Bible Study Helps

This is a draft of a sermon given 12/04/10.

Some Bible Study Helps

Introduction

Today I want to talk about Bible study, and some things I’ve learned over the years which have helped my understanding. But before I start I want to give a short overview of my history so everybody can know where I’m coming from.

During the time in the mid-sixties while we lived on the north side of Houston, I was visited each weekend by a Jehovah’s Witness bearing tracts. Even though I never invited him into our home, he was somewhat intimidating to me as he seemed to know a lot about the Bible and I knew nothing. Still, I had a hunger for biblical knowledge, but I sensed this wasn’t the place to get it.
And by late 1967 I was trying the Plain Truth.

After we’d moved to Waco in March 1968, I attempted to get the church we attended, Lakewood Christian over at Bosque and Cobbs in Waco, to provide more Bible training. Pastor Luke Bolen consented to give a series of lectures on the first eleven chapters of Genesis. These could be best summed up by two words: sarcasm and skepticism. I discovered, as well, that a number of those in our Sunday school class doubted Jesus’ miracles. It seemed time to move along.

My job at Baylor brought me into contact with brilliant young man, a Ph.D. candidate in Physics, who was a Seventh Day Adventist. He answered a number of questions for me, and I spent pretty much the year of 1969 attending the SDA church up there on Hwy. 6. My wife and the children joined me for a time. But when pastor Dick Mummert left, his replacement preached a lot more Ellen G. White than Jesus Christ. Learning to understand the Bible was what I was there for, not learning the Great Controversy. Again it was time to go.

But we were still reading the Plain Truth and Tomorrow’s World. In early 1971 we received a ministerial visit from Richard Adkins and assistant Garvin Greene from the Worldwide Church of God’s Ft. Worth congregation, but were deemed “not ready.” They returned in the summer and this time, after dinner, we learned our status had risen to “not ready yet.” But within a month, once Waco actually had a congregation, one paired with Austin rather than Ft. Worth, Larry Neff and Jim Turner came out and invited us to church.

We learned much, especially in the beginning, with WCG. As time went on we unlearned a fair amount. After about 1974 the focus of the church seemed to change. I won’t go into detail, but, finally, on the evening of July 18, 1993 in Olathe, Kansas we dropped our individual resignations from WCG into the mailbox. It’s a date we still refer to as July Teenth.

Since then I’ve continued to study and learn. One decision I made, and have diligently kept, was: no more gurus. I’ll learn from anyone and keep what I deem to be true. I’ll reject anything from anyone as well that appears false. “Prove all things,” we’re told. I try.

I’ve learned a lot from Dr. Jim Fleming, a Methodist, from Dr. Ron Moseley who heads up the American Institute of Holy Land Studies, from Jerry Feldman, a messanic rabbi who also maintains his ministerial credentials with the Assemblies of God, from Dr. Roy Blizzard of UT Austin, and from Dwight Pryor, now from Dayton Ohio. I have flat out rejected some of the things each of these men teaches. Still, there are biblical scholars that believe the Bible, that it’s truly the word of God, and there are skeptics. These men are all believers.

The things I talk about today are things that have worked for me. My hope is each of you all will find something here that will help you too. If anyone doesn’t accept all or even any of my conclusions, that’s fine. There are all sorts of things we can disagree about and still be unified in Christ.


Two Tools

Here are two tools that I have found useful.

The first is context. They say that what’s important in real estate is location, location, location. As far as I am concerned context, context, context is equally important in Bible study. Today I want to look at several scriptures, some considered difficult, in their context.

Then, there’s a concept called Ockham’s Razor. It’s named after William of Ockham, an English monk who lived in the 1300s, and has had considerable scientific application for centuries. It states that in explaining a scientific phenomenon, one should take a sharp instrument, like a razor, and peel away everything that’s not essential to the explanation. But its common definition has become like this: If there are multiple explanations for something, the simpler, more straightforward one is most likely correct. And this common definition has a place in understanding the Bible. If an explanation of a Bible passage becomes too complicated, consider Ockham’s Razor. There’s probably a more correct explanation to be found.

Along the way I also want to consider some historical background. Okay, let’s begin.


“Sons of God” and “Daughters of men”

Some months back I turned on the television to find a preacher preaching. About the first thing I heard was him telling his audience to “Let the Bible interpret the Bible.” Since I’d heard these very words many times in Worldwide, often by Herbert W. Armstrong himself, I decided to stay tuned and hear what he had to say.

What he wanted interpreted was the phrase “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2. So, he said to turn to Job 1 for the answers.

Let’s look at these scriptures.

Gen 6:1-2, 4
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
KJV

This can be a difficult scripture to understand. The TV preacher I heard, in letting the Bible interpret the Bible, said the answer was in Job 1:6.:

Job 1:6
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
KJV

Thus, the preacher said, Job 1 was obviously speaking of angels and it follows that the same wording in Genesis 6 has to be referring to angels as well. And so the Bible interpreted the Bible. Or did it?

After all Jesus, speaking to the Sadducees of the resurrection, said plainly that angels didn't marry.

Matt 22:29-30
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
KJV

Indeed, Job 1 was referring to angels. (There are a couple of other places in Job where this is used, both of them are referring to angels as well.) But was Genesis? Mostly it's Christians who have a lot of trouble with this passage. Jews (in general) accept that "sons of God" here refers to the male descendants of Seth, while "daughters of men," to the female descendants of Cain. Seth is the godly line, Cain the ungodly.

The term, “sons of God,” also appears in the New Testament, but there it refers to people like us, e.g. “ For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” (Rom 8:14, KJV)

So, for the Bible to interpret the Bible here the phrase must mean either people or angels; space aliens are eliminated. Let’s look at the context. Let’s start back in Genesis 4.

Cain is born in verse 1, Abel in verse 2. So Cain murders Abel and is banished to the land of Nod. We won’t read them but beginning in verse 17 through most of the rest of chapter four cover the generations of Cain. Let’s go to chapter five.

Gen 5:1-8
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
KJV

And so it goes. These are the generations of Adam. But we see that it’s also the generations of Seth. Adam, Seth, Enos, and then Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and on to Noah. While all of these men lived long lives and all “ begat sons and daughters,” they only are mentioned. Why? Because only their DNA, via Noah and his sons, made it past the flood. This was the godly line. The only godly line.

When those from this line married outside this line, there were giants produced, not necessarily of physical stature, but giants of industry, music, the arts. As it says, “men of renown,” but, alas, not men of God. This is the story told here. And from the context it’s the story of people, not angels.

To fit angels into this, one must be able to explain how and why angels, individually created beings, who can’t marry and reproduce in heaven, can and do on earth—and with human women. That wouldn’t seem to fit very well with Ockham’s Razor.

Many words and phrases have different meanings in different parts of the Bible. The other night I looked up the word “Jews” in an online concordance. This word is used around 200 times. In Kings and Chronicles it refers to the people of the nation Judah, while in Ezra and Nehemiah it generally means those returning to Palestine from captivity in Babylon. In Ezra 5:1 it refers to “the Jews that were in Judah.” It’s racial in Esther, some places in the prophets and the synoptic gospels. Its meaning is often geographic in John referring to people of Judea, as opposed to people of Galileefor instance, but is usually racial in Acts. Thus context can be vital.


Taken Out of Context

Context was pretty much a mixed bag in the Worldwide Church of God, sometimes referred to, sometimes not. I want us to take a look at two scriptures, or rather pieces of scripture, which were often used, always without context.

The first is John 9:31. We heard it a lot in the Houston East congregation of the Worldwide Church of God. It reads like this:

John 9:31
31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
KJV

Both the pastor and a local elder really liked this one. In the beginning it would be used in this way: “John 9:31 says God doesn’t hear sinners.” And we wouldn’t be asked to turn to it. Later we usually heard it as something like, “And the Bible tells us God doesn’t even hear the prayers of a sinner.” I don’t know if the rest of you all got a lot of that one, Whatever, let’s look at the context.

In Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles, on a Sabbath day (maybe still the Last Great Day) Jesus heals a man who had been blind from birth. Then the troubles began.

John 9:18-34
18 But the Jews (these are Judean Pharisees) did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.
19 And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?
20 His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:
21 But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.
22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.
23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.
24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.
25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.
26 Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?
27 He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?
28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.
29 We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.
30 The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.
31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
32 Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.
33 If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.
34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.
KJV

So, what do we have here? A lot of what this man says is right on. Indeed, there’s no record of anyone born blind ever receiving sight. But who is he? Where’s his authority? Actually, he has none. He’s just a guy who received a miracle and is desperate not to be put out of the synagogue because of it. And that’s the problem in using such a passage in an authoritative manner.

Now for the Blue Ribbon winner, the Grand Champion scripture taken out of context, Romans 6:23. “The wages of sin is death.” This is what we heard, and generally all we heard. Let’s take a look.

Rom 6:23
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
KJV

Note this verse begins with the word “For.” So, this verse is not a complete thought; something significant precedes it. Also, “ For the wages of sin is death” is only the first part of this verse. A very important passage follows.

It only takes verse 22 to put verse 23 in the proper perspective. But let’s go back to verse 16 to pick up the context.

Rom 6:16-23
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
KJV

Verse 22 shows clearly that the first part of verse 23 doesn’t even apply to us. The “For” at the beginning shows this verse is basically reiterating and summing up the previous two, and that 22 is key.


Historical Notes

The history, cultures, and languages of the Holy Land in the time of Jesus are better understood today than ever before. This knowledge can help us improve our own Biblical understanding. There are three things I want to mention briefly.

1. The language of the street in Judea and Galilee was Hebrew, not Aramaic. The first paper on Hebrew as a living language in NT times was published in 1909. Biblical references indicate Hebrew to be the common language. The Dead Sea Scrolls have a ratio of about 9:1 Hebrew in non-scriptural scrolls. The theory is that when the Hasmonians drove out the Syrians circa 165 BC they also made Hebrew the official language.

2. The synoptic gospels and about the first half of Acts were originally written in Hebrew. First, there was the language structure. And when Greek was translated back into Hebrew numerous problems cleared right up.

3. Biblical Hebrew, like most languages, is highly idiomatic. There many places that make no sense in Greek, English, or even Aramaic, that make perfect sense in Hebrew,

These points are discussed in some detail in the book Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard.


Difficult Scriptures

Matt 6:22-23
22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
KJV

I’ve heard this one explained by reference to the “lust of the eye” passage in 1 John, but it doesn’t really say that. Let’s take it in context, which starts in verse 19.

Matt 6:19-25
19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
KJV

So, the context is money. And as Dr. Moseley says, if you’re thinking lust while God’s talking about money, you’re not going to understand. My rule is: when I come across something I don’t understand, which doesn’t seem to fit the context, is to be patient, but not worry too much about it, and certainly don’t try to prove anything by it. Like Mark Twain said, scriptures he did understand bothered him a lot more than ones he didn’t understand.

This passage, it turns out, when put back into Hebrew, becomes “good eye” and “bad eye” which are common idioms for “generosity” and “stinginess.” Thus, the context remains money. Ocknam’s Razor is satisfied also.

Here’s one more.

Matt 11:12
12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
KJV

While this never made sense to me, I’ve heard sermons on it. Everyone seemed to begin by saying something like, “This is probably not a very good translation,” but then would proceed as if it were. Okay, this is a poor translation.

In the first sermon I remember, after the minister mentioned the bit about a poor translation, we were told that “by force” meant “with vigor.” And, so, the “suffers violence” part actually means that we must strive vigorously to achieve the kingdom. Make sense?

Let’s look at the context.

Matt 11:1-15
1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples (he had sent them two by two into the cities where he was to follow), he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.
2 Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,
3 And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?
4 Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see:
5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.
6 And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.
7 And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?
8 But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.
9 But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.
10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
KJV

The context is John the Baptist and it’s all clearly understandable except for verse 12. (Except for maybe the last part of verse 11. I’m not sure I’m ready to explain that.) What if a correctly translated verse 12 was also about John the Baptist rather than about violent people taking the kingdom of God by force or even about us striving to enter “with vigor.” Note verse 13. It’s explanatory for verse 12. Is 14 also?

Thanks to the late David Flusser, Professor of the History of Religion at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, there’s an explanation that makes sense to me. Put back into Hebrew, “suffers violence” can be rendered “breaks forth” or “breaks out.”

Prof. Flusser was studying some ancient rabbinic literature when he came on an explanation of Micah 2:12-13 that apparently hadn’t been considered before. Let’s take a look at these verses.

Mic 2:12-13
12 I will surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee; I will surely gather the remnant of Israel; I will put them together as the sheep of Bozrah, as the flock in the midst of their fold: they shall make great noise by reason of the multitude of men.
13 The breaker is come up before them: they have broken up, and have passed through the gate, and are gone out by it: and their king shall pass before them, and the LORD on the head of them.
KJV

“These verses are full of rich imagery. It is the picture of a shepherd penning up his sheep for the night. He builds a fold by throwing up a makeshift rock fence against the side of a hill. The next morning, to let the sheep out, he makes a hole or a breach in the fence by tossing dome of the rocks aside. He steps through his ‘gate’ with the sheep following close behind. They have been penned up all night and can hardly wait to get out of their cramped quarters. Of course they push and shove, several trying to get through at once, literally breaking through, further breaching the little gate in their eagerness to get out and into the green pasture. Finally they burst out into the open spaces, rushing headlong after the shepherd.”—David Bivin, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, pp.85-6.

The commentary Flusser read said that the “breaker” was Elijah and the king was the Messiah. Generally in interpretation these two were considered to be the same person. My take is, the important thing is that Jesus seems to be saying that it’s Elijah as well.


Conclusion

While none of us are literate in Hebrew or Greek, while we’re all limited to some extent in 1st century history and culture, context is something that’s always available. For me it’s an indispensable tool. To quote Jerry Feldman, whom I mentioned earlier, “Text without context is pretext.” And we all know what a pretext is.

Whether or not, you all like my term Ockham’s Razor, in considering explanations to difficult scriptures, think about:
1. Does it fit the context?
2. Does it make sense?
3. Is it straight forward, or
4. Is it getting just too complicated?

And, finally, if it’s still confusing, why not wait? There’ll likely be a better explanation somewhere down the road. If I am patient and pray, the answer generally comes. Just don’t be tempted to use it authoritatively.