Exploring The Bible

[Resource Manager]

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?

(l.)    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.

[Resource Manager]

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)

[Resource Manager]

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 I 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 11; 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.

[Resource Manager]

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

 

Zacchaeus, 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.

[Resource Manager]

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.

[Resource Manager]

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.

[Resource Manager]

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 I 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.

[Resource Manager]

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 I 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, I 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 I 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 I was instructed, I 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 I 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.

[Resource Manager]

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.

[Resource Manager]

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.

[Resource Manager]

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.

[Resource Manager]

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

[Resource Manager]

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”.

[Resource Manager]

11. USE YOUR IMAGINATION

 

“Weak is the effort of my heart, And cold my warmest thought; But when I see thee as thou art, I’ll praise thee as I 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.

[Resource Manager]

It also needs a proper use of the imagination in order to realize just how great was the sacrifice Zacchaeus 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 Zacchaeus. 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.

[Resource Manager]

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.

[Resource Manager]

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: “I 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, I 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 I 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.

[Resource Manager]

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 Zacchaeus 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”.

[Resource Manager]

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 9:10, 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.

[Resource Manager]

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?

[Resource Manager]

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.

[Resource Manager]

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 I 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 I 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.

[Resource Manager]

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.

(l.)    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 I 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.

[Resource Manager]

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 I 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.

[Resource Manager]

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.