Exploring The Bible

[Resource Manager]

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.

[Resource Manager]

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. I 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. I 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 I 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.

[Resource Manager]

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 I 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.

[Resource Manager]

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.

[Resource Manager]

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, I 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 I can say is: in some respects all — I repeat, all — versions of Holy Scripture are at fault, but until you have acquired a fair amount of Greek, I would prescribe A.V., R.V., N.I.V.

[Resource Manager]

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.

[Resource Manager]

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”.)

[Resource Manager]

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.

[Resource Manager]

The command to Moses was: “Fill an omer of it to be kept for your generations; that they may see the bread wherewith I 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?

[Resource Manager]

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”, (1 Cor.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.)

[Resource Manager]

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.

[Resource Manager]

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 I 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, I will open my mouth in parables; I 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.

[Resource Manager]

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, I 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) I 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.

[Resource Manager]

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 I 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.

[Resource Manager]

“Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again I 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.

[Resource Manager]

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 I say unto thee, that thou art Petros (masculine, a little stone), and upon this petra (feminine, solid rock) I 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 I 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.”

[Resource Manager]

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?

[Resource Manager]

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?

[Resource Manager]

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?

[Resource Manager]

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?

[Resource Manager]

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 I 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.

[Resource Manager]

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”?

[Resource Manager]

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 I have the best of reasons for depending on the Bible, so I 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.

[Resource Manager]

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. Too, 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.

[Resource Manager]

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.