked
for the part assigned to him. The inflexion and emphasis in every phrase was
rehearsed over and over again. Then it was put over to an audience as a mock
radio broadcast, the readers being hidden behind a curtain. All the work was
done, and effectively done, by their voices.
The same thing was
taken up by another group with equal enthusiasm. And instead of "Let's
pretend" it became a real broadcast, heard by hundreds of thousands.
Other parts of the
Bible lend themselves to the same kind of presentation, and always—provided the
attempt is made in all reverence—there is real gain. The story of Joseph, the
trial of Paul, Sennacherib before Jerusalem, and even the Song of Songs all
have the same possibilities.
Little good can be
said about modern novels and films on Biblical themes. Even those which, it is
claimed, aim at keeping strictly to the Bible story fail dismally in this very
respect. Most of them give such rein to the imagination—and an irreverent
imagination at that—that the story presented bears little recognizable likeness
to what the Bible itself says. Yet the pictures, both verbal and visual, are so
vivid that they have the power to establish themselves in the imagination and
to warp one's ideas and judgment for years to come. Have nothing whatever to do
with "Biblical" films and novels.
But by all means
treat yourself to the records on which Charles Laughton brings to life the
slaying of Goliath and the story of Daniel's friends in the burning fiery
furnace. Such helps as these are pure gain to the Bible-loving listener.
12. SYMBOLIC
LANGUAGE
“Let those who
refuse to allegorize these and the like passages, explain how it is probable
that he who out of reverence for Jesus said " Thou shall never wash my
feet" would have had no part with the Son of God; as if not having his
feet washed were a dastardly wickedness.” Origen on John 13: 8.
The Bible teems with
figurative language. What was said in a previous chapter about Hebrew being a
language of pictures and concrete ideas is, of course, the main reason for it.
It is this fact which introduces so much diversity into Bible interpretation,
and so much difference of opinion among Bible interpreters.
When is a symbol not
a symbol? Answer: When it means what it says. But then you are no nearer. When
does it mean what it says? Hooker, the seventeenth century theologian, answered
that question in these words which should be written on the fly-leaf of every
well-used Bible: "/ hold it for a most infallible rule, in Expositions of
Sacred Scripture, that where a literal construction will stand, the furthest
from the letter is commonly the worst." Which in everyday modern English
means: Take the Bible as meaning plainly and precisely what it says, unless it
supplies you with good reason for taking it otherwise.
Thus: "Behold,
a sower went forth to sow" is lifted immediately out of the field of
agriculture by the preceding words: "He spoke many things unto them in
parables, saying...". And a mere four verses earlier one reads: "He
stretched forth his hand towards his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and
my brethren." Once again, the indication not to take the words literally
is there in the passage of itself.
When in Psa. 74: 19
one encounters the prayer: "O deliver not the soul of thy turtle dove unto
the multitude of the wicked", the figurative character of that word
"turtle-dove" is immediately evident. Does God take thought for
pigeons? But there is a reason for this particular figure, as a comparison of
Lev. 12:7 and 1: 14 with the ensuing words goes on to demonstrate: "forget
not the congregation of thy poor for ever." The turtledove was the
offering of the poorest of the people, and hence the identification.
This passage,
lighted on haphazard in the writing of this chapter, is a good illustration of
the allusiveness of Bible language which makes it so imperative to interpret
Scripture by Scripture rather than by twentieth century usage and ideas.
"Thy seed shall
possess the gate of his enemies" has no meaning at all to one who insists
on keeping his feet planted in twentieth century England or America. But to one
who has seen an ancient walled city, or merely read about one, the figure
springs to life, and says more in nine words than any ninety word paraphrase in
modern style.
But let the Bible
explain itself. ''Thy seed... which is Christ'', says Paul dogmatically (Gal.
3: 16), and Christ himself says: "I am he that lives, and was dead, and,
behold, 1 am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of
death." Here the enemies are authoritatively identified, not as human
rulers warring against the Lord's Anointed, but as others even more powerful
than they. And since Jesus now possesses the gate of his greatest Enemy, he and
he only can decide who shall go in (to stay there for ever) and who shall come
out (to go in no more).
So, wherever
possible let the Bible be the guide to the interpretation of its own symbols,
once you are convinced that it is using a symbol and not speaking literally.
If then you read a
comment on Luke 21: 25 to the effect that "the sun means the ruling
powers, the moon the ecclesiastical powers, the stars are the lesser
authorities, and the sea and the waves are the common people," you will
accept the truth of this not because the Epistle Dedicatory at the beginning of
your King James Bible refers to Queen Elizabeth 1 as "a bright occidental
star", but when — and only when — good Bible evidence is supplied to you.
For at least one of the items in this list none has ever been given.
On the other hand,
the familiar symbolism of Joseph's dream sets you thinking about the whole
family of Israel. Then you light on Jer. 31: 35, 36: "Thus says the Lord,
who gives the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the
stars for a light by night, which divides the sea when the waves thereof roar:
The Lord of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, says
the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before
me for ever."
It is immediately
obvious (indeed it would be churlish to question it) that in Luke 21 Jesus is
appropriating, applying and interpreting the prophecy of Jeremiah about the New
Covenant with Israel. His language points unmistakeably to dramatic signs in
connection with Israel, not with the ruling powers of the world (though they
may be involved in a less important capacity). And when Jesus goes on
immediately to use the figure of a blossoming fig-tree, this understanding of
the earlier figure is put past cavil.
Mention of the
fig-tree raises the query whether the frequently-heard application of this
figure is well-founded. The Bible's answer could hardly be more emphatic. In
two places Jesus himself plainly used the fig-tree as a symbol of his own
'nation (Mark 11: 13-21; Luke 13: 6, 7) and in this also he was evidently
following Jeremiah (chapter 24), and the other prophets (Hosea 9: 10 R.V.;
Micah 7: 1 R.V.; one says nothing here of the many passages where vine and
fig-tree together are used as symbols of Israel).
This fairly solid
foundation of interpretation of the fig-tree symbol raises interesting
questions regarding other places. Is the fact that Zaccheus climbed a
sycamore-fig tree recorded simply because this is a tree easy to climb or
because of some symbolic meaning discerned by the writer of the gospel? Is the
mention that Nathanael was under a fig-tree before he came to Jesus of any
consequence or not? Does Genesis 3, a chapter in which no single word is
wasted, tell of fig-leaf garments because of some meaning which the reader is
intended to associate with them, or merely to indicate that Adam and Eve had
chosen to hide from the divine presence in a fig-tree because of its dense
foliage? Lastly why are signs in the sun, moon and stars associated with the
figure of "a fig-tree casting her untimely figs" in the Sixth Seal of
Revelation? Whatever other interpretation is made of the Seals, there must
surely be found room also for an application to Israel in a day which manifests
"the wrath of the Lamb" (Rev. 6: 12, 13, 16).
While the fig-tree
seems undoubtedly to signify Israel, there is also some evidence—though not as
clear-cut as one would like—that the date-palm is used in Scripture as a symbol
of the Gentiles. In the wilderness journey, so symbolic of the life of
redemption, there are twelve wells and seventy palm-trees (these last
suggesting the seventy nations of Genesis 10, and also Genesis 46: 27; Deut.
32: 8; Luke 9:1 and 10:1). Jericho, the city of palm-trees, was the
first-fruits of the Gentiles devoted to Jehovah. And in Ezekiel's temple
cherubim and palm-trees alternate, as though suggesting the association of Jew
and Gentile in the promised redemption.
All this leads on to
an appreciation of Mark chapters 10, 11, 12 along lines which may have gone
hitherto unsuspected. The healing of the blind man, the triumphal entry into
Jerusalem, the cursing of the fig-tree, the cleansing of the temple, the
exhortation to faith and the ensuing sequence of parables are protracted
symbolic exhibition of the right of the Gentiles to accept the gospel which,
when Mark, was writing, was even then being rejected by Israel.
It was by Jericho,
the city of palm-trees, that Bartimaeus, (Bar- is the Gentile equivalent of the
Hebrew Ben- son of) hopelessly blind, sat by the highway not able to walk in
it. He acclaimed Jesus from a distance as the promised Messiah, Son of David.
Although discouraged by those who thought him of no consequence, he yet
persisted, and was called and came to Jesus (guided doubtless by one of the
disciples). Healed, he used his new sight to "follow Jesus in the
way".
Then near to
Bethphage (House of Figs) and Bethany (House of Date-palms) two disciples were
sent to find and bring an ass and also an ass's colt, "whereon never man
sat". This they did, finding the animals "by the door, without, in a
place where two ways met" (observe—not "where two ways parted").
The loosing of the colt was challenged: "What do ye, loosing the
colt?" just as the healing of Bartimaeus was discouraged. But the
sufficient answer was: "The Lord hath need of him", as well as of the
ass.
In his entry into
the city as King (Zech. 9: 9), Jesus discarded the ass in favour of the unbroken
colt (Matt. 21:7). A great multitude went before, and another multitude
followed after, and as they greeted him, some casting their own garments before
him and others waving palm branches, the Jews complaining bitterly: "The
world is gone after him".
According to Luke it
was in the course of this triumphal approach to the city of his rejection that
he wept, foreseeing the grim horrors that must ensue through their despising of
the Man of Sorrows in their midst.
The next day as he
returned to the city he came to the Jig-tree seeking fruit, for at that Spring
season there should have been the beginnings of fruiting (Song of Songs 2:13;
Isa. 28: 4 R.V.), yet he found none, and therefore solemnly pronounced the
death of that which the fig-tree symbolized. God wanted fruit, not leaves. The
fig-tree withered away, being wrong at the roots, until the day foretold when
it shall blossom again (Matt. 24: 32). Already in this century it has begun to
shoot forth—with leaves, but as yet without fruit!
In the temple Jesus
castigated and drove out of the divine presence those who perverted the worship
of his Father; he took away the facilities for animal sacrifices, yet would he
not allow the Court of the Gentiles to be used for profane purposes but in
effect he proclaimed it (the Gentile part of the temple) as holy as the rest;
this he reinforced first with Isaiah's prophecy that the temple was to be a
house of prayer for all nations, and then with the healing there of those who
were lame and blind.
The withering of the
fig-tree was made the basis of an exhortation that his disciples show greater
faith in God's power to bless the mission to be entrusted to them. The greatest
obstacle to your preaching, he said, will be this mountain—Mount Zion, with the
temple and the Law unshakeably established there— yet your faith will cause it
to be removed and cast into the sea. The prophecy was duly fulfilled in A.D.
70.
Next day there
followed three parables. First, the parable of the two sons—one who said he
would serve (Exod. 19: 8), but did not, and the other who said he would not,
but afterwards did. The next was about husbandmen who rejected and slew the
only son, the heir, and whose fate was foretold—destruction, and the giving of
the vineyard to others. Then the parable of the marriage feast, in which story
the invited guests despised their privilege and ill-treated the servants. For
this their city was destroyed. Meantime others from the highways were gathered
in to enjoy that which had been scorned.
All this is Bible
symbolism at its finest and highest level. Any small part of such a symbolic
interpretation viewed separately is utterly unconvincing, but taken altogether
there can be no resisting the force and power of the accumulation of
significant detail. (Observe also how beautifully Mark 10: 42-44 harmonizes
with the same theme).
Examples such as
this and the outline suggested earlier (page 30) concerning Hosea 9, io,so
different from the matter-of-fact ordinariness of the customary approach,
should help to bring a realization that our understanding of the principles of
interpretation of Holy Scripture has not really gone very far as yet— nor will
it until we wear the same kind of spectacles as the inspired writers. We have
much to learn. And there will be progress only in proportion to our willingness
to yield ourselves to the Bible's own guidance as to how it shall be
interpreted.
13. TRACE THE
ARGUMENT
“All things in
scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all.” Westminster
Confession 1647.
The protracted study
with which the previous chapter concluded was originally designed to illustrate
the symbolic thinking of Jesus and of those who wrote about him. But it did
something else as well. The unifying idea of one particular part of the Lord's
ministry was exposed to view—a theme binding together a wide variety of
miracles, parables, discourses and public actions.
This kind of thing
happens in the Bible far more often than is usually suspected. The splitting up
of the text in our common version into chapters, paragraphs and verses may be
convenient for reference purposes, but all too easily it tends to impede one's
grasp of the interconnection of the various parts.
On the strength of
this some people say impatiently: "Away with this old King James
version." But that is surely the wrong reaction. Instead all that is
needed is rather more effort to be on the alert to trace the argument or the
sequence of ideas.
This is especially
necessary in studying the epistles of the New Testament. By all means
concentrate on each chapter or paragraph in turn. But from time to time step
back from the canvas and try to see the picture in broad outline. And if the
gist of the argument can be clearly grasped it will not only often save you
from perpetrating howlers of exegesis regarding some of the details but will
add enormously to your appreciation of the purpose behind certain books,
especially the epistles.
It is impossible to
stress adequately the value and importance of this aspect of Bible study merely
by writing about it. The only thing that may impress the need for special
attention is a long series of examples of how it works in practice. To do this
adequately would take a volume in itself, for it is almost impossible to
expound the logical development of argument in Scripture without running to
words, words, words.
Here, then, two or
three quick illustrations must suffice.
Take first an
instance alluded to earlier—the strange question why in his resurrection
chapter Paul suddenly appears to go off at a tangent to talk inconsequentially
about "one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of
fishes, and another of birds", followed by "There is one glory of the
sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars". What
is he getting at? What possible connection is there here with his main theme?
And yet he continues: "So also is the resurrection of the dead."
The previous
illustration (1 Cor. 15: 36-38) supplies a clue. There the resurrection body is
likened to what results from the planting of seed—"it may chance of wheat,
or of some other grain: but God giveth it a body, as it hath pleased him, and
to every seed his own body". In other words, whatever God has designed it
for, whatever place it is intended to fill in His creation, for that function it
is perfectly adapted—and not only with seeds growing, but also with living
creatures, whether beasts, fishes or birds, and also with the heavenly bodies;
whatever purpose God had in view for them to fulfil, for that purpose He
designed and fashioned them perfectly.
So also is the
resurrection of the dead. No wonder Paul says "Thou fool!" If God
intends you to live for ever, will He not equip you with a perfect body that
will last for ever and will He not put you in a perfect world that will also
last for ever, just as He has adapted everything else that He has made, each
according to its own particular function?
The argument goes on
in the same strain: "The first man Adam (and all who come from him) was
made a living soul." The limitations and frailties of human life may seem
to be just a tangle of imperfections, but they do at any rate provide a perfect
setting for that which God most intends and desires— the fashioning of a
character to the glory of His Name.
"The Last Adam
is a quickening spirit", and those who belong to him will be made like
him, for the praise and glory of God in eternity.
The argument is thus
all of one piece. Once it is grasped, Paul's piling up of illustrations from
nature is far more attractive and cogent than any amount of tedious and laborious
abstract reasoning. It is a good example of how Paul, being a Hebrew of the
Hebrews, thought and argued in picture language.
Perhaps, also, it
should be added that the fitting together of Paul's argument has been greatly
hindered for many by the assumption that he is reasoning about the process of
resurrection (being brought out of the grave, appearing before the Lord,
judgment, the gift of immortality). But here—as in verse 21; Luke 20: 35; Phil.
3:11; Heb. 11: 35—"resurrection" means the climax of the process, and
not the process itself, and thus is a synonym for "the kingdom of
God" (verse 50), "incorruptible" (verse 52),
"immortality" (verse 53).
Consider now another
example from Paul, very different in character from what has just been examined.
Try an analysis of Philippians chapter 4. At first reading it is evident that
verses 10-19 are all about the same thing—the considerate generosity of the
Philippi ecclesia in sending Paul a present of money in time of need; verses
20-23 form the conclusion to the epistle. But the first section of the chapter
appears to be a series of observations on a wide variety of topics, without
coherence of any kind. It will be obvious to everyone that an exposition which
exhibits these verses as belonging to one another, tied together by the same
theme, is far more likely to be correct than the view which treats each verse
as a fresh departure in a different direction.
First, then, let it
be noted that verse I, beginning with "Therefore", is by that very
word securely connected with the last verse of chapter 3. Those who divided our
Bible into chapters made a poor job of it here.
The real beginning
of chapter 4, then, is at verse 2—a plea to two women who are sisters in Christ
that they drop their quarrel: "I beseech Euodia, and 1 beseech Syntyche
(the names are feminine), that they be of the same mind in the Lord."
There are
indications that when a church received an epistle from Paul, the letter was
read at a general assembly of the ecclesia on the first day of the week. On
this particular occasion the congregation would certainly include two sisters
in Christ with very red faces.
The letter
continues: "And 1 entreat thee also, true yokefellow, help these women
(Euodia and Syntyche) who laboured with me in the gospel... whose names are in
the book of life." It is commonly assumed, and is most likely correct,
that Luke was the one appealed to by Paul to help in this quarrel. And see how
tactfully Paul phrased it, reminding them that although they could not co-operate
with each other, they had notably co-operated with him in the Lord's work
(instructing candidates for baptism?). Their names were in the Book of Life.
They had helped others to have their names similarly inscribed. Was their
quarrel now going to blot their names out of that Book?
Instead of
bickering, then, "rejoice in the Lord alway"; and since in the early
church "joy, rejoicing" had come to be a kind of technical term for
the sweet fellowship of one another in Christ, the exhortation comes in here as
still addressed primarily to the two who had fallen out.
"Let your
moderation be known unto all men", Paul urged. The concordance quickly
reveals that this Greek word for "moderation" is used time after time
as the antithesis of ill-temper and cantankerousness (e.g. 1 Tim. 3:3; Titus
4:2; James 3:17; Psa. 86: 5, Septuagint). And why this moderation of temper?
Because "the Lord is at hand", he is near, and hears your every word
of petulance and spitefulness, and reads every bitter thought.
Paul knew how women
can get on each other's nerves. Therefore he continued: "Be careful for
nothing"—better: Do not nag one
another over anything, but, he added, with a typical switch of emphasis, you
can nag away at God as much as you like:
"In everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving for
answering your prayers in time past, let your request be made known unto
God. And the peace of God (better than
any spirit of quarrelsomeness; Col. 3:
15, 13) shall guard your hearts and minds."
"Finally,
brethren" (he now proceeded to generalize the lesson for the benefit of
the whole ecclesia), "whatsoever things are worthy and Christlike, keep on
imputing only intentions of this sort to those who share your faith in
Christ." The A.V., "think on these things", suggests an exhortation
to meditation. But the Greek word Paul used is the one so frequently employed
by him in Romans for God's imputing or reckoning a man righteous on the score
of his faith.
Says Paul: As God
reckons you righteous in His sight, when undeserving, so you should impute only
good, wholesome, pure motives to others—and your quarrels will quickly be at an
end, in fact they will never arise.
Lastly, Paul urges
his own example: Did you ever know me cherish a grudge, did you ever see me
indulge in open quarrelling? "Those things which ye both learned, and
received, and heard, and saw in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with
you."
The achievement of
the exposition of a passage on these lines adds enormously to the value of it.
Instead of a collection of miscellaneous homiletics loosely strung together for
no apparent purpose, it turns out that Paul was dealing with a very human
situation in a spirit of kindliness, yet with strength, and at the same time he
used the occasion to frame an exhortation of intensely practical value to all
succeeding generations.
Note, too, how
concisely he expressed his ideas. An attempt to expound them even in outline,
takes about three times as long as the original. It is when the student does
this sort of thing for himself that the genius (putting it at its lowest level)
of Paul is most clearly revealed.
Another example is
given here in bare outline. The diligent student with any flair for Bible
interpretation will readily clothe the skeleton with flesh and sinews.
Consider the
sequence in the call of Ezekiel the prophet:
(a) Chapter 1:
1-28. The vision of the cherubim of
glory.
(b) 1: 28-2: 2. A
symbolic death and resurrection (Scripture has at least eight more parallels to
this; can you find them?)
(c) 2: 3-5.
Commission to testify to a rebel nation.
(d) 2: 6-8.
Signs of reluctance in Ezekiel.
(e) 2: 9-3: 3.
The message is symbolically committed to him.
(f) 3: 4-9. The difficulty of the task. Divine power to cope with it.
(g) 3: 10, ii. Command to go and testify to the people—
apparently ignored, for -
(h) 3: 12-14. Ezekiel is taken and set in the midst of
them against his own will.
(i) 3: 15. For a full week he remains stubbornly
silent.
(j) 3: 16-21.
"Ezekiel, testify, or their blood will be on your head."
(k) 3: 22, 23. A further vision of the cherubim, to stir him
to action.
(1) 3: 24. No response; therefore, "go shut thyself within
thine house".
(m) 3: 25. "If you will not go to them as a
prophet, you shall not go about at all."
(n) 3: 26. "If you will not speak the message, you
shall not speak at all—"
(o) 3: 27. "except when 1 open your mouth."
(Note 24: 27 and 33: 22).
(p) 4:1 etc. Ezekiel preaches the word of Jehovah by a
series of acted parables, without a word spoken.
In the foregoing
development of ideas, there are one or two details which are open to a slightly
different interpretation, but the main development is clear enough.
The commonly held
view of the prophets as men consumed with such a zeal for God that they eagerly
seized every opportunity to testify on His behalf is hardly borne out by
Ezekiel's own record about himself (consider also Jer. 20: 9; Isa. 8: 11; 1
Kings 19: 4, 10; and, of course, Jonah).
Remember, then,
whenever you are studying any portion of the Bible, to try to see it whole and
to discern the purpose behind it, the theme or dominant idea which binds
together and makes it a unity. Whenever you find yourself treating any
Scripture as a collection of discrete bits and pieces, you are probably on the
wrong lines. (One notable exception—Proverbs chapters 10 to 31).
Here are further
examples for you to work out in detail for yourself:
(1) The Epistle to
the Hebrews is an eloquent attempt to deter Hebrew Christians from drifting
back to the synagogue. Note the repeated arguments about the superiority of
Christ over all aspects of the Law of Moses and temple service, each separate
argument leading on to a vigorous exhortation to faithfulness.
(2) Note how 2 Peter
1 is held together by the phrase: "These things." What things?
(3) With inadequate
reason the Epistle of James is usually assigned to James, the half-brother of
Jesus and at a fairly late date in the first century. Yet a good deal of
internal evidence suggests that James, the son of Zebedee, was the author, and
that this is the first book of the New Testament to be written. Read it as a
digest of exhortations given at Jerusalem in the earliest days of the church,
and then sent out to the disciples when they were "scattered abroad"
by the persecution of Saul. The correspondences with the early chapters of Acts
are magnificent. This is a difficult exercise, but very rewarding.
14. STUDY THE
CONTEXT
“When we find a
passage in its own particular place, there is a Divine reason why it is there,
and also why it is not in any other place.” E. W. BULLINGER.
If you are not quite
sure of the meaning of that word "context", it might be a good idea
to look it up in the dictionary, and then you will realize that this chapter is
a natural follow-on from the preceding one. The main difference is that here
the field narrows. Instead of considering a book of Scripture or a section of a
book as a unit, attention is now concentrated on reading each verse with
reference to the setting where it comes. So the idea remains essentially the same—to
look for "connectedness" between one verse and the next. This is
specially important when you are seeking the meaning of a particular verse or
phrase. By itself it may appear to suggest a certain idea, but if that
interpretation does not readily slip into the context of the verse you should
begin to feel worried.
Take as an
illustration the familiar Matt. 12: 36: "Every idle word that men shall
speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."
Here the meaning
seems self-evident until one pauses to reflect whether this basis of judgment
squares with what one reads elsewhere about justification by faith, and the
satisfying truth that in the day of account Jesus will recognize
instantaneously who are his, just as a shepherd knows at a glance (and even
without a glance!) which is a sheep and which is a goat. The thought of Jesus
holding inquisition concerning every careless expression ever used and every
little explosion of passing irritation somehow does not harmonize with what the
gospels tell of him.
The context in
Matthew 12 puts you back on the rails. The dominant context is: "This
fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the
devils"—a diabolical insinuation that Jesus could only achieve his
miracles by being in league with the Powers of Evil. This was nothing less than
blasphemy against the powers of the Holy Spirit which he exhibited, and
accordingly Jesus rounded on them with devastating argument and blistering
invective, culminating in the warning: Every idle word that you speak
concerning me, you shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
This, you will
perceive, immediately sounds right. A man is to stand or fall in the last day
by his attitude towards Jesus. This, and this only, is what settles a man's
destiny.
Again, the equally
familiar words of Matt. 18: 20 require to be related to the place where they
occur: "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am
1 in the midst of them." The application to only two or three met together
in fellowship or at the Breaking of Bread is hardly the one which Jesus can
have had directly in mind when he said this. The context scarcely allows of
it—and this verse begins with "For", thus requiring to be linked
directly with what precedes.
The problem is that
of offences between brethren. Jesus counsels: First, go and tell him his fault
between thee and him alone. Then, take others with you. Next, tell it to the
church; its decision shall be binding; and its prayers shall be heard.
In this setting the words
under consideration surely mean either:
(a) The Lord promises to guide with wisdom the
elders of the church deliberating on such matters;
or:
(b) Where such
efforts to gather together those who have been separated by contention are
successful, the Lord adds his own special blessing. (This is perhaps the more
likely as well as the more satisfying view, particularly since verse 21 goes on
to speak of forgiveness.)
It is worth while to
note that the usual application of these familiar words is not altogether ruled
out, for if they apply to such situations as those just underlined, they will
surely apply at least as much to other circumstances where brethren, though
only two or three, gather together in unity.
The next chapter
provides an interesting example. The bringing of the little children to Jesus
by their parents followed immediately on his firm discourse about the sanctity
of marriage; note the word "then" in Matt. 19: 13.
Similarly, the same
word "then" in Matt. 25:1 firmly attaches the parable of the virgins
to the Lord's warnings about the unexpectedness of his coming. From this it
follows that whilst the object is to inculcate the lesson of preparedness this
parable clearly points to the generation alive at the Lord's return. The future
tense "shall be likened" supports this. Like nearly every other
parable spoken by the Lord, this story has its permanent timeless message.
Every generation of faithful and faithless would have been the poorer for lack
of it. But the Master's own directive does suggest a special relevance to the
last generation of all—this generation. The very character of the story
emphasises this. It follows then that the sleep of the virgins can hardly be
interpreted as meaning the sleep of death. Must it not, then, be the sleep of
unawareness (Matt. 24: 36-51)? To think that in the day of the Lord's coming,
all will be taken unawares—even those who have all the timetable details of
that great Day fully worked out!
This insistence on
the relevance of context can be something of a headache at times. Consider, for
example, the Lord's trenchant parable about eagles and carcase. As long as
attention is concentrated on its occurrence in Matt. 24, a chapter which has
such vivid anticipations of the horrors of the siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70,
the application to Roman eagles and the carcase of Israel seems fitting enough.
But in Luke 17: 37 the context is altogether different.
Another canon of
interpretation likewise forbids application of this figure to the angels and
the saints in the Last Day, or to the saints being gathered to Christ. There is
a seemliness about Bible figures of speech. The incongruity of representing
angels or saints in Christ by vultures, and the saints or the Lord of Glory by
a carcase shouts its own rejection of these ideas. Anyone who has seen tropical
vultures round a carcase would never consider them even remotely possible.
At the same time,
the contests in Matt. 24 and Luke 17 being totally different in detail, it
would clearly be a recommendation of any interpretation which gives the same
significance to angels and to carcase in both places, whilst harmonizing with
the context in each place.
These considerations
lead to a completely different suggestion—an idea which may not be altogether
free from difficulty but which does at any rate start from sound principles.
In Matthew Jesus is
warning against false prophets who say: "The Lord has already come
secretly." Today evangelists say: "He is in your heart";
liturgists say: "He is in the church"; Roman Catholics say: "He
is in the Mass—his literal body"; Jehovah's Witnesses say: "He rules
invisibly since 1914"—and some others, alas, join in this chorus and say:
"He will come in secret to Sinai"! But Jesus says: "My coming
will be like the lightning", seen by all though perhaps not understood by
all. But he adds: "If you show yourselves to be spiritually dead— a
carcase—you will surely find yourselves a prey to these vultures." In this
way Jesus discards as "dead" those who hold perverted ideas
concerning his Coming.
In Luke the same
interpretation slips neatly into place. In connection with his coming, Jesus
spoke of the saints, worthy and unworthy, being called away—"one (saint)
shall be taken, and another (saint) left.” Observe the force of the word
"immediately" in Luke 12: 36.
In response to which
enigmatic statement, the query comes: “Where, Lord” meaning “Left where,
Lord?" for would the disciples have asked: "Taken where?", since
the answer to that is obviously "To meet their Lord."
And to this the forbidding answer is given:
"If you show yourselves to be spiritually a carcase, you will be left to
the vultures" (cp. the significance of Matt. 25: 10-12).
These examples have
sprung almost unbidden from the pages of one gospel. But the same insistence on
harmony with context is needful in a thousand other places through the Book.
Consider the
familiar words of Isa. 64: 4: "Men have not heard, nor perceived by the
ear, neither hath the eye seen... what he hath prepared for him that waiteth
for him."
The meaning commonly
read into this passage is that the glories of the age to come are past all
human conception—a meaning extremely difficult to harmonize with the rest of
the chapter. Rather is the idea this: "In all generations men have not
wanted to hear or to see the ways of God—they have not been interested in or
concerned about the outworking of His purpose", and hence the divine
estrangement: "Thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us,
because of our iniquities".
The context of
Paul's citation of this passage in 1 Cor. 2: 7-10 fully confirms this approach:
The wisdom of God was not "known", i.e. received by "the princes
of this world; had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of
glory: as it is written..." But, Paul adds reassuringly, these things
concerning the wondrous purpose of God have been revealed to us who tremble at
His Word.
An example of a very
different character meets the reader in Lamech's boastful song of triumph (Gen.
4: 23, 24):
"I have slain a
man for wounding me, And a young man for bruising me: If Cain be avenged
sevenfold, Truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."
There is an often
unnoticed connection here with the preceding verses. One of the sons of Lamech
was Tubal-cain, "the forger of every cutting instrument of brass and
iron". Here was the ground for Lamech's boast of prowess and
impregnability—he owned the world's first armaments factory!
Let it be taken as a
golden rule that an interpretation of Scripture which does not harmonize with
its context is to be suspected. An insistence on this principle will save you
from many an attractive but mistaken conclusion. It will also provide the best
clue for the solution of many a difficulty.
15. MODERN VERSIONS
OF THE BIBLE
“Truly we never
thought to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but
to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one.” King
James Version translators, 1611.
Everybody is
dependent to a greater or lesser extent on other versions of the Bible besides
the King James Bible of 1611 in common use, so it may not be amiss to offer a
few opinions about the best known translations. Only let it be remembered that
what is said here is a summary of personal impressions. Not all would agree
with everything that is submitted.
First, a strong
recommendation that you keep in the main to the Authorized Version. It is, so
to speak, the vernacular of all of us in the Faith. Even though the good
manuscripts available for it were really few compared with what the modern
translator has access to, the text from which it was made was in the main
remarkably sound. And the translation itself, as a work of literary skill, has
never been matched in the history of English literature. Its lucidity in some
of the epistles and here and there in the prophets is not what it might be, nor
is its accuracy in Job and one or two other books. But generally it is a very
good translation, giving the sense remarkably well and in incomparable style,
especially for reading aloud.
It is not only a
treasury of matchless English but also amazingly accurate. 1 have often
marvelled at the downright honesty of King James's men. All translators find
themselves faced with the necessity, in many a place, of supplying an extra
word or phrase to avoid crudity or awkwardness. In the A. V. every smallest
word of this sort is picked out by the use of italics, so that by the simple
device of leaving out the italics you can have what is virtually a word for
word translation.
Then, too, in the A.
V. there is careful distinction made between singular pronouns —' 'thou,
thy" — and the plurals' 'you, your"
This is lost in all
the twentieth century versions, and then the reader gets lost: "In this
verse, does 'you' mean one person or more than one?"
I beg of you,
therefore, do not let go the good old A.V. — and for this reason: we are an
intensely conservative community (at times, almost absurdly so), and any trend
away from the cadences of King James's men is sure to be a constant irritation
to the older generation. 1 have known of one or two insistent efforts to
replace A.V. with N.I.V. (or whatever), and these have proved to be a veritable
unkindness or provocation.
There is perhaps a
case to be made for using a modern version at our Sunday evening meetings, for
the sake of greater intelligibility in the ears of Bible-ignorant visitors. The
value of this was impressed on my mind thus: in a family 1 know, the very
earnest parents had Bible-reading each evening with their three young children,
all of them highly intelligent kids. As time went on it was evident that some
of the books of Scripture had these youngsters quite bewildered. When the
experiment was tried of a switch to a modern version, the immediate reaction
was: "This is easy! We can understand this." They couldn't, really,
but at least that ejaculation bespoke a sense of greater comprehension. So it
is to be expected that others may react similarly.
But if you intend
any serious accurate study of the Bible, you will sooner or later have to call
in one of the other versions to help you to greater precision of detail.
So far as personal
reading and study go, the ideal advice is: leave the modern translations to
other people, and instead settle down to acquire enough Greek and Hebrew to
enable you to make tolerable sense of the original text of any passage you
happen to be interested in.
Of course, the
fulfilment of such an ambition will mean blood, sweat and tears, as well as the
resolution to dedicate twenty minutes a day for a year or two at least. But
ultimately, what a benefit! The time spent would very soon be time saved.
If this is asking
too much, then please assign the priority to New Testament Greek, which will
pay far greater dividends than Hebrew can possibly do.
If you are not able
to go with confidence direct to the Greek and Hebrew text, then get by you as
many other versions as possible.
But — warning! —
remember that the proper technique is not to hunt through half a dozen of them
when in difficulty and choose the reading that you like the sound of best, or
that goes best with your theory of what it ought to say, but to be guided by
the general consensus of the various translations. Not that this will
infallibly guide you to a completely dependable accuracy, but it is more likely
to do so than the other method of picking the one whose colour matches that of
your own inclination.
What of the more
recent of the modern versions? Just a quick word or two to give you an
impression of those 1 know.
From your point of
view, as a student of the Word, seeking all the help you can glean from any
source, the first consideration in assessing the value of a translation must be
its accuracy. You want to know, as exactly as possible, what God says to you
through His prophets and apostles. For this purpose there is no better tool
than the Revised Version.
Yet the R.V. has
never shown any sign of taking hold of the affections of the English-speaking,
Bible reading public. To some extent this was because the N.T. section was
"stormed at with shot and shell'' by Burgon, Cook and a number of others
as soon as it appeared. Their criticisms were largely justified — the poor
literary quality of many of the "improvements", the vast number of
trivial alterations of no consequence, and the prejudice of the translators in
favour of textual readings of doubtful value. But the fate of the R.V. was
settled by its literary inferiority to the well-loved New Testament of 1611. In
place of the dignity and grace of the latter it too often offered a stilted
awkwardness and ungracious pedantry. And so the R.V. died, so far as public
acceptance went, almost before it was born; which was a pity in many respects
because the O.T. section is a really first-class piece of work, and the N.T.,_
once allowance has been made for its idiosyncrasies, remains a masterpiece of
accurate, and even too accurate translation.
Then by all means
get yourself a serviceable copy of the R. V., but do not omit to inscribe on
its fly-leaf two important provisos:
(1) In the O.T. the marginal reading is usually
to be preferred to what is read in the body of the text.
(2) In the N.T. (gospels especially), when the
R.V. omits a phrase or hints in the margin ("some ancient manuscripts
omit"; "many ancient manuscripts omit") that certain words
should be left out, such directions are usually suspect. In such cases it is
safer to follow the A.V.
There are, of
course, one or two familiar instances such as 1 John 5:7 where item 2 above
clearly does not apply, but these can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Without question,
the best plan is to purchase an Interlinear Bible for regular use. This gives
the A.V. text in bold type, but at the slightest difference between A.V. and
R.V., even though it be only a difference of punctuation, it breaks up into two
parallel lines of small type, and at such places the eye of the reader can
readily compare the two. The marginal references in this Bible are probably the
best set ever compiled. The Interlinear, however, has a very narrow margin.
Interleaved copies, rather bulky and expensive, are probably available through
The Christadelphian, 404 Shaftmoor Lane, Birmingham 28, for the one who insists
on having plenty of space for notes.
It is a great pity
that the Moffatt translation and the Weymouth New Testament have now gone out
of fashion. The former is worth having for its lively phrasing and readability,
and the latter for its fine faithfulness to the Greek original.
The New English
Bible was given to the world with an impressive "flourish of
cornets", and immediately became a bestseller, read in London buses! It is
in many respects an excellent piece of work. Its modern idiom, in contrast to
the archaic style of the A.V., is deemed one of its great virtues. Too much has
been made of this as an advantage to the modern reader. Those who find the
sixteenth century style of the seventeenth century A.V. unintelligible, or even
a considerable hindrance, are not likely to be numbered in their thousands
among the readers of this book. But certainly 2 Corinthians, where the A.V.
reaches its lowest level, is born again a vigorous handsome child in the N.E.B.
Nevertheless A.D.
Norris was a faithful mentor when he wrote in his review of the new
translation: "This version is never to be trusted, If ever, as we read it,
we come across an attractive thought, we must go to some reliable authority to
find out whether it is correct. Otherwise there is the gravest danger that in
using this version without discrimination we shall be found false witnesses of
God." ('The Christadelphian; August, 1961)
The Revised Standard
Version (American) is comparable to the R.V. in many respects, and the same
warnings about omissions in the gospels are necessary. The translation itself
tends to be freer than the R.V., giving at times what is almost a paraphrase
rather than a translation. These characteristics notwithstanding, the R.S.V. is
a splendid piece of work, a tool of proven value.
At one time, the
Revised Standard Version showed signs of commanding the loyalty of most of the
Bible-reading public, but now (fashion again!) it is being edged into the
background by the Jerusalem Bible and the New International Version.
Considering that the former of these was done by a team of Catholics (note my
prejudices!), it is a surprisingly competent job, and its copious footnotes are
always worth attention.
There is little
doubt in my mind that the N.I. V. is the Bible of the future. Although not
without its faults (what version is?), its overall quality is very high. Also,
with considerable foresight and enterprise its publishers have brought out an
N.I.V. Study Bible and Concordance. So if you settle for this version, 1 would
recommend that you go straight for these very helpful elaborations.
A word of advice
here on the buying of Bibles, especially of the types just mentioned. Most Bibles
are available in bindings of different qualities, the insides being exactly the
same. Cloth bindings usually work out at about half the cost of high quality
morocco. Yet if your Bible has a fairly big page, the floppy soft leather cover
is more of a handicap to easy handling than a help. You are advised, therefore,
to purchase the cloth bound Bible in the first instance. After two or three
years when the cloth cover shows signs of disintegrating, whilst the inside
still has years of life in it, take it to a reputable book-binder or even a
capable amateur, if you know one, and tell him to put on it a good quality
cloth cover (library binding), and for moderate cost you will then have a Bible
to last you the rest of your days. But be sure to warn him against tampering
with the inside in any way whatever, or his professional zeal will run away
with him, and he will take the book completely to pieces, slice a valuable
quarter inch off the inside edge of each page and then return it to you with a
look of pride in his eye but without the same high degree of serviceability in
the Bible.
The Living Bible and
the Good News Bible are also useful in making private reading of the Scriptures
easier going, but these are too paraphrastic to be
depended on for accuracy. So also, I'm sorry to have to say, are the
smooth-flowing and vivid readings to be found in J.B. Phillips' New Testament
translations. This scholar, in his enthusiasm for making more evident some of
the subtleties of the Greek phrasing, often fails to keep close enough to
literality for our purposes.
If you are the sort
that likes to have handy a word for word translation with the Greek text
alongside, choice lies between the Emphatic Diaglott (done by an early
Christadelphian) and Bagster's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. With
reluctance, it is the second of these which is recommended as a really
first-class scholarly production. The drawbacks to the Diaglott are the
inadequate Greek text on which it was based and the fact that the author was
too enthusiastic a Christadelphian, so that at a number of crucial points he
let his confidence in a Christadelphian interpretation colour a little too
perceptibly the character of his translation. Of course King James's
translators did this very obviously in many places where the doctrine of the
Trinity or of the Devil was involved, so it wouldn't be fair to censure our old
stalwart too severely on that score.
Summing up, all 1
can say is: in some respects all — 1 repeat, all — versions of Holy Scripture
are at fault, but until you have acquired a fair amount of Greek, 1 would
prescribe A.V., R.V., N.I.V.
16 "TYPES OF
US"
“It is precisely
because we take Scripture "literally", that we are constrained to
think it so deep and mysterious.” JOHN WILLIAM BURGON.
God's history
repeats itself. This is one of the Bible lessons there is no evading. Even if
this fact were not plainly discernible to an average alert reader, there is the
highest possible authority for believing that this mode of interpretation of
sacred history is on right lines.
Melchizedek is
picked out as a clear foreshadowing of the Messianic Priest-King; both in what
is told about him, and in what was omitted—"without father, without
mother, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life"—he is
"made" (in the very shaping of the record concerning him) "like
unto the Son of God". (But why, one may well ask, is 'there no mention in
Heb. 7 of Melchizedek "bringing forth bread and wine", perhaps the
most obvious point of all?)
In Galatians 4 there
is that utterly unexpected allegory of Hagar and Sarah as types of the two
dispensations—the one under Moses and the Law, and 'the other the covenant of
grace in Jesus Christ. Here, indeed, is a signal lesson from the Apostle Paul
that, though the Bible means what it says, it assuredly means a good deal more.
The secondary or typical meaning is there by design and is intended to be
sought out by those who are reverently curious enough to investigate such
things by a diligent comparing of Scripture with Scripture.
In 1 Cor. 10, the
experiences of Israel are catalogued for the reader not only as history but
also as history written in advance. For, says Paul "these things became
types of us". This is the literal translation of "these things were
our examples" (1 Cor. 10: 6). He mentions first the deliverance of Israel
and the crossing of the Red Sea as a figure of baptism; then he appropriates
the miraculous provision of water in the wilderness as another type—"that
rock was Christ". Jesus had already used the same idea in John 7: 37-39 "
If any man thirst, let him come unto me. And he that believeth on me, let him
drink; as the Scripture hath said, Out of his belly (Christ the smitten, rock)
shall flow rivers of living water."
But not content with
this, Paul then goes on to catalogue six incidents in the wilderness, in all of
which "these things happened to them typically, and were written for the
purpose of admonishing us". Here is Paul bidding his readers study a
certain part of the history of Israel as a series of types. But who takes heed
and follows his bidding?
Stephen, "full
of faith and of the Holy Spirit" so that "they were not able to
resist the wisdom with which he spake", had precisely the same approach to
the narrative of Genesis and Exodus. His defence of the truth and claims of
Jesus of Nazareth was most ingeniously and convincingly done without so much as
a mention of anything to do with the crucified prophet. All Stephen did was to
rehearse the familiar facts about Joseph, the well-beloved son, whose indisputable
claims were rejected by his brethren until through suffering and steadfastness
he rose to high honour which in due time his brethren were only too glad to
acknowledge.
Then Stephen
proceeded on similar lines with the story of Moses, which his hearers knew as
well as he did, only now they were being made to consider it from a point of
view that was altogether new to them—as a foreshadowing of the divine birth,
mission, rejection, and ultimate triumph of the Messiah. And since the
portraits of Joseph and of Moses fit Jesus of Nazareth perfectly (and Stephen
doubtless went into much more detail than the condensed account in Acts chapter
7 reveals), what other conclusion was possible than this—that Jesus was the
Messiah. Or if not Messiah, then he was at least as important a type of Messiah
as Joseph and Moses had been. And either way, what a condemnation of the men
who had crucified him and who were now thirsting for the blood of Stephen!
But today what
Christadelphian reasons from Scripture using the method which Paul and Stephen
used? What Christadelphian today considers types of this kind a sufficient
ground for a conclusive argument? Yet both Stephen and the men of the Sanhedrin
evidently thought so, or they would not have cut short his speech with their
vicious indignation.
Instead, today
(shame on us!) the details of a type in Scripture are regarded by many as a
spiritual frivolity, a kind of game in divinity all right for those who have
that bent. But it is surely worth while to stop and consider whether the memory
of Stephen and Paul, and Peter (1 Peter 3: 20, 21) and Jesus and all four
writers of the gospels, is honoured by a light-hearted attitude towards a
method of Bible interpretation which, they were all accustomed to use.
But the proof of the
pudding is in the eating. The way in which the types of Scripture have been
exhibited has often been most inadequate and unconvincing, so that it is hardly
to be wondered at that in the minds of some the subject has come to be viewed
with mistrust. Any topic inadequately presented, whether in the Bible or out of
it, is bound to be unconvincing and unattractive. If the examples expounded in
the rest of this chapter do not strike a spark, the fault—it may be confidently
assumed—lies in the presentation rather than in the subject itself.
When Paul wrote:
"He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all...",
he was making almost direct quotation from the Septuagint Version of Gen. 22:
12, the story of the "offering" of Isaac. This suggests that he saw
Abraham's offering of Isaac as a figure of the greater sacrifice made of a more
perfect Son by a Heavenly Father. This idea of Isaac, the seed of Abraham, runs
right through the Genesis narrative. Thus:
Chapter 12: The Promise of a Seed who Chapter 13: shall inherit the Land.
Chapter 16: The seed, born after the flesh, who is
refused inheritance.
Chapter 21: The miraculous birth of the true Seed.
Chapter 22: The union of the Seed with
his Bride.
This sequence is in
itself a remarkable prophecy, authorized in its interpretation by Paul. But the
student is now recommended to consider especially the details of chapters 22,
24 in the light of what has already been discerned. Here the type will be found
to fill out in quite remarkable fashion—at least, it would be remarkable if it
were in any other book.
In all generations
the manna given in the wilderness has been seen as a type of the true Bread of
God, given to sustain the life of His people. But the topic has been clouded
and confused by the way it has been handled. There is no excuse for this, the
more so since Jesus in his discourse on the Bread of Life (with its many
references to the manna in the wilderness) gave a clear lead as to the mode of
interpretation: "Labour not for the meat which perisheth (compare the
manna given daily), but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life,
which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father
sealed" (John 6: 27).
Is it not clear that
here Jesus is comparing himself, the Word of God, to the manna which never
corrupted and which was laid up in a golden pot* before the Lord? (*Note the
implicit contradiction in these two words! The Greek word for "pot"
means "an earthenware jar".)
Then is it not
equally clear that the manna which came every day and had to be gathered every
day is a figure of the written Word of God which sustains the life of God's
pilgrim people in their wilderness journey?
Once this
distinction has been grasped, the way is open for interpretation of the type
with a satisfying fullness of detail. In perusing the record, the eye lights on
such points as these:
The manna was given
apart from any merit in the people.
It came from heaven,
to all alike,
without distinction.
It was like a
natural product, but greatly superior to it. (It is difficult to see how the
Hebrew of Ex. 16: 15 can mean: "What is it?" Far more likely the
people confused it with the natural commodity which they already knew by the
name "manna", and to which it bore a superficial resemblance.)
It was adequate for
the needs of all.
It was white and
pure and sweet, and pleasing to the taste.
It was given only in
the wilderness; when the Land was reached, it ceased, and was indeed
unnecessary.
It came with a
manifestation of divine glory.
The very provision of
it was a proof that "I am the Lord".
It was suited to
everyone's appetite.
It was the
responsibility of the men to gather it, each for his family (yet the women
prepared it).
When properly shared
out, none went short.
If stored unused, it
corrupted.
With the rising of
the sun, it melted away.
The taste of it
resembled that of honey, and also that of "fresh oil".
It could be prepared
and served in a wide variety of ways. The ungodly despised it as "this
light bread".
The explanation of
the typical significance of this lengthy catalogue of details (and of others
also, not listed) is taken as read, because there is yet more to be explored in
this subject.
The command to Moses
was: "Fill an omer of it to be kept for your generations; that they may
see the bread wherewith 1 fed you in the wilderness... So Aaron laid it up
before the Testimony, to be kept."
But, it may be
asked, if this golden pot of manna was laid up in the Holy of Holies which was
entered by the High Priest only, and he only once a year, how could the people
see its contents?
Clearly this could
only happen if the pot of manna was brought out from time to time and displayed
before them. And since the Holy of Holies was only entered on the Day of
Atonement, and by none but the High Priest, it must have been on this annual
occasion that the instruction to Moses was fulfilled.
But this
incorruptible manna was a figure of Jesus, the living Word of God (as he
himself explained; John 6: 27). How appropriate, then, that it should be
displayed "unto them that look for him" (Heb. 9: 28) in the day when
sin is put away for ever and the great High Priest comes from the divine
Presence to bless the people in the name of the Lord? The type is complete and
satisfying, and its interpretation is backed by the highest authority.
The New Testament
goes a good deal further than is usually supposed in supplying hints and
directives concerning the types of the Old Testament. One recalls hearing the
self-confident observation of one who thought the study of Biblical types a
fantasy of the human mind: "If Joseph was intended as such a wonderful
type of Christ, it is strange surely that the New Testament nowhere says
so." The originator of that bright remark cannot have read Stephen's
speech with very great attention—nor the rest of his New Testament which
supplies no fewer than seven other separate hints that the story of Joseph is
the story of Jesus.
Yet there was some
excuse for the sceptical remark, for more often than not this interpretation of
the life of Joseph has been so confused and unsystematic as to shed only an
uncertain light on the great theme of redemption. It needs to be realized that
Joseph is really a type of Christ twice over, with reference first to the Jews,
and then to the Gentiles. Thus:
He is the good
shepherd, beloved of his father, who testifies against his brethren. There is a
great future predicted for him, and for that very reason he is despised and
rejected by the others. He is consigned to the pit, which is later found to be
empty. He is taken away to a far country, and long afterwards he is revealed in
power to his brethren who now worship the one they had rejected.
And now again:
Joseph, a faithful
servant, is tempted and tried, but yet sinless. He goes to "prison",
suffering with two others whose fates are predicted. He is exalted to glory and
acknowledged as Saviour of the World, for his wise provision of Bread of Life.
People out of all countries are saved by coming to him. And he marries a
Gentile bride.
These are only bare
outlines. They can be filled out to include a list of some sixty or more
details. How many readers care to make the effort?
In another place the
New Testament gives a remarkable hint of a type which would otherwise surely go
for ever unsuspected.
"Quit you like
men, be strong", (1Co.16:13) Paul urged the Corinthians in a brief
exhortation which appears to have no special connection with anything. But here
marginal references take the alert student to a much-neglected corner of the
Old Testament— 1 Sam. 4: 9. And immediately the mind is curious to know why
Paul should suddenly phrase his exhortation in words from such a place. Let it
be remembered here that one of the major conflicts which faced the early church
was the struggle with Judaism. Was the new-made Gentile convert to be brought
under the yoke of the Law, or not?
It is remarkable,
then, that in the story of the loss of the ark in battle the Israelites are
represented as an apostate faithless nation, whilst the Gentiles are shown as
having more faith than they in the working of Jehovah: "Woe unto us! Who
shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods that smote the Egyptians
with all the plagues in the wilderness?" (The Philistines did not know
their Bible stories as well as they might! This confusion provides a delightful
touch of verisimilitude.)
Here, then is the
picture which this chapter presents:
Faithless Israel,
putting superstitious reliance on the tokens of divine preference in their
midst, contend with the Gentiles for possession of Ebenezer (the Stone of
Help). The Gentiles, showing both faith and courage, quit themselves like men
and do not become "servants unto the Hebrews" (the Gospel triumph
over the Law). Israel are put to the worse, the symbol of God's Covenant passes
into Gentile hands, and the outcome is the sudden end of a blind priesthood
after a period of forty years (A.D. 30-70). The Glory is departed from Israel!
And the herald of the outcome of the struggle is—a man of Benjamin!
No wonder that Paul
took delight in this prophecy of himself and the work he was associated with.
No wonder he quoted these words to his Gentile converts with such gusto:
"Be strong, quit you like men, that ye be not servants to the
Hebrews." Doubtless when he was yet with them he had told them all these
things. All they needed was a reminder.
But it was not only
in Old Testament type that Paul saw his own great work foreshadowed. Doubtless
in later days he often brooded on his remarkable experience at Lystra (Acts
14). There his preaching was wonderfully received by the multitude. The power
with which he was endowed created wild enthusiasm, and he was hailed as divine.
But through the plotting of hostile Jews, popular favour turned to hostility,
and Paul was then dragged out of the city and left "dead" (was he
actually dead?). But he recovered miraculously, and went away to another place,
only to return later "confirming the souls of the disciples". (There
is no doubt about this being a miracle. Lystra to Derbe was thirty miles—a fair
walk for a man who had been stoned! And the narrative here uses the usual Greek
word for resurrection.)
The close parallel
with the experience of his Lord would not escape his keen spiritual insight.
Indeed, he wrote about it to these same brethren of Lystra and Derbe in the
region of Galatia: "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you.. before
whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth (R.V.) crucified among you?"
And again: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus" (Gal. 3:1
and 6:17). The Galatian brethren had seen these things with their own eyes,
besides hearing the gospel of Paul.
There is need for
much care in this study of the types in Scripture lest one lose one's sense of
proportion and wander off into trivialities. In the thrill and enchantment of
the subject it is easy to forget one's powers of self-criticism. So, go
carefully.
Bear in mind this
warning, and you can spend a stimulating hour or two on the following types
most of which are indicated by the New Testament:
(a) Adam, "a figure of him that was to
come" (Rom. 5: 14). There is more in this than you would believe possible.
(b) The destruction
of Sodom. "As it was in the days of Lot, even thus shall it be..."
(Luke 17: 28, 30).
(c) Jacob and Esau
(Jew and Arab).
(d) The story of
Ruth (Christ and his Gentile Bride).
(e) The leprosy of
Miriam (the rejection of Israel).
(f) The Passover.
The detail here is most impressive, as also, in the number of New Testament
comments.
(g) The cities of
refuge.
(h) David and
Goliath.
(i) David and
Absalom's rebellion (several hints in the gospels).
(j) The entire reign
of Hezekiah—magnificent!
(k) Jonah, of
course.
It would be a
mistake to assume that this list is exhaustive.
17. PARABLES AND
MIRACLES
“As for the
particular interpretation of God’s word, we may be bold to assume that our only
sure teaching will be derived from a careful examination of those specimens of
interpretation which it has itself furnished.” JOHN WILLIAM EURGON.
The parables and
miracles of Jesus occupy such an important place in the gospels as to warrant
separate consideration.
The starting point
of all such study must be the Lord's own exposition of the reason why he used
parables: "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the
kingdom of heaven, but unto them (Mark: “those that are outside”) it is not
given." Thus the use of parables had a double purpose—to enlighten further
those who were capable of being enlightened, and at the same time to mystify
those who were already unreceptive or hostile.
To take the latter
point first—the lack of explicit factual statement and the avoidance of clear
definition of idea which parables involve was not only to baffle the
unspiritual but was also calculated to leave hostile critics pawing the air. On
the other hand the one who brings a willing contemplative mind can find more
and more of value in the vivid forceful stories which the Lord brought forth
"out of his treasury". "For whomsoever hath, to him shall be
given, and he shall have more abundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall
be. taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak 1 unto them in parables"
(Matt. 13: 12, 13; compare John 15: 2).
The point is given
renewed emphasis in Matthew's own commentary: "And without a parable spoke
he not unto them: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,
saying, 1 will open my mouth in parables; 1 will utter things which have been
kept secret from the foundation of the world" (Matt. 13: 34, 35). The
context of the Scripture cited here emphasizes delightfully that the parable is
the ideal form of instruction for the teachable child-like mind (Psalm 78:
1-8), whilst at the same time leaving the wise of this world to grope
unsatisfied.
There are two main
schools of thought about the interpretation of parables—besides the school of
no thought ("a parable is a heavenly story with no earthly meaning").
So, first, the main
question is: Should one seek a meaning for every detail in every parable? Or is
a parable intended to convey one main idea or spiritual truth? In the latter
case the greater part of the story must be regarded as constituting the outer
clothing of the lesson involved, the frame round the picture. In the former the
attempt to find meaning for everything often lands the student in a morass of
difficulties or else comes to grief completely in some parables.
These difficulties
notwithstanding, your present mentor is persuaded that one should look for
significance in every detail— and this for three fairly weighty reasons:
(a) The most slender acquaintance with the
gospels makes it evident that Jesus does not waste words. In the rest of his
teaching every phrase tells. It is difficult indeed to believe that if his
intention was to teach one main idea, he would not have conveyed that point by
some other much more concise method.
(b) So many of the parables, even at first
reading, seem to shout for an interpretation which takes account of details;
e.g. the vineyard, the wedding garment, the pounds, the ten virgins,
and—strangely enough—the parable of the good Samaritan, which the context proclaims
as being told in order to drive home one main lesson.
(c) The remarkable fact tends to escape
attention that the four gospels include something like two score parables but
interpret only three—the Sower, the Tares, and the Drag Net (all in Matthew
13). Here, significantly enough, in the only parables where the Lord's own
exposition is given, the method is quite simply that of supplying a meaning for
each item in turn. The thing is reduced
almost to what the mathematician likes to call a one-to-one correspondence:
"He that sows...
is the Son of man;”…
“the field is the
world”….
“the good seed are
the sons of the kingdom”
“the tares are the
sons of the wicked”
“the enemy... is the
devil”
“the harvest is the
end of the world”
“the reapers are the
angels"
and so on.
This supplies a
framework into which all the rest can readily be fitted. And similarly with the
parable of the Sower, and of the Net.
This last point
should surely be decisive, standing by itself. Jesus can probably be depended
on to know which is the best method of handling his own parables. Mark 4: 34 is
also very significant: "But without a parable spoke he not unto them: and
when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples." This
reads strangely if a single sentence would adequately sum up each parable which
he spoke to them.
The approach to
parables, then, which is here recommended is that you come to them looking for
a one-to-one correspondence between the facts of the story and the meaning of
each detail. Start on the more obvious examples first, and satisfy yourself
that it exists there. Even in these instances some unexpected and very
interesting points of exegesis arise. You can graduate later to those which
present more difficulty.
And when you come to
grief on them, what then? Have the grace to recognize that there are many
things in the teaching of Jesus which you cannot expect to understand at the
first or even the tenth reading. If you could understand clearly all the
teaching of Jesus at first attempt, he would not be worth following. This is
not obscurantism, but sheer common sense. For who would choose as Leader one
who was on no higher level than himself?
Maimonides, the
learned Jewish scholar, counselled: "Learn to say, 1 cannot understand
this." An unwillingness to acknowledge that there are difficulties to
which a full and satisfying answer is not immediately available has been the
curse of much Bible study, even in the Christadelphian community. Far better to
face problems as problems and to pray that in due time the grace of God will
bring a fuller light. It may be an encouragement to some to know that a
parable, which had presented serious difficulties to the present writer for at
least twenty years, quite recently took on a new look thanks to a hint from the
prophet Jeremiah.
The elucidation of
the details in the parables of Jesus is an excellent opportunity to prove the
truth of Bacon's aphorism: "Writing makes an exact man." You will
find it worthwhile to try out the idea of one-to-one correspondence by means of
a line drawn down the middle of the page. The parable of the fig-tree (Luke 13:
6-9) sorts itself out like this:
Parable Meaning
(1) The man God
(2) The vineyard The Land of Promise.
(3) The fig tree Nation of Israel.
(4) Seeking fruit Fruits of righteousness
(5) Three years The ministry of Jesus
(6) Cut it down to which the Jews did not respond
(7) It cumbers the
ground Preaching to Gentiles hindered,
not helped, by Judaism.
(8) Let it alone
this year also Last year of ministry.
(9) 1 will dig about
it, and dung it. Christ's special appeal
to the nation.
(10) If then no
fruit, Little hope of change
(11) Thou shalt cut
it down God's destruction of the
nation in A.D. 70.
There are places
here and there where the parables of Jesus may not be quite true to life, and
always for a reason; e.g. the unrealistic rates of pay in the parable of the
labourers, the cancelled debt uncancelled in the parable of the two debtors,
the shepherd leaving ninety-nine sheep in the wilderness that he might find the
one that is lost, the rich man going to hell, not because he was wicked but
because he was rich—and here in this parable the labourer saying to his
employer: "Thou shalt cut it down"; the judgment on Israel in A.D. 70
was the work of God, not of Jesus (compare Matt. 22:7). The parable is exact in its symbolism, down
to the smallest detail.
Another example of
this technique was promised earlier in this chapter—the parable of the Good
Samaritan.
Although the
occasion required Jesus to establish only one main point by it, i.e. the answer
to the enquiry: "Who is the neighbour 1 am to love?", it will be seen
that Jesus went a good deal further. His parable, when interpreted point by
point, turns "neighbour" into "Neighbour".
"A certain man
went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves." Jerusalem is
the city of peace with God. Jericho was the city of curse and destruction
(Joshua 6: 26, 24), and there is hardly a more downhill road in all the world.
Here, then, is a picture of the human race in its natural state. The evil work
of the thieves shows each man as a prey to his own personal sins as well as his
inherited condition. As this wayfarer was "stripped of his raiment,
wounded and half dead", so each sinner, whilst not yet dead, is in a dying
and utterly hopeless condition. He can do nothing to help himself. His own robe
of "righteousness" is torn from him. He is naked and helpless. The
sacrificial and the moral law represented by priest and Levite only served to
emphasize the hopelessness of his case. If they could not help him, who could?
They also were going downhill. "By the works of the Law shall no flesh be
justified... By the Law is the knowledge of sin."
But then came one
who was despised and rejected of men— it does not say he was going
downhill!—and this man "came where he was". This unexpected saviour
identified himself with the stricken man as closely as possible—Jesus shared
the very nature of those he came to redeem. Contrast the priest and Levite
"on the other side"—the Old Testament doctrine of holiness put a wide
separation between God and the worshipper.
This saviour, moved
with compassion (for "God so loved the world") bound up his wounds,
pouring in oil and wine. Here the gracious ministry of Jesus is clearly shown.
The Samaritan would not travel equipped with bandaging. What wrapping for those
wounds and that naked body except his own garments?
Then "he set
him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn". Thus, without any effort
on his part, the wretched castaway found himself where normally his saviour
would have been. Thus the sinner becomes identified with his saviour (the
figure of baptism?), and he is brought to a resting place where he is cared
for. "In my Father's house", said Jesus, "are many abiding
places." There he "took care of him"—it is a picture of the
continuing care of repentant sinners by their Saviour.
"On the morrow,
when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host." This
"two pence" is the exact equivalent of the half-shekel of the sanctuary
(Exod. 30: 15) which was to be paid, under the Law, by all whether rich or
poor, "to make an atonement for your souls". Is it accident then that
this particular sum of money found its way into the parable? Jesus might just
as easily have said "one penny" or "three pence". How
remarkable that he did not! /
And is it accident
that this was "on the morrow" (and not "the same day" or
"two days later"? For this implies that the Samaritan slept and rose
again before he went away—the Saviour was "raised again for our
justification". Could details be more apt than these? But there is more
behind.
"Take care of
him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when 1 come again 1 will repay
thee." Here is the promise of a return, and also a guarantee that
everything needful for the man's restoration will be fully provided. The
sacrifice of Christ is all-sufficient, not only to cover sins done aforetime
but also those which call for the exercise of divine grace in the days to come.
And now comes one of
the most subtle, and certainly one of the most lovely, touches of all.
Jesus had said:
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God... and thy neighbour..."
"But who is my
neighbour?"
For answer there
followed the parable, ending with:
"Which now...
was neighbour to him that fell among thieves?"
"He that showed
mercy on him." The Samaritan, representing Jesus, was
"neighbour" to the wayfarer, representing the sinner. The parable is
usually carelessly misread the other way round—that the sinner was
"neighbour" to the Samaritan, and therefore the Samaritan loved him.
But again it can
hardly be accident that Jesus phrased it the reverse way. The wayfarer is
bidden love his "neighbour", the Samaritan. The sinner is bidden love
his Saviour Jesus. Is there any other commandment big enough to stand
alongside: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God"? And if a man loves
Jesus as he should, will he not honour his Saviour by loving his fellow men
also, even as he did?
It is tempting to
spend a good deal longer on this section, especially with a view to
anticipating and removing some of the difficulties which you are sure to
encounter in your attempts on some of the less straightforward parables. But it
is time to move on, for this little book is intended to show you what to
attempt, and not to do it for you.
It has often been
observed that in John's gospel the miracles of Jesus are always referred to as
"signs". Then what was their significance? Again the question faces
you—one main idea? Or are these miracles acted parables to be interpreted in detail?
It is difficult to give a clear-cut answer to this question, but certainly some
of these signs are significant all the way.
The miracle of the
feeding of the five thousand, given in all four gospels, is quite remarkable in
this respect. Consider the sequence of episodes associated with it as a picture
of the work of Christ.
He separated his
disciples from the world by water, taking them to the other side of Gennesaret.
There in the wilderness they were joined by a great multitude. He taught them
and then miraculously fed them with Bread of Life. It was a Passover meal
ministered to them by the Apostles. Twelve baskets of fragments were carefully
gathered up. Then came the night during which Jesus was in a high mountain,
praying. In the meantime his disciples were storm-tossed on the water and in
spite of every effort were making no progress. Then, when day was about to
break, Jesus came to them walking on the water. As soon as he joined them, the
storm ceased, "and immediately the ship was at the land whither they
went". The people recognized him at once, and they brought the sick to him
from "villages, and cities, and country", and he healed them.
Assuredly the
feeding of the five thousand, and everything associated with it, was a
"sign". No other book ever written has features of this sort.
The same approach to
the other "signs" in John is not without its difficulties, but you
should have a stimulating time with the healing of the blind man, the changing
of the water into wine, the healing of the sick man at Bethesda, and perhaps
also the miraculous draught of fishes. But do not stop there. In the other
gospels many another miracle of Jesus almost asks to be regarded as a parable.
There is a big field here wide open to you. As yet very little work has been done
in it.
18. A SERIOUS KIND OF JOKE
Pun: 1. noun. The
humorous use of a word to suggest different meanings.
2. verb. To
consolidate by pounding or ramming.
Shorter Oxford
Dictionary.
In modern times the
pun as a form of wit is somewhat under a cloud. The double entendre — especially the shady one — reigns in its
stead. Yet in the Bible the pun, especially in the form of a play on the
meaning of a name, is to be found everywhere. Those without acquaintance with the
original tongues can often trace them by a careful use of Young’s Concordance.
Isaiah's prophecy especially is a great quarry for them, but indeed these puns
(Greek, paranomasia) are liable to turn up almost anywhere.
Everyone is familiar
with the Lord's pointed allusion to the meaning of Peter's name: "But 1
say unto thee, that thou art Petros (masculine, a little stone), and upon this petra
(feminine, solid rock) 1 will build my church" (Matt. 16: 18). That Petros
means "a little stone", and not the kind of foundation stone the Roman
Catholic Church claims it to mean, is proved by Matt. 16: 23 (a
stumbling-stone), by Amos 9: 9 (margin), to which Jesus was alluding in Luke
22: 31, and by Isaiah 44: 8, R.V.
Abigail saved David
from violent action, which he would afterwards have repented of, by means of a
pun: "Nabal (fool) is his name, and folly is with him" (1 Sam. 25:
25).
Similarly by a play
on the meaning of the name Paul persuaded Philemon (he surely did!) to receive
back Onesimus, the runaway slave, without wrath: "which in time past was to
thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me" (Philemon 11).
Onesimus means "profitable"; but in this instance there was no actual
pun — Paul switched to another word. (euchrestos, “useful” perhaps to show the
difference between commercial profit and God’s use). But there is something
very much like Onesimus it in “let me have joy in the Lord” in verse 20.
(onaimen)
Nearly all Jacob's
sons were named in a punning way and the birth of John the Baptist became the
occasion of a triple allusion to the names of the family: "To perform the
mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; the oath
which he sware to our father Abraham" (Luke 1: 72, 73). John means
"the gift or grace or mercy of Jehovah"; and Zacharias means
"Jehovah hath remembered"; and Elisabeth is "My God hath sworn
with an oath".
How similar in
spirit is Isaiah's exultant prophecy of the restoration of Zion under the
figure of a marriage (it is the marriage of Hezekiah to a Gentile wife which is
the basis of the figure): "But thou shalt be called Hephzibah (the name of
Hezekiah's wife; 2 Kings 21: 1), and thy land Beulah (married)"; (Isa. 62:
4). But it remains an interesting problem for the experts to cope with why the
names of Hezekiah and Hephzibah come side by side in the Hebrew text embedded
in the heart of a prophecy about Cyrus! (Isaiah 44: 28 and 45 = 0-
Similarly there is a
hidden play on the name Levite (one joined—to the Lord) in Isa. 56: 3. And in
52: 5: "Make them to howl" is a shattering parody of Hallelujah in
the original text. There is not a page of Isaiah without instances of prophetic
paranomasia.
Paul was great at it
too. "For 1 am the least of the apostles", he wrote, juggling with
his own name, a word meaning "the wee one". In Phil. 2: 30 he did the
same with the name Epaphroditus, named after Aphrodite, the gambler's goddess
of good luck: "He came nigh unto death, gambling his life, to supply your
lack of service toward me." And in Rom. 2: 29 he rounded off the first
section of his argument with an easily recognized play on the meaning of Judah,
"Praised": "He is a Jew... whose praise is not of men, but of
God."
It is possible to
swing from one extreme of being all unaware of the existence of these Bible
puns to the opposite extreme of being positively obsessed with them. Some
expositors, including one or two famous names, have fallen into this trap.
For example:
"Jeremiah, what
seest thou?" "I see a rod of an almond tree (Heb: SHAKED)."
"Thou has well
seen: for I will hasten (Heb: SHOKED) my word to perform it" (Jer. 1: 11,
12).
The expositor who
draws attention to this double use of the same Hebrew root may think that he
has explained the passage, but indeed he has not. God did not talk to His
prophets in paranomasia of this kind just for the cleverness of it. There is
more behind, as a glance at Numbers chapter 17 speedily reveals.
Similarly, in Amos
8:1,2:
"Amos, what
seest thou?" "A basket of summer fruit (Heb: qayitz)."
"The end (Heb:
qetz) is come upon my people of Israel."
If this is a pun then
it is a rather feeble pun, but not so feeble as the exposition which draws
attention to the fact and then thinks it has done its job. Once again, if there
were no Law of Moses to help the student on his way, his understanding of this
vigorous symbolism would be completely hamstrung.
The interplay
between a Hebrew name and its meaning, already illustrated earlier, is
traceable in many an unsuspected place. The Book of Genesis has five separate
incidents where there is meaningful allusion to the name of Isaac, as Young's
Concordance speedily reveals under its headings tsechoq, tsachaq, but because
of the over-simplified transliteration of the name Yitschoq (Isaac) it is easy
to miss these. There are also as many instances of play on the name Ishmael.
In Micah 1 the doom
pronounced by the prophet against cities of Judah loses much of its force in
the Authorized Version. Moffat is invaluable here in showing how the lightning
of the prophet's judgment crackles to illuminate the theme: "according to
your name be it unto you."
Again, how much more
force is imparted to a simple statement like: "Lot lifted up his eyes, and
beheld (Sodom)... as the garden of the Lord" (Gen. 13: 10), when it is
realized that Lot means "born with a veil". What a difference it makes
to the reading of such verses as Psa. 107: 35, 36 and Isaiah 41: 18 and 53: 2
and 25: 5, 6 and 32: 2 to know that "Zion" means "dry". And
would not Daniel find a deep reassuring satisfaction in associating the meaning
of his own name with the very last thing that God said to him?
19. A BOOK AT A TIME
“Nothing which a
Harmony will ever bring to light can compensate for the neglect of what the
Gospels severally teach.”
“Suffer the Bible to
be its own interpreter. Let men for a while be content to read and to wonder...
Then, indeed, a judicious commentator will be of real use. At present, he would
only perplex and mislead.” JOHN WILLIAM BURGON.
Over and above
day-to-day Bible reading, any student of Scripture worth his salt will keep
going a systematic study of some book of the Bible, to which—most days—some
time will be given, if it be only a quarter of an hour. There is no better way
of becoming really familiar with the Bible.
Many ecclesial Bible
Classes make this kind of thing the staple diet of their sessions—an excellent
feature, which should always command your own support. But alas, what diversity
there is to be seen in the methods adopted!
To choose a textbook
or commentary on a given book of Scripture and then devote a long session to
the wearisome reading from these volumes is a prodigal waste of God-given
opportunities. Such are not Bible Glasses at all but Eureka classes, Robert
Roberts' Law of Moses classes, John Carter's Gospel of John classes.
Let there be no
misunderstanding here. The man who says that the books just mentioned, and
other such, are profitless is a fool. But this is not the same as studying the
text of Holy Scripture itself. With the experience behind him of several years
of classes of this particular character, the present writer has no hesitation
whatever in saying that the same amount of time given to the direct study of
the text of The Book itself will result in much greater profit. Even if the
harvest of ideas is not so great, the sustained attention to the very words of
Scripture, as distinct from what has been written about it, will gradually
develop a grasp and insight which thenceforward are part of one's personal
equipment. In course of time this is bound to mean greater efficiency in
handling the Word. Let it not be forgotten that your ambition as a Bible
student should not rest content with familiarizing yourself with what others
have achieved in this field. You must become so equipped personally that at
least as much can be accomplished through your own efforts. In this field
personal achievement far outweighs in value what others might do for you
Again, it has to be
emphasized that the labours of those who have gone before are valuable and
should in no wise be neglected. But they should be conned at home, and the
fruits of such reading brought to the class for the benefit of the rest. This,
and nothing higher than this, is the proper function of our standard textbooks.
The Bible, and the Bible only, must be the authority at all our meetings.
Again, whilst on
this theme, when your Bible Class is studying a book of the Bible—or any other
topic, for that matter, but especially at such times—see that you spend some
time on the allotted portion yourself before leaving home, so that when the
meeting begins there are already certain clear issues in your mind which you
would wish to see resolved before the evening's study is concluded. Or it may
be that you will light on some useful discovery which you will then be able to
contribute to the discussion for the benefit of the rest. The tacit assumption
in most Bible Classes is that the speaker will do—has done—all the work, and
the rest are there to have it imparted to them. It is a thousand pities that
the tradition has not become established that all conscientious members of a
Bible Class will make their own contribution before they even get to it. How
many can compare in this with the example of the enthusiast who over a period
of years prepared for the class as though he were to be the speaker every time
it met?
Some excellent
results have been achieved in some classes by inviting a speaker of special
ability in exposition to make a concentrated study of some book of Scripture
that he might then give the rest the benefit of his researches in a weekly
session right through the winter. Where this is possible, it can do a vast
amount of good. But, again the warning is necessary, it can do untold harm by
encouraging the rest in laziness. The example of parson and congregation in the
churches should be sufficient to emphasize the dangers.
It cannot be too
strongly emphasized that no amount of Bible study by other people can ever
compare in the benefit imparted with what you do for yourself.
It is assumed, then,
that you mean to attempt the study of a book of Scripture, devoting on an
average anything from 15 to 60 minutes a day to it. But which book?
Why is it that young
Christadelphians always want to fly before they can crawl? Why will they insist
on getting bogged down immediately with the complications of Revelation,
why-will they assume so blithely that John's gospel and his first epistle are
well within their grasp just because the words are all monosyllables? What
makes them think that in their early years their digestions can tackle Paul's
Romans and Ephesians, the cream of his maturity? (In the Old Testament, Psalms
and Isaiah and Job assuredly belong to the same category.)
Everybody makes this
mistake. How effective will these paragraphs be in warning others away from it?
One's own early-ambitions in Bible study followed the same pattern - first,
three years of a Eureka class, then followed personal onslaughts, mostly
ineffective, on Zechariah, Leviticus, the Psalms, and thence to rewarding years
on the Four Gospels.
Far better to start
on books which are mostly narrative. Here the same degree of concentration on
detail and argument is not called for, and the story helps to carry you on.
Also, choose short books of the Bible to begin with. Ruth, Jonah,
Thessalonians, Timothy are good choices. And be sure to come to Genesis,
Exodus, the Gospels and Acts fairly early on.
And how best to go
about it?
First, assemble
together by the most honest means at your disposal half a dozen good
commentaries and books of reference dealing with the subject of your choice.
Take care to leave all of these unopened until you have concluded your own
detailed laborious combing through the first chapter, at least.
Certainly do not
spend much time reading through turgid "Introductions" designed to
fix your main ideas about the book before you have studied it for yourself. And
in so far as they are intended to supply "background" information,
they are mostly useless. If you are not already fairly familiar with the text
of the book selected, read it through once at a sitting before you start in on
chapter 1.
As already
recommended, leave the commentaries severely alone until you have tried your
hand at the first chapter untrammelled by other people's wisdom. When you have
struggled alone for an hour or two you will be in a better position to
appreciate how little many of these commentators themselves know.
There is a much
greater reason for this recommendation. Experience shows that if you go to the
books first to see what they have to offer, your own powers of analysis of and
reasoning about the text are thereby frozen—you will not have an original
thought of any sort in your head; you are already in a strait-jacket of other
people's ideas; you have put on their spectacles and can only see what they
want you to see.
So get to work on
the text for yourself, without any adventitious aids other than marginal
references and a good concordance. Go through every verse, as with a
small-tooth comb. Every unusual word, every remarkable phrase, every link with
the context, every echo of some other similar passage must set you thinking and
asking questions and investigating. Use any and every method of approach which
you have found applied in this volume, but especially that of asking a question
about every detail.
Suppose, for
example, you are going to work on Ruth chapter 1. The first five verses are
enough for your first bite. Here are a dozen questions of the sort which should
spring to your mind in as many minutes as you patiently read them through four
or five times at least:
(1) Why does the
book begin with "and" (R.V.)?
(2) "When the
judges ruled." Where in the four
hundred years does the Book of Ruth fall?
(3)
"Famine." What would be the
cause of it? And is there any connection with the meaning of Bethlehem?
(4) Why
Bethlehem-Judah? Did any other place in
Judah carry this suffix?
(5) Why did they
emigrate to Moab and not to Egypt, the granary of the ancient world?
(6) And how is one
to square this move to Moab with the oppression by Moab (Judges 3:12)?
(7) Are there any
other instances of taking refuge in Moab?
(8) Did Elimelech do
the right thing in going to Moab? And if not, what should he have done?
(9) What are the
meanings of the names in this paragraph?
(10) Why are they
called Ephrathites? (It will be surprising here if your concordance does not
land you in some remarkable and complicated researches in 1 Chronicles.)
(11) Should these
Israelite boys have married out of their race? What alternative? What religion
would these wives follow?—any details accessible?
(12) Ten years
married, and no children. Marriage to Boaz (an old man—can you prove it?)
immediately fruitful. Comment?
When you have sorted
out your own conclusions about all such points of interest as these—or have had
the grace to say: "I can't make sense of that" or "There ought
to be a more convincing explanation than this which 1 have found" or
"I just don't know what this means", then—and not until then— turn to
your commentaries and see what they have to offer. You will find that for the
most part they carefully ignore the points on which you need their help, but
spend lots of time and space on matters of no conceivable use to anybody.
Nevertheless, here and there you will find something useful. But increasingly,
as you become more experienced, you will find that the best function of a
commentary is to provoke further investigation on lines which you would
otherwise not have considered. Probably your conclusions will be vastly
different from those of the commentator, but you have to thank him for setting
you off in the right direction.
It will be a strange
thing indeed if your researches do not also set you talking about various
points of interest which have arisen in the course of your researches. There is
no need to put the brake on such an inclination. Talking about things usually
tidies up your ideas and often helps further development of them. And the fresh
point of view, and maybe criticisms, which others bring to bear will show up
any weaknesses. Especially is it true that the unsolved problem often solves
itself in the very process of re-stating it to somebody else. Then, too, there
is a fair probability that when you talk about your Bible study your enthusiasm
will be infectious. And the more people you can infect the better. So by all
means let your Bible study overflow into your conversation.
20 "LET THEM
ALONE: THEY BE BLIND LEADERS OF THE BLIND"
“I find in the
scripture, that they which walk in their carnal birth, after the manner of the
children of Adam, cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2).
WILLIAM TYNDALE.
“The Bible does not
yield its treasures to its critics.” JOHN CARTER.
This chapter is not
a long one, but it is important. Please
read it with care.
You will have
noticed, doubtless, the many resemblances and parallels which exist between the
Bible, the Word of God, and Jesus, the WORD of God. No doubt Jesus is
frequently referred to in the New Testament by this title because he was and is
the fullest revelation of the Father's character and purpose, His will and
instruction, that it is possible for mortal men to receive (John 1: 1, 1 John 1:1, Rev. 19: 13; but also Luke 1: 2 (The
R.V. removes the second comma here—correctly, according to the shape of the
Greek sentence), Acts 10: 36 (?) and 20: 32 (?), Heb.4:12 (where the context strictly requires
reference to Jesus), James 1: 18; 1 Peter 1: 23, 25; Col. 1: 25-27(?), Rev. 6:
9).
This similarity
between the written Word and the living Word is doubtless designed—or should
one say inevitable?
As Jesus was both
human and divine in his origin (two parents), so also is the Book that tells
about him. The Bible became in course of time many books in one; Jesus also is
Many in One. Compare the pomegranate on the hem of the robe of the High
Priest—many seeds in one seed. Compare also the designed ambiguity about “the Seed”
(singular or plural) in the Promises to Abraham. The Bible is the Book of
Books, as Jesus is the Man and is destined to be King of kings.
To a mere
superficial judgment, both the written Word and the living Word have appeared
outwardly unattractive. And both have received the same indifferent or hostile
reception from men. Yet efforts to destroy the one and the other have utterly
failed.
The Bible exposes a
man's thoughts and motives, his character and aspirations, as nothing else can.
Jesus likewise "knew what was in man", he could read a man's
character and a man's need at a glance.
The Book is the
power of God unto salvation; it "effectually worketh in you that
believe". That same power of Christ is alive in every man who is his.
The written Word is
a judge of all human actions; it provides an imperishable standard by which to
assess all human behaviour. And the word that Jesus spoke shall judge a man in
the last day, when he is Judge of all.
Such things as these
are evident as soon as they are mentioned, and from them an extremely important
conclusion follows.
Would you dream of
coming to any of the sayings or actions of Jesus critically? Would you
interpret his cursing of the fig-tree or his withering denunciation of the
Pharisees as outbursts of temper? Would you construe his hiding from his
enemies or his tears in Gethsemane as tokens of cowardice? Would you deem him
inconsiderate or unkind in his austere answer to the man who said: "Suffer
me first to go and bury my father"?
Then ought you not
to hesitate a long time before you adopt such an attitude towards the written
word of God?
Yet criticism of the
Bible is commonplace today. Even youngsters still desperately trying to achieve
a few O-level passes in their school examinations are encouraged to read this
greatest masterpiece of the ages (putting the Bible now at its lowest level)
with a superior condescending attitude, as though they can consider themselves
superior to the unscientific ignorance of men of God and can afford to be
patronizingly discriminating about a Book which has nurtured the highest ideals
of many a generation.
And yet there is
something marvellously plausible about modernism's approach to the Bible. By a
convenient ignoring of inconvenient facts it is possible to displace the Bible
from its rightful position as the supreme authority upon earth to that of a
collection of ancient writings where one may choose the good and refuse the
not-so-good, according to personal taste and judgment. The moral consequences
of this turning away from the Bible's claims to authority are more evident
every year in a civilization which now knows itself to be on a desperately
slippery slope.
Then for your own
sake, and for Christ's sake, keep as far away from modern criticism of the
Bible as possible. There will be times when it will thrust itself upon your
attention, and when it does on no account should you shrug it off, for you are
called to "anoint your eyes with eye-salve" (Rev.3:18), not bury your
head in the sand. At such times, face the issues squarely, but always with the
attitude: "I know 1 have the best of reasons for depending on the Bible,
so 1 owe it the benefit of the doubt until the case against it is completely
established." Such a frame of mind is only reasonable. You do not throw
overboard your best friend just because someone whom you are not too sure about
breathes a word of criticism against his character. And when the need arises,
the Bible will vindicate itself in ample fashion.
In your earlier
years, then, until your grasp of the Bible is reasonably comprehensive, hold
modern criticism at arm's length. It is more dangerous than open atheism.
Especially should you avoid books which are written with that approach.
Some years ago, a
conference of young Christadelphians spent several sessions on a certain Bible
study and were issued with duplicated notes to help them continue the good work
at home. Excellent! But not so excellent was the recommended bibliography to
guide their further reading, for it included at least one book which could have
had a disastrous effect. Protest and reproach to the one whose oversight had
led to this recommendation became an obvious duty. But that did not recall the
injudicious advice. One was left hoping that not many took notice of this
unfortunate guidance.
It would be a pity
if this chapter were to leave readers with the impression that they are to shut
themselves up behind convent walls, and stubbornly refuse entry to any
thoroughgoing honest attempt to grapple with the main problems which fuller
knowledge of the Bible involves. The plea is rather for a postponement of a
consideration of any critical approach to the Bible until you are better
equipped to assess its value. Had the present writer read the book just
mentioned when he was twenty, the probability is that his faith in the Bible
would have died or at least would have carried a scar for the rest of his life.
Today he can read the book with profit (and sometimes with amusement), picking
and choosing between what is worthwhile and what is shoddy.
Indeed, the
modernists can be turned into valuable allies in one's own Bible study in a
rather unexpected fashion. Some of the modern commentators have sieved and
analyzed the text of prophets and apostles with an attention to the minutest
detail such as often shames those who believe these inspired writers more than
they do. And by "virtue" of their particular approach, these men have
turned up many difficulties and problems which the non-specialist Bible
believer often fails to notice. Such things are promptly catalogued by them as
evidences of late date or composite or pseudonymous authorship. Ton, with your
confidence in the Bible as the Word of God, know that such conclusions must be
wrong. Is there another explanation? And of course there is, though very often
a great deal of minute investigation is necessary before the thing is cleared
up.
Experience shows
that very frequently an encounter with a Bible difficulty is only the prelude
to a stimulating discovery and a better appreciation of the Book. In your later
days the critics can be invaluable in this respect. They will supply you with
problems galore. As you discover the answers you will thank God that even those
who criticize His Word can be turned to His glory.
One last point about
modernism. It is almost universal experience that when a man becomes a convert
to modernism, he ceases to convert others to Christ. The very will to convert
dries up within him. This has been observed in individuals and in communities
over and over again.
List the outstanding
preachers of the gospel in your own personal experience. Not one of them has
any manner of sympathy with Biblical criticism.
At the universities
the Student Christian Movement, sympathetic to the modern critical approach to
the Bible, has little interest in evangelism as such. The Inter-Varsity
Fellowship, fundamentalist, is vigorous in that field.
In overseas missions
the same distinction does not have to be sought. Missionaries with modernist
views are rare, and the missionary zeal of such few as there are is not exactly
exuberant. It is the whole-hearted Bible believer who has the will to convert
and the power to do it.
When Jesus said:
"Ye shall know them by their fruits", he was talking about preaching
and conversion. Look at the context and see for yourself. And then learn the
lesson with regard to modernism.
21 IT ALL DEPENDS ON YOUR FRAME OF MIND
“As the student
pursues his course of continuous reading he will light upon thousands of
incidental harmonies, analogies, allegories and signs, directing him in the way
of life, and adding continually to a mental store already large enough for his
needs.” ISLIP COLLYER.
“It is not at all
incredible that a book which has been so long in the possession of mankind
should contain many truths as yet undiscovered?” BISHOP BUTLER.
So far this little
book has dealt almost exclusively with what might be called the technique of
Bible study—the various methods by which an accurate understanding can be built
up. Yet, be your application to the Bible never so systematic and painstaking,
it may fail in achievement if certain other factors are not present, and these
have to do with your attitude of mind more than the methods you adopt or the
books you refer to.
The first of these
is an intense conviction that the Bible is a limitless mine of treasure. There
can be no end to the possibilities of instruction to be got from it.
Yet the assumption
is often made that the stalwarts in our earlier generations have already
discovered all that is of value, and that therefore it simply remains for us in
later days to sit at their feet and absorb what they can teach. Such an
approach, so much akin to the sterile traditional Jewish method of quoting the
opinion of Rabbi So-and-So and the learned Somebody Else, can hardly be too severely
censured.
This is no
derogation of the value of their work. Indeed, were they here among us again,
and able to read this sentiment they would doubtless applaud it vigorously, for
they themselves worked with the tacit assumption that their search for Bible truth
would be increasingly rewarded. This generation has inherited from them a
corpus of First Principles of Bible doctrine which none can question—it is all
too firmly and solidly planted on an unshakeable foundation, the over-all
teaching of the Scriptures. Such things, which made up the main part of the
life work of Dr. John Thomas, constitute the ordinary stock-in-trade of young
Christadelphians by the time the age of twenty-five has been reached (in many
cases, a good deal earlier). Shame on those for whom this is not true.
The value of this
"flying start", a high Christian privilege, is rarely appreciated as
it should be. For it means, in effect, that by that age you already have had
laid for you the foundation which the early brethren, and John Thomas
especially, had only succeeded in laboriously constructing for themselves by
the time they had reached middle-life. It is then a matter of simple
commonsense that you should be able to go further than they. When you stand on
other men's shoulders, you can reasonably expect to see further than they.
But it is also well
to remind yourself that any discoveries in Scripture which are made beyond what
your forefathers achieved will harmonize with those already made. The Bible
does not contradict itself; and since the principles which form the foundation
of your baptismal faith are so solidly established, it must be that additional
discoveries will harmonize with them. In fact, this provides a plumb-line, easy
and simple to use, by which to test the quality of anything you may find for
yourself. If there seems to be conflict with some foundation principle already
learned, then look again—analyse and check the details afresh, scrutinize with
great care every step in reasoning, until either your new discovery finds its
place harmoniously alongside the rest or discordantly in the waste-paper
basket.
With guiding
principles such as these, there is no reason why you should not reach out
beyond your already well-established boundaries of Bible understanding.
But it would be a
mistake to assume that this must mean spending your time and effort in the more
enigmatical parts of Scripture such as the book of Job, the prophecies of
Ezekiel, the complexities of Revelation. When Jesus, unrecognised, walked to
Emmaus with two of his disciples, "beginning from Moses and from all the
prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning
himself". But Moses and the prophets from which Jesus began covers all the
Scriptures known in those days (Luke 16: 29, 31; Acts 26: 22 and 28: 23). The
words, then, seem to imply that first Jesus made a rapid survey, quickly
touching on the more obvious places where scarcely any explanation was called
for, and that then he began again, explaining more fully in the places where
detailed exposition was called for.
The effect of all
this was: "Did not our heart burn within us... while he opened to us the
scriptures?" (In Acts 17: 3 the second Greek verb probably means
"setting side by side" of prophecies and the facts fulfilling the
prophecies).
Doubtless many of
the Old Testament passages which Jesus alluded to were already well known to
those two wayfarers. As he began to quote, they would be able to finish the
quotation. Yet only now for the first time in their lives was the veil
withdrawn and they saw the truth which had been there all the time. The fog had
been in their minds, not in the Scripture.
All students of the
Word of God have this Emmaus experience. With some it happens often. Therefore,
never assume that you have fully understood any passage in the Bible, no matter
how familiar you may be with it, no matter how much time you have spent poring
over it, no matter how profound the teaching you have already found in it.
There may still be further instruction awaiting you there.
Take three simple
examples of single verses which you already know and understand.
The curse on the
serpent in Eden included also a promise of a Redeemer: "And 1 will put
enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed, and her seed; it shall
bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Genesis 3: 15). You
already understand, doubtless, that here is a prophecy of the conflict between
Jesus the Seed of the Woman, and the serpent power of Sin. The bruise in the
heel symbolizes what Jesus suffered and recovered from in the course of the
fight. The blow in the head indicates the utter destruction of the power of Sin
in the world. All this you know. Yet is it possible that there is more than
this?
The verse has three
pairs of balanced phrases
(1) Thee (the
serpent) The Woman
(2) Thy seed Her
Seed
(3) Thy head bruised
by her Seed
(4) The heel of her
Seed bruised by the Serpent
Another scrutiny
reveals that they are not really balanced phrases. The third and fourth are out
of balance. On the basis of the first two one would expect:
The head of thy seed
(serpent's seed) shall be bruised by the Seed of the Woman;
and
Thy seed (the seed
of the serpent) shalt bruise the Seed of the Woman in the heel.
Why, then, does the
second half of the verse not follow the pattern of the first half? The answer
is surely this: It was necessary to indicate the victory of Christ not only in
himself and in his own time but in all generations right from Adam. In other
words the merits of the sacrifice of Jesus are efficacious to cover all sin
from the very beginning. He bruised not only the seed of the serpent, but he
utterly vanquished the Serpent itself.
This same truth
concerning the power of Christ's sacrifice to cover "sins done aforetime", a truth so vitally important to Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob and all who died in faith before the appearing of Christ, is
emphasized also in the New Testament: Rom. 3: 25, Heb. 9:15. And here, surely,
is the explanation of the mystery of the resurrection along with Jesus of
disciples who had died during his ministry (Matt. 27: 52, 53). This marvellous
happening was needful to emphasize the all-embracing timeless scope of the
Lord's work of sacrifice as being not only prospective as far even as this
generation, but retrospective also, as far back as to Adam. That it was done by
means of such a prodigious miracle is a measure of the importance of the
principle involved.
Here is yet another
illustration of this need for an unflagging assumption that even the most
familiar Scripture may have more instruction to impart: "There shall come
forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse..." (Isai. 11:1). How many pause to
ask why in this majestic prophecy Messiah, the Son of David, should be referred
to as "out of the stem of Jesse"?—Jesse, about whom nothing is known
except that he was the father of David. So many of the Messianic prophecies
speak of the coming King as Son of David. Then why not "out of the stem of
David"? Kay, the prince of Victorian commentators, put his finger on the answer:
"Out of the (hewn down) stock of Jesse indicates that Messiah was to come
at a time when the once ennobled line of David had sunk to the level of common
life. The royal house of Zion had fallen back upon the family domain in
Bethlehem." (Hence also Micah 5: 2, where the same truth is implied.) This
was true of Jesus in his first advent—the Davidic line existed, but without
royalty; and at his coming again there will be no royal line established in
Jerusalem, even though there be a state of Israel in existence. His kingship
will be as much a new beginning as was the exaltation of David, son of Jesse.
Yet another familiar
prophecy where the overtones can be all too easily missed: "The LORD said
unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until 1 make thine enemies thy
footstool" (Psa. 110:1).
It is a Psalm of
David, in spite of what the critics may say, because Jesus said so, and David
is the prototype. Only once is David himself described as sitting in the
presence of Jehovah, and that was when he went into the sanctuary to offer
prayer and praise for the great Promise which had just been made to him through
the prophet Nathan (2 Sam. 7: 18). Now he writes of one greater than himself
sitting at God's right hand— for what purpose if it be not for prayer, like
David his forefather? No wonder, then, that the psalm goes on to describe this
Davidic Messiah as also "A priest after the order of Melchizedek", a
king-designate praying for his people.
There can never be
an end to this kind of searching. The most familiar passages are liable to take
on an altogether fresh appearance at any moment. So on the occasions when an
almost too familiar Scripture—Gen. 3; Psa. 72; Acts i;
2 Peter 3; 2 Tim. 3—is being read in the course of a Sunday evening meeting,
this should in no wise be taken as a gratuitous opportunity for mind-wandering,
but rather as a challenge to discover, in readings with which you are
over-familiar, some new thought or instruction. It can happen more often than
you think.
But this experience
of unfolding truth comes to those who hunger and thirst for it. "In the
sweat of thy face shall thou eat bread"—but first there must be sweat.
"Much food is in the tillage of the poor"—but there must be tillage.
"The statutes of the Lord... are sweeter than honey and the honey
comb"— but there must be a palate that can properly appreciate such a
delicacy.
So be alert for any
signs in yourself of boredom or weariness. When the disciples shared out the
bread at the feeding of the multitude, the more they distributed, the more it
multiplied. The widow's cruse of oil kept on pouring as long as there was a
vessel to receive it. Jesus discoursed to Mary because it was she who sat at
his feet. With the best intentions in the world and a sense of service that was
wholly praiseworthy Martha could not lay on for him as good a meal as Mary did,
for the eagerness with which Mary received his word imparted a stimulus to
Jesus which, one may be sure, far outlasted the benefits of Martha's kitchen.
And what Mary received that day was hers for ever.
Is it not
appropriate, then, at this point to remind readers of a simple and extremely
worthwhile device by which iron may sharpen iron?
During the drab days
of the Second World War there were often held in the Midlands of England what,
for want of a better term, might be called Bible parties. Ten or fifteen Bible
students would foregather at the home of one of them. The programme could
hardly be less elaborate. Each brother was expected to come prepared to talk
for (say) three to ten minutes about his latest enthusiasm in Scripture, the
most recent product of his Bible study (it was, of course, tacitly assumed that
each of the brethren was addicted to real Bible study and would have some
treasure to display). It was all done in most informal style. After each
contribution there would be a few minutes for discussion and questions. Then on
to the next. In those sombre days of tight rationing there often had to be a
pooling of resources out of the kitchen as well as the study, so that the
gatherings might also be cheered by the sharing of another sort of food. But
the fellowship at those Bible parties was, first and last, a fellowship in the
truth of the Word.
It seems a great
pity that such wholesome and profitable times came to an end. Will no one make
an effort to get them going again?
22. CHRIST IN ALL
THE BIBLE
“The scriptures
spring out of God, and flow unto Christ, and were given to lead us to Christ,
Thou must therefore go along by the scripture as by a line, until thou come at
Christ, which is the way's end and resting place.” WILLIAM TYNDALE.
Whatever part of the
Bible your reading takes you to, one of your foremost preoccupations must be a
constant look-out for two people—Jesus Christ and yourself. This chapter is
primarily about the former, and although as chapters go it will be reasonably
short, it could with little trouble be filled out to the size of a very large
volume.
There can be no
doubt at all that the work of Jesus, in one of its many aspects, is to be read
all through the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament—by direct
prophecy, which cannot possibly apply to any but Jesus; by prophecy which was
occasioned by the circumstances of the prophet's own day; in the form of
"apocalyptic" (to appropriate a bit of modern theological jargon); in
legal enactment or moral principle; in the symbolism of tabernacle and temple,
and in the unique ordinances associated with them; in type and shadow.
"Divers manners", truly; the phrase of Heb. 1:1 is eloquent.
It is necessary
then, first of all, to warn against an approach to the Old Testament on these
lines: There are places in the Bible here and there where Christ is foretold
very clearly (e.g. Psalm 22; Jer. 23; Isai. 9 and 53; Daniel 9), but those are
in a category to themselves; they are about Christ, and the rest is not, but is
about the people and circumstances of the time when the books were written.
Such a point of view
is woefully inadequate. It badly underestimates the place which Christ has had
and does have in the divine programme. If he was "foreordained before the
foundation of the world" and if he has "in all things the
pre-eminence", it is only reasonable to expect that God's purpose in him
will appear in all aspects of the divine handiwork.
In the world of
Nature this is true—for there is no part of Genesis chapter 1 which is not
given some symbolic reference to Jesus in the New Testament. Similarly the acts
of God in the history of Israel, and the revelation imparted through Israel,
can fairly confidently be expected to find their highest meaning when read as
having relevance to the main idea—the redemption of the human race through
Christ, and the glory of God in him.
There are,
admittedly, parts of the Old Testament where you will not be able to maintain
this thesis as fully as you could wish. However, perhaps already this volume
has supplied one or two reasons for believing that Christ as the theme of all
Scripture is somewhat more credible than you originally thought. It is a
wholesome attitude of mind to believe that Holy Scripture contains many
profound teachings which at present you are quite unable to appreciate. Isaac
Newton regarded his own epoch-making discoveries in mathematics and science as
just one or two beautiful pebbles found on the shore of a limitless ocean. The
same humble recognition of one's own limited outlook on the Bible most becomes
the seeker of God's Truth. Better than to say "I have found it" is to
say "Alas, what a lot there must be which 1 haven't found! Lord, open Thou
mine eyes to perceive..."
It is something of
an eye-opener as to the relationship of Christ to the Old Testament to consider
the book of Genesis. The following list may be in the nature of a revelation to
some readers.
Genesis as a
foreshadowing of God's Purpose in Christ:
-
1-3 Adam.
3:15 Promise of the Seed.
4:1-16 Abel and Cain (?)
6 Noah.
7 The Flood.
9:26-27 The Blessing of Noah.(?)
12,13,17,22 The Promise of the Seed to Abraham.
14 Melchizedek.
16 Hagar and Sarah.
18, 19 Destruction of Sodom.
22 Offering of Isaac.
24 Marriage of Isaac (?)
28 Bethel, and the Promise to Jacob.
31 Jacob's return to the Land.
32 Jacob's
wrestling with the angel.
37-45 The story of Joseph.
38 Judah and Tamar.
48 Joseph's two sons.
49 Jacob's prophecies.
For all except those
marked (?) there is definite warrant elsewhere in Scripture for a typical or
prophetic interpretation over and above the ordinary literal meaning.
It is deliberately
left to the reader as an exercise in Bible-searching, using marginal references
and concordance, to find the Messianic interpretations which other Scriptures
supply.
It would be very
surprising if this catalogue were exhaustive. But even as it stands, it is not
a little impressive. One of its remarkable features is this—a big proportion of
these places in Genesis which the Bible itself (mostly the New Testament) uses
with reference to Christ would never have been given that kind of meaning by
modern readers, if the Bible itself had not led the way. From which fact again
it is surely wise to learn how widely different are the best methods of Bible
interpretation from those which come naturally to a twentieth-century reader.
Our modern education and knowledge are not unmixed blessings.
But you may be
saying to yourself: "This kind of argument is hardly fair, for a book has
been deliberately chosen where there are lots of Messianic anticipations. It is
not like this all through the Old Testament." The objection is a
reasonable one. Then instead let two other very unlikely books of the Old
Testament be considered—2 Kings and Jeremiah. These have been selected without
two minutes' prior thought. And before any start is made in examination of
these, it must be admitted that comparatively few Bible readers would deem
either of these books rich in Messianic material.
Christ in 2 Kings
1: 2, 3 These verses
show the fantastic nature of the charge against Jesus in Matt. 10: 25. Baalzebub could only bring a man to death, not to health
(verse 4).
1: 10 Marginal
references take one to Luke 9: 54, 55 and thence to Heb. 12: 29; 2 Thess. 1:9;
whilst 2 Tim. 1: 16, 17 R.V. margin may even be an allusion to this place.
2: 9 Elisha's double
portion is found to express itself in sixteen recorded miracles as against
eight of Elijah's. And since Elijah is a figure of John the Baptist (Matt. 17:
12), who does the greater and less austere Elisha foreshadow? (cp. "that
prophet": John 1: 21); cp. verse 15 with Mark 9:15, after the
Transfiguration.
ch. 3
Suggests Joel 3: 12.
ch. 4 There is surely something typical here. Gehazi goes before
with the rod, but cannot heal. The woman
puts her faith in Elisha himself. When he comes, he stretches himself (and yet
contracts himself) upon the child, adds his intercession, and at his second
coming resurrection takes place. And
again (verse 33-44), there is a dearth in the Land, the wild vine is gathered,
a means of death to many; but the food
is made wholesome by Elisha's meal; then loaves and corn are miraculously
supplied.
ch.5 The Gentile
cleansed and the unworthy servant punished with an outlawing disease (which is
later cured; ch. 8) suggest the grace of God to
Gentiles and Jews. Some of the details are very impressive.
ch. 6:1-7 Another type here probably.
Ch.6:13-23; Compare
Paul's experiences—persecution, the vision of the Glory, blindness, led into
the city, sight restored, food and drink, enmity ceased. Rom. 8: 31 and 12: 20,
21.
Need one go further?
And the reign of Hezekiah (so much maligned through misunderstanding of Isaiah
39: 8) is the prototype upon which the Messianic prophecies of Isaiah and of
many of the Psalms are based.
The details
concerning Hezekiah provide a framework round which much more Messianic detail
can be built;
His birth and glory
foretold.
His re-consecration
of the temple.
His re-institution
of the Passover.
His call to those
afar off to join in the Passover.
His mediation on
behalf of the unclean.
His personal
suffering, as a leper, for the sins of the nation.
His miraculous
"resurrection" on the third day.
His personal
intercession in the Divine presence.
The destruction of
the great Enemy through faith in him.
The great year of
Jubilee.
The restoration of
captive Judah.
The honour paid him
by kings of the earth.
Christ in the
prophecy of Jeremiah:
The mind goes at
once to the great prophecy of the Lord our Righteousness in chapter 23: 1-8,
and the three superb and detailed chapters (31-33) about the New Covenant and
the restoration of Israel, with their appealing pictures of moral regeneration
which disallow for ever Jeremiah's title to the nickname. "The gloomy
prophet".
The ultimate
regathering of the spiritual Jew, the New Covenant in Jesus Christ and the free
forgiveness of sins in him, his abiding Melchizedek priesthood and kingship,
the gracious character of his Kingdom—all of these are set forth in three
winsome chapters which are mostly honoured with neglect. These are already
anticipated in the stirring section: chapter 16: 14-21.
Chapter 25: 15-33
foretells with matchless power and vigour the mighty work of judgment on the
nations in the last days; and this is expanded in chapters 46-51 with details
of God's judgments against individual nations. Doubtless these prophetic dooms
had a good deal of relevance to the times of Jeremiah. But there are
nevertheless indications of further fulfilments yet to come (chapters 48: 47
and 49: 6, 39), whilst chapters 50, 51 —unmatched anywhere for sustained
intensity and unrelieved hostility—supply one figure after another for the grim
picture of the apocalyptic overthrow of Babylon in the day of Messiah's triumph
(Rev. 17, 18).
But besides all
these, which in themselves make Jeremiah one of the most Messianic of the
prophets, there are also numerous other more subtle touches which are only to
be appreciated against a background of detailed knowledge of the gospels.
There is the close
resemblance between the circumstances and personal experiences of Jeremiah and
Jesus; note on this 1: 5, 9 and 11: 18, 19 and 37: 15 and 38: 13, and his
attempts to reform a cynical, grasping priesthood, to cleanse the temple of a
multitude of abuses, and to renew a spirit of true religion in a people filled
with superstitious dependence on formalism.
There are also
clusters of subtle connections between prophet and gospel. For example:
"Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in
your eyes? Behold, even 1 have seen it, saith the
Lord... They have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people, saying, Peace,
peace, when there is no peace... In the time of their visitation, they shall be
cast down... No grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig-tree... Why is not the
health of the daughter of my people recovered?... Oh that my head were waters,
and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that 1 might weep day and night for the
slain of the daughter of my people... Oh ye women, teach your daughters
wailing, and everyone her neighbour lamentation... For death is come up... to
cut off the children from without" (chapters 7:11; 8: u, 12, 13, 22; 9:1,
20, 21; cp. Mark 11: 15-17; Luke 19: 41-44; 20: 10; 23: 38; Mark 5: 26, 41).
From the point of
view now being considered, the Book of Psalms calls for special attention.
Certain of the
Psalms are outstanding in their Messianic anticipations and in the
interpretation which is given to them in the New Testament. Psalms 2, 3, 16, 18,
22, 40, 41, 45, 69, 72, 109, no, 116, 118, 133 come readily to mind as falling
into this category. But what about the rest? Are they to be read as having no
direct association with Christ and his work? Is it that the psalmist, whoever
he was, was sometimes inspired to "look into the future, far as eye could
see", whilst at other times he wrote with concentration on his own
relation to God or about the glory and majesty of Jehovah, without reference to
any particular occasion?
It is a big and
complex subject. Here it is only possible to give a few brief suggestions as
guidance for a profitable approach.
Many of the psalms
were certainly written by David (the psalm titles can generally be accepted as
authentic). A big proportion of the rest belong almost certainly to the reign
of Hezekiah and may have been written by him or by Isaiah (the verbal contacts
between Psalms and Isaiah are often quite astonishing1). It seems not at all
unlikely that the Psalter was completed before the Babylonian Captivity. (This comment
is made with knowledge of, but little esteem for, the arguments for dating some
psalms to the Babylonian Captivity and the time of the Maccabees.)
If this view is
correct, that the psalms mainly cluster round the experiences of David and
Hezekiah, there is seen to be a big additional reason (besides the natural
devoutness of these two kings) why the psalter should be their work: among all
the kings of Judah, these two stand out as quite remarkable types of the
Messiah in the experiences that befell them. Thus many a psalm can be studied
twice over—first, as an expression of the feelings of David or Hezekiah, as the
case may be, in circumstances which are often identifiable; and then as a
prophecy of Messiah foreshadowed by the experience of a royal forefather. Acts
2: 30, 31 ("he seeing this before") strongly suggests that David knew
himself to be rehearsing beforehand in a shadowy way the things that were to
come upon "David my servant", the Messiah.
Psa. 41 provides an
excellent illustration of how this works out. The circumstances which gave
birth to it were, almost certainly, Absalom's rebellion and the traitorous
behaviour of Ahithophel, David's chief counsellor.
Everything in the psalm fits neatly into this framework, especially David's
confession of sin and recognition that these things came upon him in
retribution for his own evil deeds—as they doubtless did; in his "Undesigned Coincidences" Blunt shows the chain of
circumstances linking Absalom's rebellion directly to David's sin with
Bathsheba.
'e.g. read Psalm 104
as his commentary on Isaiah 6: 3 R.V. margin; and Psalm 98 is a mosaic of
phrases characteristic of Isaiah.
But at the Last
Supper Jesus appropriated the words of Psalm 41, and applied them to his own
betrayal by Judas: "Mine own familiar friend, in whom 1 trusted, which did
eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me" (John 13: 18). Again
the details fall neatly into place with the big exception of the awkward verse
4: "Lord, be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for 1 have sinned against
thee." Is this a prophecy of Christ?
The same feature
crops up in other psalms which the New Testament likewise refers to Jesus: Psa.
40: 12; 69: 5; 31: 10. The explanation of this, which has been a stumbling
block to many, is ready to hand in a multitude of scriptures which emphasize
that there can be no disowning of the sin of the community of which one is a
unit. Daniel confessed the sins of Israel as though they were his own. So also
did Nehemiah, Ezra, Jeremiah. No matter how strange this might appear to modern
thinking, it is not to be evaded by Bible believers (Dan. 9: 5-19; Neh. 1: 6,
7; Psa. 106: 6; Joshua 6: 25, 26; 7:1, 24; 22: 20, 18; 24: 6, 7; 1 Chron.
15:13; 21:13; Ezra 9:6; 2 Sam. 21: i; Lev. 4:3; 26:
40; Isai. 59: 8, 9; Jer. 3: 25; 10: 24; Matt. 18: 25; 23: 35, 36; Acts 9:4;
Rom. 5: 12-21).
Hence, then, the
apparent incongruity of Messianic prophecies including confessions of sin. It
is the Bible's emphatic teaching that Jesus truly shared the nature of those
whom he came to save, and that "the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of
us all". And if it be asked why these prophecies should state this truth
in what might be thought to be misleading language, the primary application of
the psalm to David (or Hezekiah, or whoever) supplies the explanation. In the
primary sense of the words, it was the literal personal sin of the psalmist. In
the more important Messianic sense it was the sin which the Christ came to bear
and take away, the sin which was the very reason for his coining into the
world, and to which his own nature was so intimately related.
It is strongly
recommended that as many as possible of the "personal" psalms be
studied in this way, as relevant first to the psalmist's own experiences, and
then—in the light of the historical background thus discerned—with reference to
Jesus. But it is important to keep clear in mind from the outset that, fascinating
though the historical setting of the psalms (and other prophecies) may be, the
thing that really matters is the prophetic meaning concerning Jesus.
It has been well
said that there is another Life of Christ in the Psalms besides the four
gospels. One day some one will take this study really seriously and compile a
Psalmist's Life of Christ. It would be a revealing document, and would
materially add to present knowledge of the days of his flesh, especially of his
own mental struggles about which the gospels say almost nothing, and it would
fill out present understanding and appreciation of his future glory. But this
could only be done by taking all the psalms, and not merely a handful, as
belonging to Christ. Is this a step which the present generation fears to take?
Yet it would prove itself as the work went on.
23. "LORD, IS
IT I?"
“We go to the Bible
to be learners, and learners only. We may not even choose our subject; for we
go to the Bible in order to learn this very thing, viz. what are the subjects
to which Almighty GOD would have us direct our attention.” JOHN WILLIAM BURGON.
“And if these
lessons be not written in thine heart, then is all the scripture shut up as a
kernel in the shell, so that thou mayest read it, and
commune of it, and rehearse all the stories of it, and dispute wittily, and he
a profound sophister, and yet understand not one jot
thereof.” WILLIAM TYNDALE.
In the gospels the
disciples of Jesus do not always show up in a good light, but one of the most
revealing and satisfying glimpses of their collective character is in the
account of the Last Supper. When Jesus began to warn them that he was to be
betrayed by one who sat with him at the table, the first reaction was:
"Lord, is it. I?" Only later did they "look one on another,
doubting of whom he spake". And only after that
did they "begin to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that
should do this thing". It was later still that the question was put to
Jesus point blank: "Lord, who is it?"
So, then, your
second question in any piece of Bible study (after the one considered in the
previous chapter) is: "Lord, is it I?" Or, when you are reading of Judas:
"There, but for the grace of God, go I?" Or, if you are reading of
Paul the dauntless: "There, by the grace of God. go I?"
Everywhere, in all
Bible study, the personal impact of Scripture must be allowed. Indeed, it must
be encouraged, for the human heart does not take kindly to the incisive probings of the Holy Spirit, and will never be reluctant to
erect its own defences against the Bible's efficient soul-searching. "All
Scripture is given by inspiration of God"; but it is all too easy, in the
pursuit of mere knowledge, to miss the most essential aspect of all: "...
and it is profitable for..."
In the staff-room of
a school in Sheffield, the teaching of Scripture by members of the different
departments or faculties was a long-standing joke. The geography man had his
class draw a map of Palestine with physical features and notes on climate. The
English staff required lists of Biblical figures of speech or the re-writing of
the parable of the prodigal son as a three-scene play. A modern languages teacher
put the French version of the Good Samaritan on the blackboard and had it
turned into modern English. The mathematics teacher set about computing the
weight of bread needed for the feeding of the five thousand and how far
Philip's two hundred pence would go, whilst the scientist explained laboriously
that there was really no miracle at all, and then gave a lesson on how
"Mother Nature" does the same thing every year.
Such futility!—and
all in the sacred name of education and culture.
To a less degree the
same danger exists in your own Bible study. You are considering the storm on
Galilee. How will you go about it?
You will doubtless
wish to ascertain whence and where the ship of Jesus was going. You will be
curious, no doubt, about this phenomenon of sudden storms of exceptional
violence on a small inland lake. You may be interested in the three separate
gospel records of this incident as a facet of the Synoptic Problem (the
inter-relation of Matthew, Mark, Luke). In a different direction you will have
a stimulating time exploring the Old Testament connections of this incident.
Getting nearer to the heart of it, you will perhaps give special attention to
the character of the disciples as it is revealed in the details here.
But if you get up
from this study without having asked yourself time and again: "What is the
lesson of faith for me in this incident?" you will have masticated the
rind and thrown the good of the fruit away. When hit by a cyclone in the
vicissitudes of life—and these experiences come to all sooner or later—what is
to be your reaction? Will it be: "Save, Lord, we perish"; or
differently: "Carest thou not that we
perish?" Or yet again: "Jesus is in this ship. Then will God let it
sink?" It is in this kind of approach that the simple gospel story proves
its worth most of all. You may even turn it to account for the benefit of
others by considering that those experienced fishermen might have argued
plausibly: "Jesus does not know this lake as we do, or he would not want
to cast off now. Let us be sensible, and wait until the danger of a storm has
passed. It is not reasonable to ask us to set sail just now." True enough,
if the apostles had refused to sail when Jesus bade them, they would not have
had to endure a very frightening experience, but neither also would they ever
have seen "the works of the Lord, and his wonders in the deep" and
been led to "praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works
to the children of men".
This little incident
is God's answer to your own problem of evil in a nutshell. But not if you study
it as geography or as literature. Always then, and everywhere in the Bible,
take your own personal problems with you.
You will observe
that Jesus sent out his canvassers and preachers in two's. "The Lord's
ideal team for the job", was the gruff practical comment of an experienced
campaigner, "and the Lord's ideal committee, too", he added.
You will pause a
little longer over the familiar words of Jesus about the cup at the Last Supper
being "the new covenant in his blood for the remission of sins", and
will wake up suddenly to the fact that it means your sins, the very things you
have done during these past few days which have been such a cause of shame and
misery to you. And you will go down to your house justified, and with more
comfort to your soul than you would have thought possible.
You will read again,
with a little more imagination than sometimes, the story of the captive maid
daring to tell her mistress that the cure for her master's leprosy lay with a
prophet of a foreign God. And you will ask yourself: Did this wisdom come
tripping from her tongue instinctively because she thought so much about these
things and spoke them unselfconsciously? Or was her word hesitatingly said,
with nervous mien and palpitating heart and only after hours of desperate
attempts to muster the needful courage? And whichever way it was, what sort of
example does she set to me, and what are the comparable circumstances today
when 1 may be in a position to help by a word of advice or of good cheer?
You will patiently
piece together the records of Peter's denials of his Lord, to find that each of
them was itself a vociferous reiteration that Jesus of Nazareth meant nothing
to him. And you will probe for an answer to your mystification as to why Peter
should ever have risked his own life so far, and after the renewed danger
signals and the first cock-crow should still go back again and thrust his head
into the jaws of the lion. You will doubtless take special note that it was the
presence and look of Jesus which changed the entire situation; it was that
which caused Peter to remember too late. And if you have really-entered into
Peter's experience there, you will know that as he went out weeping bitterly,
he castigated his wretched soul with the reproach: "Why did 1 not remember
his word of warning earlier? Then 1 would have been saved all this!" And
then you will realize with a feeling of shame that your own denials of your
Lord have followed exactly the same pattern—a cocksure playing with fire, and
for a plausible enough reason; a gradual change of perspective, with Christ out
of sight, and the world all round you and within; and when you are ashamed of
your own disloyalty and shut up to your own wretchedness and self-contempt, the
thought of the risen Lord's special message to Peter (Mark 16: 7), and his
special appearance to him alone (1 Cor. 15: 5), will give you heart to believe
that one defeat does not make a disaster if only the lesson can be learned. And
that lesson is that the man who faces temptation confident of his own powers is
bound to fail no matter how high his motive, but the one whose confidence is in
the grace of Jesus Christ will rise from his old failures forgiven and
reinvigorated for greater achievement than he would have thought possible.
Once you have
reached the conviction that the men and women who meet you on the pages of
Scripture are the same flesh and blood as yourself, with the same kind of
impulses and ambitions and weaknesses, you will begin to find your own experiences
written beforehand large as life. For. this reason the study of Bible
characters is not only fascinating in itself but a vast accumulation of
examples and warnings set down on the printed page for your benefit.
But take care that
you do not fall into the common error of confusing a catalogue of facts about
king Saul with the developing tragedy of his character. The story of Ruth is
not the same as the character of Ruth. If you are to get real benefit from
records such as these, you will need to read and read again until each separate
episode is as vivid before your mind's eye as if it came to you on television.
You will need to pause and pry into the motive behind every action. Only in
this way will these men and women who sleep in dust come to life for your
lasting benefit. They will enter into your life as your guides, examples and
warnings only in so far as you enter into theirs.
You will find that
you are identifying yourself with the timidity of Timothy, and will then
realize that Paul's admonitions to his son in the faith are his admonitions to
you. You will admire the staunch loyalty of Epaphroditus,
and then wake up to the fact that there has been little to match it in your own
easy-going existence. You will enter into the bewilderment of John, languishing
in prison, as he puzzled over the big disappointment that Jesus of Nazareth,
whom he had proclaimed to the nation as the Lamb of God who should take away
the sin of the world and as the divine Judge burning up the chaff with
unquenchable fire, was showing no sign of fulfilling either of these roles but
instead was become a popular preacher and healer drawing vast crowds from all
parts of the country. And from John's dilemma you will learn patience for your
own affairs when God's sense of the fitness of things does not square with your
own.
You will sympathize
with poor Hosea, tied by divine fiat to a harlot wife whose unfaithfulness left
him with three motherless children and—later on—the unpalatable duty of
redeeming her from promiscuity and a slave market back to the love of a husband
prepared to bury the past. And if it sets you praying God never to test your
faith with hardships of this kind, it will perhaps teach you something more of
divine grace that God was prepared to do all these things for faithless
disloyal Israel.
Hosea himself had
this knack of seeing the application of Scripture to others besides those
actually mentioned in the page of holy writ: "God found him (Jacob) in
Bethel, and there he spake with us" (12: 4).
That pronoun is a plain intimation that Hosea read Genesis 28 as God's word to
himself and his contemporaries—a lesson for the nation about to go into
Assyrian captivity, even as it was for Jacob going forth from home to a hard
life in that same Assyrian land.
This, then, must be
an integral part of the equipment of every Christadelphian in the study of the
Bible—a constant readiness to relate that which he reads to that which he
lives, a faculty for bringing the wisdom, counsel and example of the Word to
bear on the affairs, big and small, of everyday life. The professional
theologian comes to the Bible with a detached, dispassionate and often critical
mind. He is studying a text. For you, "upon whom the revenues of the ages
are come" (1 Cor. 10: 11), such an approach is near to blasphemy. God has
given you this Book not merely to supply information but to mould and fashion
your life to the glory of His Name.
Harry Whittaker,
1965
APPENDICES
A1. BURGON'S
QUESTIONS ON GENESIS 1 (see Ch.1)
(1) On which of His
creatures is it related that God bestowed names?
(2) What about the creation of the waters?
(3) Rehearse in order the works of Creation.
(4) Describe exactly the food assigned to
man.
(5) In what terms is the origin of fowls
described?
(6) Are any of God's
works singled out for special commendation?
(7) How are the
names of the sun, moon, and stars introduced?
(8) Is it said
concerning the work of every day, that "God saw that it was good"?
(9) What is there
peculiar in the employment of that sentence concerning the works of the six
days?
(10) What is said
(of that kind) concerning the creation of man?
(11) Over what part
of Creation did God first assign to man the dominion?
(12) Is man's
"dominion" spoken of
before, or after, his creation?
(13) How is Adam
mentioned, and out of what is he said to have been created?
(14) Is Eve alluded
to?
(15) Which divisions
of the vegetable kingdom are enumerated, as the work of the third day?
(16) Is the Creator
distinctly said to have pronounced a blessing on Man? on the beasts of the
earth? on the fishes of the sea? on the fowls of the air?
(17) What divisions
of time are here mentioned?
(18) What is said of
the food of beasts? fishes? birds? creeping things?
(19) What is the
Earth said to have first brought forth?
(20) Judging from
the italics employed in the KJV, how much of that statement, "He made the
stars also", exists in the Hebrew?
A2. HINTS AND
SUGGESTIONS ON EXOD. 2: 11-15
Suggested answers to
the questions on page 39 about Exodus 2: 11-15.
(a) Acts 7: 22, 23 fills out the picture. Ex.
2:11 (Heb. and LXX) is literally: "Moses became great." Heb.11:24
suggests a big occasion when Moses was to be designated heir to the throne of
Egypt, and deliberately (and publicly?) refused the honour.
(b) Thanks to his
mother's faithful guidance, there would be no time when he did not think of
himself as Israelite rather than Egyptian.
(c) Amazing humility (Num. 12: 3) that he was thus
prepared to thrust aside Egyptian honours and think himself one with a race of
slaves.
(d) The Hebrew word
suggests ch. 1: 11.
(e) Isai. 59: 16 and
63: 5 suggest: "no man to deliver", but "looked this way and
that way" suggests "no man to hinder". Which?
(f) Adversity makes
comrades, not enemies.
(g) Quarrelling over the claim of Moses to be
their God-sent Deliverer. This is surely right, but there is no proof except by
arguing back from Moses being a type of Jesus.
(h) "Jehovah" is the correct answer
here (see answer to next question). But "appointed by Pharaoh" or
"self-appointed" are possible answers, either of which might have
been in this Hebrew's mind. Other examples: Joseph and Jesus, of course.
(i)
The answer of the three passages is clear-cut and definite: "God was
giving them deliverance" through Moses, and they sinned in refusing it.
The more usual view that Moses, with the impatience of youth (at 40!), was not
prepared to wait God's good time, is definitely wrong, and a serious slander
against the character of Moses. See answer (o).
(j) No contradiction. Two different occasions.
Heb. 1 r: 27 refers to Ex. 12: 37 and 13: 17, 18.
(k) Pharaoh's reaction is a clear intimation that
Moses' deed was an open demonstration of an all-out intention to lead Israel to
freedom.
(1) Very probably Pharaoh attempted this in
person in the palace.
(m)
"Fulfilled" suggests a prophecy. Did Moses flee because he was bidden
do so by God, and told to stay away for forty years?
(n) He dwelt or
settled there. It is surely a mistake
to think of him sitting there weary and travel-stained. Other evidence (4: 20)
suggests his marriage to Zipporah near the end of the forty years.
(o) The reproach
which Christ himself was to suffer centuries later—rejection by the very people
who should have welcomed his leadership.
(p) Literally,
"he looked away unto the recompense of the reward". His eyes were not
on Egyptian splendour and prosperity, but on the remote Land of Promise (2 Cor.
4:18).
A3. WORTHWHILE BOOKS
It has already been
said in this volume and it must be said again. There is no Bible study to compare
with what you do for yourself. Yet in spite of this, the truth of which every
competent Bible student will vouch for, many rush to acquire big collections of
books as an easy substitute for personal effort.
This Appendix, then,
is included with some reluctance, and only because the writer has been badgered
many a time with the enquiry: What are the best books to get?
It is assumed here
that you have already had that question answered for you, and have already
equipped yourself with a shelf-full of Christadelphian classics. It is a good
idea always to keep one of these going as part of your normal reading.
"Two pages a day, year in, year out" is the valuable prescription of
a well-read Christadelphian veteran.
Personal judgment
and enthusiasm vary so considerably that any student's compilation is likely to
provoke a good deal of disagreement from others both as regards titles included
and titles omitted.
One finds with
experience that it is not titles or topics that matter most but authors. Once
you become acquainted with a good writer or expositor, the best plan is to lay
hands on as many of his works as possible.
Most Christadelphian
students of the Word are agreed that the modern commentators are by no means as
helpful or stimulating as the Victorians. The reason is simple: The Victorians
believed the Bible to be the Word of God, the modernists do not. This is not to
say that modern scholars are useless. But it is certainly true that you will
learn a more wholesome approach to the Bible from the Victorians (and the
Puritans) than you will from most of the 20th century authorities.
For the
Christadelphian, then, the prince of Bible commentators is William Kay, of
Lincoln College, Oxford. His "Isaiah" and "Hebrews" in the
"Speaker's" Commentary, his "Psalms" and
"Corinthians" are all close-packed, and full of dependable
scholarship. These are not works for beginners to browse in. Only when you have
done a lot of Bible study for yourself do these books begin to have their true
value.
By all means comb over any old issues of "The Christadelphian" and "The Testimony" which you may have access to. But read with discrimination. The oldest are not necessarily the best. You must certainly give concentrated attention to the miscellaneous articles by John Carter. If he had written in a more readable style, he would have been a world-beater.
But what other
books?
There is no attempt
here to catalogue the titles which you simply must have. The list would become
endless and not necessarily useful, for all students of Holy Scripture do not
have the same approach, the same bent. The following are almost random
suggestions, dictated largely by the present writers own personal taste.
First, a few
standard books of reference.
Josephus, of course.
It used to be possible to pick up a good copy for a shilling. But, alas, those
palmy days are gone for ever.
You cannot do
without a really good Bible Atlas and also a well laid-out Harmony of the
Gospels (that published by Black is perhaps the best).
One or two detailed
volumes on Bible Archeology should be acquired; e.g. Pleiffer's "Cyclopoedia of
Biblical Archeology" and "Documents from
Old Testament Times" by D. Winton Thomas. That wee book: "Modern
Discovery and the Bible", by Rendle Short, is
full of good material.
John William Burgon, preaching at St. Mary's, Oxford, in the middle of
last century, begat some competent spiritual children, among them, C. H.
Waller, Griffith Thomas, and Harrington Lees. Any books of theirs are worth
getting hold of. The first of these was a contributor to Ellicott's Commentary.
So also, very copiously, was Plumptre, Dean of
Canterbury, whose articles in Smith's Bible Dictionary are also worth careful
attention.
Fausset was another stimulating expositor of that
period. His study of Judges, lately re-printed in America, is the best that has
been done on that subject. He also wrote a book on Psalms, and was responsible
for half (much the better half) of the Portable Commentary, done in appallingly
small print.
Here are a few more
miscellaneous names to look out for.
Ramsey's "Paul
the Traveller" is really good, but his other books don't compare in
quality.
The best commentary
on Acts is by Rackham. He did nothing else worth talking about.
Beginners will enjoy
David Smith's "The Days of His Flesh", but later on will realise how
that volume suffers from neglect of the Old Testament. His "Life and
Letters of Paul" is useful, but a bit superficial.
Farrar, Dean of
Westminster, was a man of astonishing scholarship. All his New Testament work
makes useful contributions (especially in the footnotes), but his exposition of
Daniel is appalling.
Instead, on Daniel
and Isaiah, get Boutflower - if you can.
There is lots of
good scholarship in Pusey's "Minor Prophets" and also in his
"Daniel", but this isn't so good.
Some of the volumes
in the Cambridge Bible are worthwhile (e.g. Farrar on Luke; Moule
on Romans), but there is also a lot of rubbish. Can any good thing come out of
Cambridge? Well, now and then.
The Tyndale
Commentaries are another patchy collection, but anything with Kidney's name on
it (Genesis, Psalms, Proverbs) is worth going for.
Don't look for a
decent commentary on Psalms. There isn't one. Do your own. And indeed, as you
progress and increasingly mean business, regarding large areas of both Old and
New Testaments you will be driven to this expedient of self-reliance and hard
labour.
Plummer on any of
the gospels is useful, but a bit dull. Trench on Miracles and Parables is wordy
but with lots of ideas. On the Sermon on the Mount, Martyn Lloyd-Jones is another
wordy writer, but easy to read, whilst our own L. G. Sargent ("Teaching of
the Master"), who was never appreciated at his true value, is too
compressed and therefore hard work. "Two pages a day!"
One or two other
general works which are worth a place on your bookshelves:
Get acquainted with
the Apocrypha. It will fill you in fairly dependably between the Testaments,
and will provide much other informative and stimulating reading. Also, an
Apocryphal New Testament, if only to learn the sudden and shouting difference
between the inspired New Testament and the palpably uninspired stuff that
followed.
Angus's "Bible
Handbook" is a mine of handy information. Edersheim
(especially "The Temple") and Girdlestone
are both very useful. Bullinger's "How to enjoy
the Bible" would be even more enjoyable if he had developed a more
exhilarating style of writing.
And of course J.J. Blunt's "Undesigned
Coincidences" (reprinted as ‘Undesigned
Scriptural Coincidences’) goes without saying.
Where does this
name-dropping stop?
PAGE INDEX
Abbreviations 13
Abraham 58
Abstract or
definite? 55
Acceptable 57
Anger 57
Angus 144
Apocrypha 144
Archeology 143
Ark 93
Authorised
Version 29, 81
Bacon 10
Bartimaeus 66
Bethsaida 26
Bible marking 10ff
Bible parties 122
Bible reading 18f,
23, 28, 61f
Bible talk 8,
17
Blunt 26,
144
Books to read 142ff
Bread of Life 101ff
Bullinger 76, 144
Burgon 22, 25 87, 95, 106, 132,
Butler, Bishop 117
Cambridge Bible 143
Carter, John 112,
142
Christ in Genesis 119f, 124f
Christ in Jeremiah 127f
Christ in 2 Kings 126f
Christ in the Psalms 128ff
Collyer, Islip 117
"Coming" 53
Concordance 51ff
Context 76ff
Contradictions 41f
Covetous 57
Create, creation 57
Creation 138
Critics of the Bible 113ff
Crucifixion 60
Daniel 49, 105
Daniel's Bible 34
Date palm 66
David 59, 121, 129
Definite or
abstract? 55
Denials by Peter 135
Details 8
Eagles & carcase 78f
Edersheim 144
Elisha 126
Ellicott 143
Emmaus 118f
Exam. Questions 15f
Exodus 140f
Ezekiel's mission 73f
Faith-healing 43
Fausset 143
Feeding multitude 49
Fig tree 65f, 67, 98
Galatians 94
Genesis ch1. 7
Genesis 124f, 138f
Gentiles 93
Gentiles called 66ff
Girdlestone 144
Good Samaritan 99ff
Gospels Harmony 143
Grace 56
Greek 23
Greek-English 86
Hagar & Sarah 87
Hallelujah 104
Harmony of Gospels 45
Harrington Lees 51
Hebrew 24
Hebrews 75
Hezekiah 104, 127
Hooker 63
Hosea 136
Hosea prophecy 30f
Idle words 76f
Imagination 58ff
Innocent blood 48
Interpretation of
Parables 96ff
Isaac 89, 105
Isaiah 34f, 45
Israel types 87f
Jacob 137
James' Epistle 75
Jehovah's Witness 45, 53
Jeremiah 35, 49f, 104f, 127f
Jericho 42,
66
Jezebel 58
John the Baptist 136
Joseph 88,92
Josephus 143
Kay 121, 142
2 Kings 126f
Kingsley 29
Lamech 80
Last Supper 130, 132,
134
Law, William 17, 19f, 40
Levi 104
Living God 57
Logos 54
Lot 105
Lystra 93
Maimonides 97
Manna 90f
Marginal references 29ff
Martha & Mary 122
Meditation 55f
Melchizedek 87, 121
Memorisation 22f
Mercy & truth 56
Micah 105
Miracles 95ff
Modernism 113ff
Moffatt 82
Moses 38f, 88, 140f
Most High 57
Naaman 134
Nabal 103
Names 103ff
New Covenant 127
New English Bible 82
Newton 58, 124
Noah 26
Norris, A.D. 83
Notes 10
Offences 77
Onesimus 103
Origen 63
Parables 95ff
Parallel narratives 40ff
Parousia 53
Passover 49
Paul 93f, 103f, 126
Peter 103
Peter's denials 135
Peter-Paul parallel 49
2 Peter 75
Philippians 71ff
Place 57
Play on words 103ff
Plumptre 143
Prayer 21
Promise to Abraham 64
Proverbs 33
Psalms 128ff
Pun 103ff
Pusey 143
Questions 36ff, 109f
Rackham 143
Ramsey 143
Reprobate 57
Resurrection 70f
Revised Version 83f
Revised Standard
Version 85
Ridley 23
Roberts R. 7,36
Roman soldiers 60f
Ruth 109f 136
Second coming 78f
Seed of the Woman
229f
Serpent 48,119f
Signs 101
Sinners, association
with 130
Smith, David 143
Stephen 40,88
Storm on Galilee
133f
Sufferings of Christ
60
Summer fruit 205
Sun, moon, stars 64f
Sunday School 22
Symbolic language
63ff
Table talk 8
Talk 111
Tares 97
Temple 42,67
"Then-" 78
Timothy ,
136
Tree of Life 47f
Trial of Jesus ., 62
Triumphal entry 66f
Trollope 20
Turtle dove . 63f
Two's 134
Tyndale 112 ,
123, 132
Tyndale Commentaries 143
Types 87ff
Versions 81ff
Virgins 78
Westminster
Confession 15,46,69
Weymouth 85
Wilson 51
Wise men 25
Word 54
Word of God 112f
Wrath 57
Zaccheus 59f
Zacharias 104