Do you ever come across verses in the Bible and wonder ‘Whatever does that mean? That’s an awkward sentence, a strange word’. I do. I delve, I research, I find something fascinating then, usually, forget all about it! So this is to be a repository for all those little bits that don’t really make up a proper essay in themselves. Hopefully it will grow considerably – but probably not into that complete commentary that we really need.
My default translation is the New World Translation (NWT).
A Note on Inspiration in Translation
Here is the most awkward sentence of all. In John 8:58 Jesus says, in Greek, ‘prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi’. Everyone who has studied another language knows that the rules of grammar are different. The translator cannot replace each word on a one for one basis and then arrive at a text that makes sense. However, to produce a literal, formal equivalence, translation the scholar does exactly this, as close as is possible, and then rearranges the words into sentences that conform to the grammar of the target language. Looking at that above sentence, a little knowledge of Greek will suffice to recognise that the verb, ego eimi (I am), is at the end of the sentence, and that this is something that English rarely, if ever, does. So a literal translation, rearranged into English word order would read ‘I am before Abraham was born’. True, this is an awkwardly strange sentence, but nevertheless understandable. In a dynamic equivalence translation the sentence itself is put into familiar phrasing. So maybe this would be ‘I existed before Abraham was born’. ‘To be’ and ‘to exist’ are different verbs but there is some parallelism in concept. Admittedly too, the tense has been changed from present to past tense. So why does KJV translate this as ‘Before Abraham was, I am’? and NWT ‘Before Abraham came into existence, I have been’? Both versions are grammatically nonsensical. NWT changes the verb from first person, present tense, active, to first person past tense, passive, and still manages to give us nonsense. I believe that in certain scholarly circles, where theology is confused, that that ‘I am’ is viewed as a claim by Jesus to be God Almighty, the same ‘I am’ of Exodus 3. I am not going to waste my time refuting theologies that clearly have no basis in scripture. How could I succeed where Jesus himself failed? Nevertheless here’s something to ponder. The Jews thought that Jesus was making himself equal to God for which they endeavoured to stone him to death – the punishment for blasphemy prescribed in The Law. Most Christians today make Jesus equal to God either through their trinity doctrine or by referring to him as God Almighty. Isn’t this equally blasphemous? Nowhere did Jesus ever claim to be God or claim equality with God. One other observation - ten verses later, the once-blind beggar repeatedly says ‘ego eimi’ but I haven’t seen any claims that he might have been God Almighty! There are none so blind as those who do not want to see. ‘Your sin remains’ (9:41).
‘One body there is…’
Translation services by Yoda!
On a less flippant note the whole passage is as follows:
‘One body there is, and one spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.’
Is Paul trying to tell us something? The repeated use of the word ‘one’, seven times in fact, suggests that perhaps two hopes, two destinations and the elitism that arises therefrom perhaps does not have a scriptural basis!
This verse refers to Noah. The Greek says that he was ‘the eighth one’. NWT mentions Noah and seven others. The word for seven does not appear in the Greek text and so the translators here have indulged in a spot of interpretation. A footnote saying so would be in order. It is nevertheless a reasonable thing to have done as this, apparently, is a recognised idiomatic form seen regularly in Greek. As ‘eighth’ doesn’t fit anything else (generations from Adam, preachers of righteousness etc), this provides for an easily understandable reading experience.
‘...a glory that is of more and more surpassing greatness and is everlasting’.
What does this mean? ‘More and more surpassing’ is clumsy and not really how we express ourselves today. I have read it so many times without comprehending the enormity, the utterly extraordinary truth that Paul is here struggling to convey to his audience. Most disappointingly, nowhere in the Society’s literature can I find an explanation of what Paul is trying to say. I looked at an Interlinear Bible and it says literally – ‘over-cast into over-cast everlasting weight’. To a British reader this doesn’t help. It sounds like the weather on a typical summer’s day. Apparently it is casting as in throwing, over-cast, with excessive enthusiasm, thrown beyond. This still doesn’t really help. But when transliterating the Greek letters into English you get kath huperbolen eis huperbolen. Now we’re starting to get somewhere. We know what hyperbole is. A camel easily getting through the eye of a needle. That’s hyperbole – something so obviously ridiculous and bizarre that it creates an image that sticks readily in the mind’s eye in order to illustrate a difficult concept. Just as I get stuck for words, Paul is here groping for something that is impossible to express in human language. Having just stated that our trials are elaphron – light, piffling, trifling, ephemeral – the glory by comparison cannot even be described by hyperbole, not even hyperbole times hyperbole. Exceedingly exceedingly, excess upon excess; these are imperfect ways of expressing the immeasurable glory that he has in view. An amazing truth lost in translation!
‘Gideon made [the gold] into an ephod... and it served as a snare to Gideon and his household.’
It is easy to view Hebrews 11 as a book of life, a scriptural hall of fame, where everyone listed therein is viewed as being above all reproach. Thus and so did this and that which seems dubious but it can’t really mean that because this person is listed in Hebrews 11! It’s a bit of a cop-out, to use a colloquialism.
Gideon, afraid of being outnumbered and so being prevented, did his Baal idol smashing at night. Then, with just 300 men and Jehovah, he defeated 135,000 Midianites; an object lesson to prove that no one is ever outnumbered with Jehovah. But then he made this idol and it became a snare to him and his. Was he guilty of idolatry? The standard defence is that he is listed in Hebrews 11 and so couldn’t possibly be guilty of such dreadful things. But then David is also listed, yet look at all the heinous deeds he committed! The account of Gideon does not say that he engaged in idolatry, that he worshipped this ephod. The word used is moqesh, a snare, a lure, a stumbling block. Whatever he did with it proved to be a problem. But why did he make it in the first place? Here is my theory. I cannot prove it but it’s a reasonable theory. The men of Ophrah, including his father, were Baal worshippers. Their idols had been removed, Jehovah had defeated the Midianites and peace returned to the land. Would they continue serving Jehovah or would they regress into old habits? Following the defeat of Midian, the Ephraimite neighbours picked a quarrel with Gideon. He managed to defuse the immediate tensions, but perhaps a certain coolness of spirit continued between the tribes. Now, the Tabernacle, the Ark and the High Priest were all at Shiloh, right in the middle of Ephraim’s territory. If Gideon wanted his own neighbours to continue serving Jehovah, perhaps he thought that having to pass through the lands of those inclined to antagonism would be a dampener of enthusiasm. If they could have a visible reminder of Jehovah locally then those who might be prone to Baal worship might be helped to not go that way. Whatever his reasoning, it was a really stupid thing to do. It was a really bad idea, possibly born of good intentions. Who knows?
‘[The Philistines] said to Samson’s wife: “Trick your husband… otherwise we will burn you and your father’s house with fire.”’
‘At that the Philistines went up and burned her and her father with fire.’
There’s a lesson here. Samson’s Timnite wife betrayed him in order to save her own skin but the very thing she sought to avoid came upon her anyway. In life we are going to suffer, whether as a hero or as a coward; when being virtuous or when succumbing to evil. Suffering for the sake of righteousness is never wrong, indeed is even agreeable (1 Peter 2:19). A good conscience is precious (1 Peter 3:14, 16).
‘This is the witness John gave when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him: “Who are you?”’
This is the first of almost seventy times when John, in his gospel, uses the term ‘the Jews’. This might seem to be an unimportant detail, even normal given the subject matter. However, in the synoptic gospels this term is used just fifteen times but with twelve of those accounted for by the titular, Gentile expression ‘king of the Jews’. Once we have realised this, John’s use becomes interesting. In this first instance it is logical to accept that ‘the Jews’ refers to the leaders, the Sanhedrin, those with authority to dispatch priests and Levites. In other cases his usage of this term is explanatory – ‘purification rules of the Jews’ (2:6), ‘the Passover of the Jews’ (2:13). As John was writing about a quarter of a century after the Romans had dismantled Judaism, these matters had become historical events for which a few words of explanation were required. But these account for only a few of the instances. So why does John so frequently specify ‘the Jews’? Let us analyse one passage to see what emerges. I have chosen John 6. This chapter opens with Jesus in Galilee and being followed by a ‘large crowd’. He feeds them with five loaves and two fish. The ‘people’ (v14) are impressed and want to make him king so he escapes across the sea. The ‘crowd’ follows and the conversation continues on the following day. But in v41 it is ‘the Jews’ who begin to murmur about him and it is ‘the Jews’ who begin to argue with one another (v52). John is distinguishing between the multitudes in general and the Jews amongst them. The crowd was everyone who was interested, inquisitive, perhaps unsettled in their belief about the Christ. They would be chiefly Galilaeans of various ethnic backgrounds, but would include those Jews and Pharisees who were in opposition to him and his teaching. It was the crowd who wanted to make him king, but it was always the Jews amongst them who wanted to stone him to death (8:59 et al).
In chapter 12 John notes that it was a large visiting crowd who welcomed Jesus when he came riding into Jerusalem on a donkey. Indeed, some Greeks tried to gain an audience with Jesus. We often read this and marvel at the fickleness of people and how in less than a week they went from celebrating his arrival to baying for his blood. But did they? John is very specific that it was the Jews who were demanding Jesus’s death. They wanted a national Messiah and were tenacious in their rejection of all the wonderful things he did, said, and guaranteed for all mankind.
‘They consider it pleasurable to indulge in luxurious living, even in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes who revel in their deceptive teachings while feasting together with you.’
Having read this I started to wonder why living luxuriously ‘even’ in the daytime is such a terrible thing. In this world, luxury sells. The most desirable cars are the expensive luxury models. We are enticed into being pampered at a luxury weekend spa hotel or persuaded that we deserve that exotic Caribbean holiday. Even ice cream has luxury versions. So why is Peter so anti-luxury? It is instructive to look at the Greek word and the connotations behind it. It is tryphen, which means to enfeeble especially the mind and body by indulgence, effeminacy, luxury or debauchery (Strong). And while I’m here, the word pleasurable is hedonen – sensual delight, by implication, desire. From this is derived the English word, hedonism – pursuit or devotion to pleasure, esp of the senses. Does a devotion to pleasure enfeeble? Physically that is without doubt. In the global north the incidence of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and so much more has reached pandemic proportions. But Peter is not being concerned with our physical health but with our spiritual health, our relationship with God; a feebleness of mind. He is talking about false teachers who are daring and self-willed, unafraid of speaking abusively even of glorious, angelic beings (v10). Not content to reserve the night for their feasting they spend the day luxuriating in effeminacy and dainty living, revelling in it. Like Baalam they receive their reward right now (v15). ‘Where is this promised presence of his?’ they cry (3:4). And so they speak lightly of God’s moral law deeming themselves enlightened as they espouse the ‘virtues’ of tolerance. Live for today, for tomorrow we shall die. They are spots and blemishes, spiloi and momoi, in stark contrast to the Lamb who was without spot and blemish (1 Peter 1:19). Peter’s urgent warning is that we do our utmost to be spotless and unblemished too, not to be lead astray, so that we continue growing in the undeserved kindness of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Should we therefore embrace asceticism, don the hair shirt, self-flagellate and lock ourselves away to make cheese, brew strong beer and keep bees, monastic style? How would we preach the good news? How would we incite to love and fine works? Jehovah wants us to enjoy life, to eat, drink and socialise as rewards for the hard work we do for Him as we keep an eye on the sort of persons he wants us to be.
‘But the territory of Dan was too cramped for them. So they went up and fought against Leshem and captured it and struck it with the sword. Then they took possession of it and settled in it, and they changed the name of Leshem to Dan, after the name of Dan their forefather.’
Comparing this brief summary with the full account found at Judges chapters 17 and 18 shows us that the Israelites had fallen into idolatry even before the death of Joshua. What we know of Jonathan the ‘priest’ is equally informative. Firstly, he was the grandson of Moses, thereby giving us some idea of when these events occurred. Secondly, he had no authority to provide priestly services, as he was not a descendant of Aaron. The last five chapters, horrific and disturbing as they are, added as an appendix, are clearly not referring to events later in history, but to their behaviour so very soon after entering and taking possession of this wonderful promised land with which Jehovah had blessed them.
The awful realisation of the atrocity that had been committed in their midst - gang-rape and murder - dawned on the Israelites. An evil deed had been perpetrated in Israel, Jehovah's own people, and the perpetrators needed to be brought to justice. The nation had to cleansed and all reproach on the divine name removed.
It was a noble aspiration; alas they did not seek Jehovah’s advice on the matter. They gathered at Mizpah with a vast and unwieldy army of 400,000 men and said 'Now this is what we will do to Gibeah:...’ (v9)
Of course Benjamin could have done the right thing and handed over the guilty men, or did the judging themselves, and all would have been well. But, faced with these threats, stubbornness, pride and nationalism kicked in. Benjamin bristled, reared-up and a difficult situation ensued. So what did the men of Israel do?
'The men of Israel apart from Benjamin mustered 400,000 men armed with swords, and each one was an experienced warrior. They rose up and went up to Bethel to inquire of God. Then the people of Israel said: "Who of us should go up in the lead to the battle against the Benjaminites?" Jehovah replied: "Judah is to take the lead."' (vv17-18)
It was the wrong question at the wrong time. Instead of asking ‘what shall we do? Will you lead us?’ they had already decided on a course of action. Rather than seeking Jehovah's advice they were merely asking him to validate the plan that they were on the cusp of executing. Jehovah answered their one and only question. They proceeded and were defeated: 22,000 men dead.
They decided to have another go in the same manner. In v23 they did ask whether they should or not but it was an impossible question for God to answer. He couldn’t say 'No'. 22,000 men would have died in vain, the criminals in Benjamin would have gone unpunished and unpunished crime leads to anarchy. They were still keen to keep the nation clean but clearly had not learned the lesson. So he said 'on you go' and they were defeated – again: only 18,000 dead this time.
Finally the penny dropped.
'At that all the men of Israel went up to Bethel. They wept and sat there before Jehovah, and they fasted on that day until the evening and offered up burnt offerings and communion offerings before Jehovah. After that the men of Israel inquired of Jehovah, for the ark of the covenant of the true God was there in those days. Now Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, was ministering before it in those days. They asked: "Should we go out yet again to battle against our brothers, the men of Benjamin, or should we stop?" Jehovah replied: "Go up, because tomorrow I will give them into your hand."'
(vv26-28)
Approaching Jehovah with a contrite spirit, with sacrifices offered through the approved channel of the High Priest, they belatedly received his advice.
What happened? With a much reduced army of just 10,000 men and a greatly refined plan of action they finally managed to achieve their objective.
My friend Jules summed up this account thus - 'One woman is gang-raped; 92,460 die in war; over 50,000 women killed; the inhabitants of Jabesh slaughtered and 600 girls forcibly married.'
If we learn nothing else from these appalling events we must learn to ask Jehovah first in everything we do – not asking him to rubber-stamp our own plans. Jehovah always answers our prayers. 'No matter what we ask, according to his will, he hears us.' (1 John 5:14)
When that answer is 'Yes' it's great – everything falls almost miraculously into place. But when the answer is 'No' or 'Not Yet' that’s harder to deal with. These are valid answers. Jehovah always answers our prayers. All we need to do is ask the right question at the right time. We will be acting in harmony with the Lord's Prayer. Yes, we want our Father's name to be sanctified but we do it according to His will, not ours.
'Then the two sons, Mahlon and Chilion also died…'
I suppose that if you are going to name your sons 'Sickness' and 'Consumption' then it is hardly surprising that they were not long for this world. Elimelech, their father, also died prematurely before his sons were even married. Was he a sickly man, revelling in his hypochondriacal moroseness, melancholy, nervous and prone to anxiety? Surely you don’t call your children by such names even if they are so afflicted. ‘Hi, meet my daughters Asthmatic and Heart Defect’! So what’s going on?
This could be the writer explaining events in a cryptic manner. They died young and here is a clue as to why – names of a descriptive or prophetic nature perhaps. But then we come across 1 Chronicles 4:22 which tells us about two sons of Shelah, grandsons of Judah, called Joash and Saraph, who became husbands of Moabite women. This must have been a notable event for it to be recorded in this way. What else do we know about these men? They were potters who lived in Netaim and Gederah. The location of these two towns is uncertain but they are both believed to have been of, or within, Judah. This fits the genealogy of all four names. Elimelech was of the tribe of Judah, living in Bethlehem, and Boaz his relative was, naturally, also of Judah but descended from Shelah’s ‘brother’ Perez.
However, there is the problem of timing, whichever way we look at it. Shelah was one of the men of Israel who entered Egypt, where the family remained for the next 215 years. Any sons of Shelah would have been born in Egypt and would have lived and died there; long before the exodus and long before the entry into, and apportioning of, the Promised Land. Indeed, where in Egypt would they have found Moabite women to marry? So when verse 21 says ‘sons’ of Shelah it must also refer to sons of following generations – grandsons, great grandsons and so on. The Hebrew language allows for this. Interestingly, the Chronicler adds the caveat that ‘these records are ancient’ or according to the footnote ‘sayings of tradition’. It seems that he recognised the problem but found the information too valuable to exclude.
Were Mahlon and Chilion really called Joash and Saraph? It is a distinct possibility.
'Ministerial servants should not be… double-tongued…'
What does that mean? The Greek word is dilogos, literally two words. This is the only occurrence of this word in the Bible. The two words spoken would be different words, specifically for different audiences, in order to deceive, or possibly to ingratiate oneself with each group. In this respect, ministerial servants are in a unique position, sandwiched as they are between the ‘rank and file’ on the one hand and the elders on the other. Theirs is both an administrative role, combining serious spiritual responsibilities. The original seven deacons, ministerial servants, were selected for their practical abilities in fairly distributing food. Stephen and Phillip were also spiritual men. No doubt the other five were too but Luke does not enthrall us with their exploits! Perhaps this dual role is why the counsel is given to ministerial servants alone. They are not overseers, perhaps aspiring to be such, but still of the congregation; they might thus appeal to both groups in a contradictory and deceitful manner. Why might this happen? Many people are ambitious and being part of any organisation both creates and satisfies that desire. The Jehovah’s Witness organisation has a very hierarchical structure, notwithstanding the fact that we are all brothers and that no one but the Christ should be called leader (Matthew 23:8-10). Elders are viewed as congregation leaders; circuit overseers keep the elders in check; they in turn report to the branch committee: to the zone overseer: to the governing body. It is a structure that works but without fancy garb and salary. Nobody at any level would dream of declaring himself more important and superior to another, but human nature is such that this is exactly how these offices of responsibility are regarded. Ministerial servants are on the bottom rung of this ladder, so to speak. Reaching out to be an overseer is seen to be commendable. But for what? To perform a fine work, not to receive an office of prominence (1 Timothy 3:1). That is a subtle difference and one that is not always appreciated. The exhortation to avoid deviousness in speech is thus appropriate.
'For the love of the Christ compels us…'
Here we have an example of how a subject for research can arise when comparing different translations. In this case KJV tells us that the love of the Christ ‘constraineth us’. That seems very different – being compelled and constrained are not exactly synonymous. Indeed they are almost antonymous. Other translations: controls, impels, pressures, urges us on, ruled by. The Greek word synechei translates as holding together: ‘to compress or arrest; figuratively, to compel, perplex, afflict, preoccupy’ (Strong 4912).
We could also ask what it is that so affects us – the love the Christ has for us or the love we have for the Christ. This is the easier part to answer. Paul frequently refers to the love emanating from the Christ - for example at Romans 8:35. It is love entirely undeserved. But what exactly does this love do for us? Does it constrain, compel, impel, propel or anything else? What is the difference? If we are constrained we are being held back and prevented. From what? Every self-seeking purpose. Being constrained regarding self means that this love directs our every situation to the good of others. In developing his argument Paul goes on to describe us as ambassadors for Christ*. Jesus came to Earth to do, not his own will, but that of Him who sent him. Therefore this constraining love ensures that we likewise perform the will of the Christ above that of our own. We are constrained, prevented, from doing otherwise. This illustrates the meaning of the word ‘to arrest’.
To compel, or impel, is a slightly different idea. These two words have broadly the same meaning; to force someone to do something irresistibly. There is, however, a subtle difference. The person who has been impelled has been persuaded and so acts with a certain amount of choice. The compelled person has no choice in the matter. The compelling is so strong that choice, personal preference, does not enter into it. I therefore feel that ‘compel’ is the better translation. It is the positive aspect – what we do, rather than what we do not do. The person who has come to fully experience the love of the Christ is so overwhelmed, so afflicted, so preoccupied that he gives his entire life for the Christ. This love is so coercive that he lives his life entirely without thought for self.
* Note: an ambassador is an official representative and as such we do represent Christ here on earth. No human can ever substitute for or replace Christ, either as an individual or collectively as an organisation. There is no word in the Greek text of 5:20 for 'substitute', yet NWT insert this word twice in that verse (Rev 22:18). For what purpose? I'll let you ponder that!
'In those days the Philistines assembled their armies for war against Israel… Now Samuel had died, and all Israel had mourned him and had buried him in Ramah, his own city. And Saul had removed the spirit mediums and the fortune-tellers from the land… Although Saul would inquire of Jehovah, Jehovah never answered him, either in dreams or by the Urim or through the prophets. Finally Saul said to his servants: ‘Find me a woman who is a spirit medium, and I will go and consult her.’ His servants replied: ‘Look! There is a woman who is a spirit medium in En-dor.’'
Valley of Jezreel – Gideon with 300 men defeated the Midianites. The Philistines defeated Israel under King Saul. Two decisive battles; glorious victory in the first instance; inglorious defeat in the second.
What was the difference? Saul was no Gideon. Gideon had a healthy working relationship with Jehovah and so could act with full trust and confidence that he had divine support. The only time Saul sought Jehovah’s advice through His prophet Samuel was when Samuel was dead. Saul was afraid. He kept on seeking the advice of the god he had so frequently rejected. Now it was Saul who was rejected and left to fend for himself. There were no messages, no words of encouragement: just silence and loneliness in the darkness of calamity. In desperation he chose to break his own, indeed God’s law. To get from the camp of Israel on Mount Gilboa to En-dor, Saul had to go around and past the Philistine army that was encamped between; the disguise had a dual purpose. He was obstinate and wretched. How sad, how ironic! The following day he died – one of just four named men recorded in the Bible as committing suicide. The Philistine archers found him and Saul was, according to the Hebrew, distressed, sore afraid, or greatly alarmed. NWT, KJV and others translates this as ‘wounded’. Whether he was really wounded or just cornered he chose to end his own life. It wasn’t until the next day that the Philistines realised just how complete their victory had been when they found Saul and his three sons dead. It was a tragic end to a reign that had begun with such promise.
'When the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead heard what the Philistines had done to Saul, all the warriors rose and travelled all night and took the bodies of Saul and his sons off the wall of Beth-shan.'
Almost forty earlier Saul had come to the rescue of the men of Jabesh-gilead (1 Samuel 11). This act of salvation had never been forgotten. For all his failings, his inconsistencies and loss of favour with Jehovah these men were determined that their dead king, the anointed of Jehovah, should not be treated with such disrespect. They risked their lives in retrieving his body so that he could have a decent burial.
‘David kept reigning over all Israel, and David was administering justice and righteousness for all his people.’
Although David was a capable military leader, he did not neglect has civil duties. His predecessor Saul was also a skilled warrior, but he did nothing to mould the disparate and anarchic tribes of the period of the Judges into a cohesive and functioning nation. He completely ignored the needs his own people. This verse notes that David reigned over all Israel. The tribes had all come to him and had willingly accepted him as their king and leader. Having accepted this trust, he gave careful attention to orderly government, ensuring that processes for administering justice, settling legal disputes and the punishment of crime, were adhered to. After all, what do people really want? To be treated fairly and justly. So much goodwill and contentment flows from knowing that our leaders actually care about us and are doing all they can to ensure that justice is available to everyone.
Alas, the world we inhabit is completely opposite to this. There is no justice; legislation is written by the powerful for the powerful. The bankers ensure we stay in debt. The pharmaceuticals ensure we stay alive yet sick. The weapons manufacturers ensure we keep going to war. The media ensure that we are not told he truth. The government ensures this is all done legally. The lack of good government during the period of the Judges lead to anarchy that proved to be a real and existential threat to the nation of Israel. Satan’s world is no different. But at least we can gather around David’s everlasting successor, Jesus, whose reign will also be established on justice and righteousness (Isaiah 9:7).
‘This is what Jehovah says to his anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of to subdue nations before him, to disarm kings, to open before him the double doors, so that the gates will not be shut:’
We read this familiar account of the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian without too much thought. The details are well known; he diverted the Euphrates, sloshed up the riverbed, shopping trolleys and bicycles notwithstanding, and entered Babylon easily through gates that had been carelessly left open. Just as had been prophesied some centuries earlier. That’s the bit we rightly marvel at. But there is more.
Did you notice that Cyrus is referred as Jehovah’s anointed one? The Hebrew word is mashiach, translated as khristos in the Greek Septuagint, a word that is used just thirty nine times in the Hebrew and translated into English as 'messiah' and 'christ'. Most frequently it refers to Kings Saul and David, to the priests, and in special prophetic usage at Daniel chapter nine to Jesus Christ himself. It always refers to Jehovah’s people, except here in this forty-fifth chapter of Isaiah. Cyrus is the only heathen king to receive this epithet. True, Jehovah gave visions to Pharaoh and referred to Nebuchadnezzar as 'my servant'. They had not been raised for a specific purpose. Cyrus had been anointed, not by oil, but by Jehovah himself to perform a task that had been planned, not by Cyrus, but by Jehovah. Just as Jesus was the Messiah, the Christ, anointed by holy spirit to restore the whole of mankind, Cyrus in this instance was the Messiah and Christ anointed to restore the Israelites to Jerusalem.
As for the strategy, without insider information, it would have been suicidal. Ordinarily the gates alongside the quays were kept shut. Cyrus’s army would have marched up the river to be picked-off at will by the defenders on the walls, with nowhere to hide. But he did have intelligence – of the very best quality. Jehovah had prepared the way. The revellers in the city were past caring; the gates were open; Jehovah dried up the river and the deed was done. Babylon fell in one night, Belshazzar was killed and the treasures hidden in concealed places were delivered to Cyrus all ‘for the sake of my servant Jacob and of Israel my chosen one’ and so that Jerusalem would be rebuilt. This account must rank alongside the crossing of the Red Sea, the Jordan in spate, Gideon’s three hundred men v the Midianites, amongst others, actions and strategies that, without Divine direction, would never have been contemplated and could not have succeeded. It is an amazing account.
‘This is what Jehovah says: “Here I am bringing against you calamity from within your own house…”’
These calamities from within David’s own house begin in the very next chapter. Amnon raped his sister, Absalom murdered Amnon and then fled, and while in exile with his grandparents likely hatched a plan to depose the king and usurp the throne of all Israel. Does Nathan's prophecy therefore mean that Jehovah moved Amnon and Absalom to behave as they did in order to punish David? No. Jehovah does not work like that. What Amnon in particular did was the logical result of parental example. Amnon wanted Tamar but she was forbidden to him by law – she was his sister. He took her anyway. Bathsheba was forbidden to David by law – she was the wife of another man. He took her anyway. David was rightly angry with Amnon for humiliating his father's daughter but he withheld all discipline. How can a father chastise a son who has followed in his father’s footsteps? David is here wallowing in the moral lowlands and is deeply inhibited by his own past actions. Freeness of speech is a valuable commodity to be cherished by all parents. What the children see mummy and daddy doing is the path they will likely take, for good or ill. Beware!
Whilst we are here it is fascinating to compare the reactions of Bathsheba and Tamar to male lust. Bathsheba was a beautiful woman, bathing alfresco, probably in a scantily clad or naked condition, aware that her house was next to the royal palace and that a king in residence would be able to admire his comely neighbour. When summoned, there is no record of dissent. When seduced there is nothing in the account to suggest that she did anything other than submit. And when dismissed, she simply went home knowing that, under law, she would be stoned to death for what she and the king had just done. Perhaps this was her plan - a bored housewife, husband away on a campaign, nothing else to do... who was seduced?
Tamar was a virtuous and beautiful young lady. In her innocence she willingly and obediently baked the cakes for her ‘ailing’ brother. When the horror of the situation and her brother’s beastly intentions dawned upon her she firstly made an impassioned plea to reason – you are my brother, I will be humiliated and shamed, you will be classed amongst the disgraceful men of Israel. Cleverly she suggests that the king might let her be his wife even though she fully knew that this could not be. It was a stratagem designed to gain time. Then Amnon overpowered her; she clearly resisted his advances. When thrown out she put ashes upon her head, ripped her garments, and walked on crying, with her head in her hands. A truly innocent victim of a dastardly crime.
Absalom - The First Modern Politician
Here is a man of great beauty, low on intelligence, big on ambition and with a fancy hairdo to match.
Wanting to do everything with great pomp and ceremony, to be impressive, to make promises he has no intention of keeping - is that not the way of every politician? Absalom was out on the hustings, canvassing the public, swaying opinion in his favour, in order to build a popular mandate. If only I was in charge your life would be so much better. Promises, promises!
Horses – most Israelites walked wherever they went. That is the way Samuel travelled, humbly and modestly even though he was God's representative. The well-to-do had saddled donkeys. But horses were a novelty; and he had a chariot to go with them! Even kings Saul and David never indulged in such luxuries. Today it is the motorcade, the Rolls Royce and the private jet in order to visit luxury resorts, for knees-ups at taxpayer’s expense, with ‘vital’ government business as the excuse. These heads of state and their acolytes all pretend that they have the answers to the world’s woes. They know very well that they have no answers at all but that does not stop them making vacuous promises. Vote for me and I will fix this and change that. Does not any one of them ever recognise that some, if not all of the world’s problems are beyond their control and therefore they must advocate God’s Kingdom as the only hope for mankind? Not at all. Just as Absalom betrayed his own father and king and treacherously worked to overthrow him, so do modern politicians work in opposition to God’s anointed king Jesus Christ. This is why Jehovah’s Witnesses do not vote or have opinions on questions of politics and democracy. How can we possibly champion, promote or support those who actively pursue their own interests and ambitions over and above all else? All politicians are, by definition, Absaloms.
'...making the best use of your time...'
In the previous version of NWT, now known as the Reference Bible, this phrase was rendered ‘buying out the opportune time’ and I began to wonder why the change from the specific to the subjective.
The Greek word is exagorazomenoi and breaking this down into its constituent parts is instructive. ex is a preposition meaning ‘out’. The agora was the centre or marketplace of a town, where the day’s trading and other business functions were performed. So the verb agorazo means to buy or trade at the market. Putting it all together we get the idea of a merchant who keenly watches the market, who has put aside pleasure and wastefulness so that when the right product becomes available at the right price, he is there with the funds available so that he can immediately pounce. The modern-day equivalent might be the stock trader regularly checking the charts to discover the most propitious time to buy or sell. Perhaps he divests of this stock so as to invest in a better value stock. It is all very specific. He knows the price, and more importantly, the value of his trades.
Applying the illustration to time, we all know that much time is wasted in trivial pursuits. We spend hours watching the television, not to see a certain programme that might be of particular value or interest, but all sorts of drivel just because it’s there and on. People spend much time and money following their sports team – attending all the home games and as many away games as possible; watching games live on TV; the highlight shows; following the analyses, news and gossip. Of course, there is nothing wrong with any of this. It is all harmless fun and in many ways, therapeutic. But is there a better use that can be made of our time given that the days are wicked? This is a trade that requires careful and personal analysis. If we stop doing this or that specifically to engage in a more profitable activity then we are buying out the time. We know exactly what we are sacrificing for greater long-term value. This is why I am unenthusiastic about the revision. ‘Best use’ is very subjective and vague. If I do not know what I have sacrificed and the value of what I have purchased, how can I know whether my trade is opportune? Would anyone else agree that my time is being best used? What we do in this regard has to be specific and measurable so that we can know and show that we really are buying out time. If I can point to an activity that I really enjoyed but have stopped doing to engage in a greater value activity related to my worship of Jehovah, then I can prove that that time has specifically been bought out. That is the point of Paul’s pertinent illustration of the agora, and rather lost in the revised version.
'At that the three mighty warriors forced their way into the camp of the Philistines and drew water from the cistern by the gate of Bethlehem and brought it to David; but he refused to drink it and poured it out to Jehovah.'
King David was an inspiring, charismatic leader. He excited such enthusiasm in his followers that they would stop at nothing to prove their devotion to him. Here we have such an instance of the noble chivalry that fears no danger in providing the smallest act in the devoted service of the beloved master. In the service of our Lord Jesus are we so utterly devoted that we fear no danger and embrace self-sacrifice to perform his every request? The love of the Christ compels us! 'No one has greater love than this, that someone would surrender his life in behalf of his friends' (John 15:13).
'subdue [the Earth]'
This is a verse frequently used to demonstrate the original purpose for mankind. They were blessed and commissioned to have children so that the Earth would be filled with a perfect human family, living in a paradise that would eventually expand outward from the Garden of Eden to encompass the entire globe. In this sense they would indeed subdue the Earth. However, in light of a growing realisation that humans, rather than caring for their home (Genesis 2:15), are exploiting, abusing and generally trashing the planet, the word ‘subdue’ seems a little unfortunate and highly descriptive of what man has actually achieved in his life alienated from God. In defining the verb ‘to subdue’ The New Collins English Dictionary uses words such as force, intimidation, persuasion, repress. Is this not what humans have actually done to their environment and to anyone and anything living in it by which they can gain some financial, military or political advantage? Yet, nearly every Bible translation uses this word, following the lead set by KJV. In 1611 the awful comprehension of what humans would achieve was beyond imagination.
In what way, then, were humans to subdue the Earth? It is worth noting from verses 29 and 30 that Jehovah had already provided abundant food for humans and animals alike. Eking out a miserable living was not to be part of human experience. Thus, unencumbered by existential anxieties and endowed with a brain that is capable of endless learning, would not subduing be entirely a journey of delightful discovery? Our Earth is a veritable treasure-trove of beauty waiting to be discovered, admired and valued. Through earnest endeavour and scientific discovery fuelled by admiration and appreciation, humans would have learned how to enjoy the ‘glorious freedom of the children of God’ (Romans 8:21). And Jehovah can never be accused of being stingy. This planet is teeming with animal life, from micro-organisms by the billions to the vast sea monsters; with plant life; with minerals both functional and beguilingly beautiful; with light producing infinite shades of colour; with refreshing water in its every state; with food for all in immeasurable flavours and textures; with every waste product being efficiently recycled to keep our home in pristine condition. What glorious freedom we could all have enjoyed! Alas, all creation keeps on groaning and being in pain (Romans 8:22). Mineral wealth is depleted, the land and the environment are unstable, pollution is ubiquitous, species become extinct daily, the powerful become ever more wealthy – the majority poor are treated as ‘unhumans’ with no food, no home, no medicine, no dignity, even the internecine ability to destroy all life is within our grasp. Man’s subduing is a most unhappy tale.
If you were given the task of translating this verse, what word would you use to describe Adam’s commission?
'For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field under cultivation, God’s building.'
Who are the ‘we’? Who are the ‘you’? And why does Paul switch metaphors mid-sentence, from agriculture to architecture? This is a verse that is frequently used in a superficial way to provide encouragement and stimulation to anyone who starts to feel superfluous. We are working with God; we are a team; all growth is due to team effort. It is a very interesting verse to dissect.
When written the ‘we’ referred to Paul and Apollos in the first instance. The context is clear – I planted, Apollos watered but God made it grow. By extension, I suppose that Sosthenes the co-author might be included, as could any other member of Paul’s travelling party of missionaries. The ‘you’? Equally obvious, this refers to the recipients of the letter, the congregation at Corinth. What about in modern times – who are the ‘we’ and the ‘you’ today? This is less obvious. If the ‘we’ refers to every baptised publisher engaged in a ministry, as is frequently asserted, then who are the ‘you’? It cannot refer to everyone to whom we preach because, in the majority of cases, there has been, and will be, no germination and thus there can be no growth. Is it those with whom we study? The seed sown among the thorns and in rocky places does germinate but does not bear fruit due to the hostile environment. Perhaps the ‘we’ is the faithful and discreet slave whose role is to provide spiritual food for the domestics (‘you’) at the proper time. That would fit the Paul/Apollos/Corinthians prototype and therefore we, the members of the global congregation, are not God’s fellow workers but are the ‘field under cultivation’. And yet, somehow we are fellow workers. Food for thought…
Why though the abrupt change of metaphor? Here are my thoughts. Agriculture is an activity over which humans have limited influence. The farmer tills his field to create a fertile environment. He sows his seed at the correct time of year. He maintains that environment by feeding the soil, irrigating the land, keeping it weed-free, and so on. But as for germination and growth – well, that remains a mystery. This is the domain of God. Yes, it is God who makes it grow.
Architecture is a very human activity. The developer has an idea; the architect produces the design; the builder brings it to reality. God is not directly involved. It is not possible to prepare the site, lay the foundation and then sit back and watch something magnificent appear of its own volition. It does not work like that. There is no mystery – just hard work.
It seems to me that these metaphors are mirror images of each other. In the first instance we prepare the field for Jehovah to grow disciples. In the other Jehovah does the groundwork and provides the foundation, Jesus Christ, upon which we construct a building. The apostle here supplies an example of being a fellow worker. He says ‘I laid a foundation’ but clearly it was Jehovah who provided that foundation. But then ‘let each one keep watching how he is building’. We as individuals have the privilege of building on that precious cornerstone, but what we build is within our control. He gives us some examples – durable materials such as gold, silver and precious stones; combustible materials such as wood, hay and straw. The materials we use are important, as our work will be tested by fire. And this is significant - the fire tests the work; it does not purge. Thus the fire cannot refer to any divine displeasure or of purgatorial expiation of the individual. What do we build? According to verse sixteen ‘you yourselves are God’s temple’ such that the spirit of God can dwell in us. What is that temple? Is Paul referring to the congregation itself, consisting of members each of who display either durable or combustible qualities? Or is each congregation member a temple?
In ancient Israel, initially the tabernacle and latterly the magnificent temple in Jerusalem represented the centre of pure worship. Here the priests ministered to Jehovah in holiness, just as Jehovah is holy. Worshippers came with sacrifices of thanksgiving for abundant blessings and at times with communion sacrifices to share joyous meals with the priests and with Jehovah himself. At other times they arrived with sacrifices for atonement or purification. So too our worship of Jehovah should be of great quality and purity, along with sacrifices of self, presented willingly and joyfully. Each of us should, in effect, be a mini temple in ourselves, dedicated to Jehovah and pure worship.
A physical temple is built of a variety of materials – predominantly of stone and wood, but also of gold, silver, hay and straw. As all the above materials are used in the construction of such an edifice in that respect they are equally valuable. The precious stones refer to high quality building stone – marble, granite and the like, not gemstones. The wooden rafters (cedars of Lebanon) that support the sarking and straw thatching of the roof are just as important as the costly materials within. These products, the gold and the silver along with the inferior constructional materials, are proved, tested together by the same fire. The question is whether Paul refers here to a single building constructed of all these materials or to separate buildings – a palace versus a log cabin. Scholars are divided. Therefore when he says ‘you yourselves’, is he referring to each individual as a constituent part of the congregation or is he referring to the congregation in its entirety as the temple? Here are some cross-references to consider:
If we teach our students so as to reach their hearts, moving them to value such precious Christian qualities as wisdom, discernment, fear of Jehovah, and genuine faith, then we are building with durable, fire-resistant materialsThis is sound advice but can it really be stated that a person’s durability during fiery tests of their faith is directly related to the teaching abilities of his instructor? Of course we want to do our best in helping our students come to love Jehovah and I would state that we all do, even though some of us are clearly more gifted in our teaching abilities than others. Would we deliberately teach so as not to reach the heart? The idea is absurd! Here in the irreligious and materialistic Global North finding anyone willing to learn is a cause of great moment. The oohs and ahs ripple through the congregation. There is a thrum of excitement and anticipation. The publisher glows with pride! He has been assured that it is Jehovah who makes it grow so he is not going to be careless and lackadaisical in his approach as he works alongside God. So there must be more to this work than preaching and teaching the infidel. True, this is the work we have been commissioned to fulfil by our leader Jesus and we enthusiastically embrace the task, yet we must be qualified. To be a qualified teacher we must firstly have been a student ourselves, and then continue to be a student for the rest of our lives. The best teachers are students. We will never come to know all there is to know about Jehovah, Jesus, the Bible, creation, each other... We delight in learning these things. The more we learn the more we realise how little we know and the deeper we dig the more wonderful are the treasures we unearth. And I think this is the point that the apostle is trying to make in his typically dense and cryptic manner. Everyone who comes to know the truth is expected to utilise his or her thinking ability and to be Beroean in his or her learning. Do we believe thus and so because we read it in a Watchtower article or do we go away and prove it for ourselves? Perhaps we are scared that we might arrive at a different conclusion and feel that in doing so we are being disloyal in some way. Coming to a different conclusion is stimulating. Jehovah has given each of us an amazing faculty called a brain, and he expects us to use it. Having looked at the issue from all sides, and if we still cannot agree, then maybe we feel that the Governing Body is wrong. They do not claim infallibility. It is usually us who infers that status upon them. Nevertheless, the issue will be one of detailing; the foundation is firm, immovable, and permanent: Jesus Christ. And think of this – if we do not take this latter step, proving to ourselves the veracity of what we have read, in what way are we different from the members of Christendom who blindly go along with church dogma and tradition? Of course we trust our brothers who claim appointment as a ‘faithful and discreet slave’ to provide information that is factual and true. Nevertheless we cannot base our beliefs on other people’s beliefs. Belief is personal. We cannot believe because we are told to believe – that’s gullibility. To truly believe, we will have proved it to ourselves, beyond all reasonable doubt.
'Solomon made a marriage alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt. He married Pharaoh’s daughter and brought her to the City of David until he finished building his own house, and the house of Jehovah, and the wall around Jerusalem.'
Here we have a neutral statement of fact. Solomon married an Egyptian princess. Who was she and why did he form this alliance? The Bible does not elucidate, nevertheless nowhere in the account is he censured for this marriage. In verse three we are told that ‘Solomon continued to love Jehovah by walking in the statutes of David his father’ and in verse five onwards we have the account of the dream in which Jehovah promised him wisdom and riches. Clearly Solomon had a good relationship with his God at this stage of his life. These are the only facts with which we are presented.
The Law forbade marriage alliances with foreigners. They would in general be a corrupting influence on the nation so it was for their safety. However foreigners who became proselytes, worshippers of Jehovah, were warmly welcomed. Many men who we highly esteem had foreign wives. Joseph married Asenath, an Egyptian. Moses married Zipporah, a Midianite. Salmon married the Canaanite Rahab and their son Boaz married Ruth, a Moabite. Just a few examples to show that Jehovah is not partial. ‘In every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.’ It would thus be reasonable to conclude that this particular Mrs Solomon was also a worshipper of Jehovah. Even in chapter eleven where he is censured for having wives of Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian and Hittite extraction they are mentioned besides the Egyptian. It would seem that she is still not included.
There is a potential fly in the ointment. In the parallel account in 2 Chronicles 8 we have an additional passage. Verse 11 says:
'Solomon also brought Pharaoh’s daughter up from the City of David to the house that he had built for her, for he said: “Although she is my wife, she should not dwell in the house of King David of Israel, for the places to which the Ark of Jehovah has come are holy.”'
Why did Solomon make this explanation about his wife not dwelling with the Ark? Did he have some sort of guilty conscience? Insight makes the following observation:
'He also built a house for his Egyptian wife; she was not allowed to “dwell in the house of David the king of Israel, for,” as Solomon said, “the places to which the ark of Jehovah has come are something holy.”' (it-2 p.220)
Fair enough. The sacred and the profane, the spiritual and the temporal should not mix. However note this comment from Watchtower:
'The Scriptures say that he did so because it was not fitting for a false worshipper to dwell near the Ark of the Covenant.' (w11 15/12 p.10)
The Scriptures do not say that. That she might have been a false worshipper is an assumption. It is a reasonable assumption but one that does not explain why Solomon was not denounced for accepting this woman. There are other possible explanations. Perhaps he did not want any of his wives, including his Israelite wives, living with the Ark. Perhaps this Egyptian wife was a worshipper of Jehovah but had a retinue of Egyptian maids who were idolaters. Obviously she was living at the house of David as a matter of temporary convenience until her own house was finished. That does not make her a pagan.
Of course, he didn’t need to marry an Egyptian. He already had a wife, and how many wives does a man need? We could ask the same of David, who was greatly loved by Jehovah: several wives and a harem. Solomon’s first wife was called Naamah, the mother of Rehoboam. She was an Ammonite and, unlike Egyptians, Jehovah had specifically proscribed them as marriage mates – to the tenth generation. So right from early on he displayed a casual attitude toward the laws of the land, which he, as king should have been a paragon. Note this from Deuteronomy 17:16-17:
'However, [your future king] should not acquire many horses for himself or make the people go back to Egypt in order to obtain more horses, since Jehovah told you, ‘You must never go back again by this way.’ Neither should he take many wives for himself, so that his heart may not go astray; nor should he acquire vast amounts of silver and gold for himself.'
Yes, Solomon did acquire many horses from Egypt, take many wives and collect vast amount of silver and gold. Clearly Solomon was the problem, not specifically his wives, individually or collectively.
‘Pray constantly’
Greek adialeiptos – lit: without ceasing, without omission, uninterruptedly
(See also Rom 1:9, 1 Thess 1:3, 2:13)
Two simple words but so instructive when submitted to serious contemplation. Prayer is so often regarded as a solemn and formalistic act of worship involving certain words uttered whilst in a particular deportment, perhaps with eyes raised, head bowed or on our knees, and at certain times of day. These are, of course all appropriate and valid. We are encouraged to approach God in reverence and with dignity. Typically this might mean top and tailing our prayer with suitable forms of address in which we recognise the essential role of our Lord Jesus as mediator between us as miserable imperfect humans and our Holy Father Jehovah.
And yet, all of this formality kind of works against this idea of praying constantly. It is impossible to pray constantly if we are required to be on our knees. We would starve to death, amongst other unnecessary and unpleasant consequences.
Clearly Paul has something else in mind: immediacy and spontaneity. For what should we pray? Prayer is our way of sharing our anxieties, expressing gratitude and appreciation, and making our petitions known to Him who is so willing and desirous to help. If we were expected to pray as above then we would need some kind of list-making device to remind us of what was important at any given instant of the day. We would forget many things. But if we allow a prayerful attitude to mingle with and colour our every thought and action then we can pray constantly. We see a beautiful view, taste a delightful flavour, receive a kind word, or anything else wonderful, we can say thank you at that moment. It will not go amiss. An errant thought, stray word or unkind action can be apologised for instantly. We can talk to Jehovah as we go about our daily activities, sharing our thoughts, seeking his advice. Canticles 5:2 even suggests that a prayerful attitude can be maintained during sleep. By so doing we make Jehovah a real and ever-present friend. We could call it mental prayer of the heart, private expressions sent heavenward even whilst engaged in the temporal affairs of life.
Considering the obverse is even more instructive. If Jehovah asks us to pray constantly, a logical conclusion must be that Jehovah is listening constantly. Think upon that for a moment. For twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year, every year for a lifetime, Jehovah is listening out for you and for me individually. What is he hearing? It might be disappointing for him to be hearing silence, but even though that may be the case he is waiting for us to say something. And when we do, he is ready to hear!
How might we benefit from having a constant companion? Good things are for sharing and doing so will improve every moment of life. Temptations are, by extension, also shared. Never will we have a moment of secrecy in which to indulge erotic fantasies, over-eating and drinking, acts of dishonesty and all other temptations common to man. Of course, Jehovah already knows our every thought and inclination. We each know the plague of our own heart. Being in constant prayer means that we can never reach that dark place where we feel we cannot pray. Such a protection is being at one constantly with Jehovah.
Cross references: Luke 18:1, Rom 9:2, Rom 12:12, Eph 6:18, Phil 4:6, Col 4:2
‘The man looked up and said “I see people but they look like trees walking about.”’
This is a piece built upon personal experience and not on any academic exegesis of scripture. As we travel through we life we perceive that whatever we do experience is also encountered in the pages of scripture. Here is one such case. I have been severely short-sighted for most of my life. It was first noticed during a routine school eye-test when I was aged eleven. The defect was corrected, initially with eyeglasses and subsequently by contact lenses. Recently I have been diagnosed with both cataracts and glaucoma. It becomes very obvious when one develops cataracts – everything becomes blurred in such a way that any amount of lenses cannot correct. It is comparable to looking at life through a permanently steamy window. Nevertheless, extracting a cataract and replacing it with a corrective lens is but a ten-minute operation. Apart from being unpleasant, it seems like a miracle. Glaucoma, on the other hand, is far more serious but it creeps up stealthily. It leads to permanent and irreversible blindness if not treated. It is caused by high pressure within the eye, effectively eroding the optic nerve, particularly where it splays out around corners to reach the various parts of the retina. Treatment is simple – either eye drops that keep the drainage channels open or by a one-off trabeculectomy which achieves the same using laser surgery. So to summarise, glaucoma is really critical whereas cataracts are not. Yes, they are hugely inconvenient but can be removed and they cause no lasting damage.
What has all this got to do with our verse above? The people of Bethsaida pleaded with Jesus to touch a blind man, probably with a view to healing him. Jesus, of course, obliged but it took him two attempts to heal the blindness. We could assume that something failed to work properly the first time around. That would be disingenuous given that Jesus is the Son of God. I like to think that this man had both glaucoma and cataracts. In the first instance Jesus cured the blindness caused by Glaucoma, thereby giving the man sight, albeit blurred; hence his comment about trees. Subsequently he removed the cataracts thus giving him clear vision. Verse 25 reports ‘His sight was restored, and he could see everything distinctly.’ Of course Jesus could have performed both operations in one go. Mark could have written ‘Jesus cured him’: an accurate statement of fact. But we would not have learned anything interesting. The Bible is written in such as a way as to inspire curiosity, tempting us to ponder and delve. The account as presented furnishes us with opportunity to meditate on details that add to our wonderment and augment our love and devotion for its author. Admittedly it takes time and effort. View that as an investment. By taking the Bible at face value we are impoverished. Making the time to ponder and investigate, linking the lives of its characters with our own, we discover treasures beyond delight!
‘For the creation is waiting with eager expectation for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but through the one who subjected it, on the basis of hope that the creation itself will also be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God. For we know that all [the] creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now.’
This passage has long fascinated me, yet I admit to tardiness in analysing it properly. I would like to focus on the term ‘creation’. What is Paul referring to specifically when he writes ‘the creation’ and ‘all creation’? Is groaning an activity that is specific to intelligent, human creation? The various WT publications are unanimous in the belief that this is the case. Part of the reasoning is that Paul twice uses the same word ktisis in Colossians in stating that Christ is the firstborn of all creation (v15) and that the good news had been preached in all creation under heaven (v23). What is the value of preaching to inanimate objects and to unreasoning beasts? Whilst Paul here limits creation to that of the Earth (under heaven) he uses hyperbole in using ‘all’. Perhaps every human may have had an opportunity to hear even though it was actually impossible for every individual to have received such a witness.
However this passage in Romans is different. Here we have what is technically known as a prosopopoeia – a literary device wherein inanimate objects are given voice; there are many examples in the Bible. Each of these four occurrences of the word ‘creation’ is prefixed by the definite article: the creation. This seems significant; just as it is vital to an accurate understanding of that opening verse of John’s gospel. I am not a linguist but it is not necessary to be such in order to follow Paul’s line of reasoning, for which we need to start in Genesis 1:28. Here we are told that Adam and Eve were to subdue the Earth, and have in subjection all living creatures. We all know what went wrong humanly speaking but do we sometimes underestimate the universal effects? Prior to the events of chapter three, there is not even the merest suggestion of death beyond the singular mention of punishment for eating the fruit of a certain tree. All living creatures, including humans, would eat vegetation. Predation, even scavenging, is not remotely hinted at. It would all be overseen by God’s crowning terrestrial creation – man, made a little lower than angels. Adam was able to study and name the animal domain without fear of being mauled and devoured. From a perfect beginning and a stable environment, things could only get better. However the first two humans chose to rebel, chose to reject their wonderful life, and in so doing chose to reject their creator and benefactor, Jehovah. From stability entered entropy – the very opposite of creation. Everything would now start to decay and die, initially very slowly as evidenced by human longevity in that antediluvian world.
And so Jehovah subjected all creation to futility, vanity, thus providing the hope that, one day, all the issues raised would be resolved allowing all creation to be restored to its original condition. Why? Because to ignore the situation would have been disastrous: for all creation, humans, Jehovah’s own reputation, and everything. That would have been a victory for Satan. The message of hope was announced immediately, as recorded at Genesis 3:15. It soon became apparent that hope was very much required. Noah’s father Lamech uttered a prophecy of hope as recorded at Genesis 5:29 in expectation of comfort from the work and pain of his hands. Then, immediately after the flood, the relationship between humans and animals deteriorated further in that Jehovah explained that they would have a fear and a terror of man, that man would be allowed to eat animals for food and that they in turn would attack and kill man. Fear and terror is so different from ‘having in subjection’. Do we suppose that the fauna enjoys being in a state of fear and terror? Bringing matters up to date, how many species have become extinct due to human activity, some even before having been discovered? How many are teetering on the brink of extinction, kept in unnatural existence by the earnest endeavours of naturalists and zoological societies? What about the Earth itself and its environment? We know that man had discovered iron and copper and its uses, long before the flood (Genesis 4:22). No doubt Jehovah wanted us to discover and use the abundant variety of minerals that he placed in the earth, so that we could have satisfying and productive lives. I don’t really think that he wanted us to sit around all day eating fruit – we have a staggeringly brilliant brain that needs to be exercised daily. Man, at once so clever and so imbecilic and stupid, has pillaged and plundered these natural resources to the extent that his very home now faces an existential threat. These minerals, along with the rain forests and every other even vaguely useful commodity, are being burned, processed and trashed, at alarming speeds, for short-term financial gain, whilst the air is choking with pollution, the land and sea are drowning in plastic waste, global temperatures are warming, glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, floods, landslides, droughts, wild fires, hurricanes… Even space is not immune. Space junk in orbit, on the Moon, on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and only God knows where else. Moon, once proposed as a testing ground for the nuclear weapons that are here in prodigious quantities, capable of destroying all life thousands of times over. Are you going to tell me that all creation is not groaning together under the weight of human mismanagement and imperfection as a result of alienation from his Creator?
This is exactly what Paul is referring to. The whole entirety of the creation has been deeply affected by the fall and all of it is in pain and groaning together while ‘waiting with eager expectation for the revealing of the sons of God’. The various entities have different expectations. Paul was waiting for release and adoption as one of Christ’s firstborn. Others of us await the destruction of the wicked and the restoration of our home so that we can enjoy the life Adam once had. Will not the animal kingdom enjoy being in subjection once again, having been released from fear and terror? Mankind’s fall into sin affected everything. And everything is groaning as a result, be it animate or inanimate, intelligent or unintelligent, victim or aggressor, innocent or guilty.
As a final thought, the writer of Hebrews provided a commentary on the words of the eighth Psalm that is really helpful to this discussion. Psalm 8:4-6 reads:
What is mortal man that you keep him in mind,The divinely inspired commentary at Hebrews 2:8-9:
And a son of man that you take care of him?
You made him a little lower than godlike ones,
And you crowned him with glory and splendour.
You gave him dominion over the works of your hands;
You have put everything under his feet:
'By subjecting all things to him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him. But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels, now crowned with glory and honour for having suffered death, so that by God’s undeserved kindness he might taste death for everyone.'That mortal man, in the first instance was Adam, the pinnacle of Jehovah’s physical creation, as originally constituted. We have no way of ever knowing what his dominion looked like other than by looking at our Lord Jesus. The animal kingdom was certainly in subjection to him. He called the fish and they obeyed; he was with the wild beasts in the wilderness and remained unharmed; he rode an unbroken donkey. Disease, demons and even death were subject to him, things that Adam should never have known. Nevertheless Jesus willingly submitted to death so that we might not have to. And through that death we have the opportunity to experience everything that Adam surrendered on our behalf. ‘Death will be no more’ says Revelation 21:4. I truly believe that; not just human death caused by Adamic sin but death in totality as strongly suggested in the opening chapters of Genesis.
‘So [Jesus] said to them: “Are you also without understanding like them? Are you not aware that nothing from outside that enters into a man can defile him, since it enters, not into his heart, but into his stomach, and it passes out into the sewer?” Thus he declared all foods clean.’
My interest here is with that final, subordinate phrase. It is apparent that this is an observation made at a later date by the author and is not the purpose of Jesus’s dialogue about the uncleanness or otherwise of eating with unwashed hands. Note that the discussion is about ceremonial cleanness, the elaborate washing up to the elbows, not a lesson on hygiene. This sentence is one of those greatly debated remarks coming from the obfuscated language of KJV – ‘…and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?’ Most modern translations helpfully place these simplified words in parenthesis (e.g. ESV, BSB, NAB, et al).
Some chronological context will help us to arrive at a reasonable verdict. Jesus’s words were uttered before his sacrificial death in 33 CE fulfilled The Law. At that point all foods were not clean. The Law was still in force with its detailed lists – Leviticus chapter eleven for example. However, Mark wrote his gospel around the years 60 – 65 CE. It is generally accepted that much of his source material came from Peter. It is not without merit that it is sometimes referred to as the Gospel of Peter. In the year 36 CE Peter had his vision of the giant tablecloth descending from heaven full of unclean animals. He was told to slaughter and eat. He recoiled in horror. He had a lesson to learn, not necessarily about food but Gentiles! These were the early days of living beyond The Law. Our brothers had so many changes thrust upon them. Circumcision was the primary stumbling block. But so too were foods that had previously been prescribed as unclean. Jesus had fulfilled The Law. There were no longer any ceremonially unclean foods. Thus the inserted comment at the end of verse nineteen refers both to the situation at the time of writing, and also to Jesus’s scientific observation that the digestive process extracts the nutrients from whatever food is presented to it and the waste passes through for disposal. So whilst respecting the inalienable proscription of eating blood, all foods became, and remain, clean.
The solemn duty of each and every follower of Christ is to declare the good news of salvation that we have received through God’s undeserved kindness. We have discovered, or been lead to, a bounteous feast of spiritual food and blessings without end. This feast is not limited, it will not run out, there is plenty to share with all. Why would we not want to share? Everlasting life in complete isolation is going to be ever so lonely! This was the realisation that came to the four lepers of Second Kings chapter seven. There they were stuck between the walls of Samaria and the besieging Syrian army. Inside was famine and death. Outside was famine and death. Having engaged in some logical reasoning, coming to the realisation that three of the possible options would lead to their deaths, they headed over to the Syrian camp where there might have been a slim possibility of survival. And lo, it was abandoned, just as it was. They entered a tent and began to eat and drink after which they carried away silver, gold and garments. They repeated this in another tent. Finally… how many tents did they plunder? Finally, it occurred to them that this was a day of good news and that they ought to tell the masses starving to death inside the city.
Does a person who has learned, tasted and received such wondrous truths of salvation deserve to benefit if he refuses to share with his friends, family and neighbours? This is the stark truth that the lepers discerned. They had to go and declare the good tidings. Anyone who claims to have fellowship with Christ yet refuses to share the amazing benefits with others is a greedy, selfish charlatan deserving of punishment. ‘Get away from me, you workers of unrighteousness’! But Sir, Sir…
These two verses appear in the Symphony No. 2 by Felix Mendelssohn – ‘Lobgesang’, as a rather pleasing rendition.
Wir riefen in der Finsternis: Hüter, ist die Nacht bald hin?
Der Hüter aber sprach:
Wenn der Morgen schon kommt, so wird es doch Nacht sein;
Wenn ihr schon fraget, so werdet ihr doch wiederkommen und wieder fragen: Hüter, ist die Nacht bald hin?
We called in the darkness, will the night soon pass?An enigmatic prophecy. The night, a time of fear and panic due to darkness and solitude. Who is out there? What do they want? When will it end? Is the morning near at hand? But don’t wish your troubles away too eagerly. When morning breaks and daylight dawns, when relief appears to be at hand, beware! Another night of tribulation will follow.
But the Watchman said:
If the morning comes soon, it will yet again be night;
And if you ask you will return and ask again, Watchman, will the night soon pass?
Happy are the men who find their strength in you,Each Israelite man was required, by law, to visit Jerusalem three times in the year to celebrate the festivals of Jehovah. Our text here alludes to these physical journeys, those men who set out with joy and enthusiasm to partake of the blessings on offer. These are not journeys of necessity, of duty, of tedium. Their hearts are set on the roads that lead from every corner of the land to Jerusalem, the centre of true worship. Even the Baca Valley, the Valley of Weeping (ASV), the driest, dreariest part of the journey seems to become filled with verdant and luxurious growth. The travails endured here are barely noticed as they head towards their destination, anticipating and focussed on the excitement in store. They go in the strength of Jehovah – He gives them strength upon strength. They arrive in Jerusalem unscathed and ready to appear before their God. A reminder to all of us that our worship of Jehovah should be a thing of pleasure, a fountain of blessings bringing excitement and joy. Never allow the journey to become so arduous that we stop anticipating the destination. Focus on that destination – New Jerusalem situated on a lofty mountain shining as gold, crystal clear; a river of life flowing down the main avenue with banks adorned with verdant and luxurious trees of life; no more sickness and death, no more injustice, no more money and all the slavery and misery that it brings, no more Satan and all his evil cruelty, no more lies, nobody to distrust. Life, yes perfect life in abundance, just as anticipated by our Creator. Yes Jehovah, let your name be sanctified, let your Kingdom come! ‘Amen! Come Lord Jesus’.
Whose hearts are set on the highways.
When they pass through the Baca Valley,
They make it into a place of springs;
And the early rain clothes it with blessings.
They will walk on from strength to strength;
Each one appears before God in Zion.
'We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, both sure and firm, and it enters in within the curtain,'
An anchor on its own is a completely useless item, but is a vital component in a system used to stabilise and protect a vessel, and as such, this is an interesting illustration. In the deep blue sea the anchors that generally come to mind, great hunks of cast iron, do not work. If it cannot reach the bottom then it will just hang and endanger the vessel. The boat needs to be in an appropriate anchorage, never on a lee shore. Without a strong and securely attached hawser and cable the anchor will be lost for good. But when used correctly it becomes the key element in making the craft ‘sure and firm’.
A ship at anchor will still experience turbulence; it will ride the waves and swing on the tide. We are that ship afloat in this miserable world. Our hope is the seabed, either firm immovable rock or good sand into which the flukes of our anchor can find good purchase. The safe anchorage is the congregation to which we need to be resolutely attached by our chain – not so tightly that we cannot cope with rising tides but not so loose that we drift further than is advisable.
The writer now gets a bit clever in introducing this curtain motif. The Greek word katapetasmetos refers specifically to the curtain that shielded the Most Holy from the Holy. The Most Holy represented the presence of Jehovah, invisible to all other than the High Priest who would enter but once a year with blood. Our great High Priest Jesus entered the presence of Jehovah with his own blood, once for all time. Again this was invisible to human eyes. Having lobbed our anchor overboard it becomes invisible to us. If it is secure we will feel the effect – anchors can drag when incorrectly used. If our hope is anchored securely in Jehovah, we will see our hawser snaking into the temple, through the Holy, so to speak, and disappearing under the curtain into Jehovah’s presence. We cannot see our anchor but we know that we are safe. We are at anchor, riding out the storm in a secluded bay until that blessed day when all things will have been made new. Our hope will have been realised. We will not need to weigh anchor - we can just cut away the ropes and be unburdened by the weight of an item that we will never need again.
The opening verse includes the phrase ‘after this’ or afterward… After what? The previous chapter recounts how Jehoshaphat had instructed the judges and appointed Levites to ensure justice in the land and that the people were serving Jehovah with a complete heart. It was after this, when true worship had been restored, when things were going well, that Satan decided that it was time for some opposition. As is so often the case this was to come from family – the sons of Lot and the brothers of Jacob.
Jehoshaphat became afraid – of whom? Naturally of the large crowd that was threatening his people and nation, but primarily, I think of Jehovah too. The last time he went to war he sought divine guidance, received it, ignored it and was very nearly killed. Commendably he is not deterred. He and the people enquire of Jehovah. The king stood before the people and through a simple and elegant prayer:
‘”I have said these things to you so that by means of me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation, but take courage! I have conquered the world.”’Peace and tribulation – that might seem a little counter-intuitive, an oxymoron. How can both exist together? The answer is in the words ‘I have conquered the world’. This is the parallel to ‘do not be afraid or be terrified… Jehovah will be with you’. Jehoshaphat and his people were afraid; it was a tribulation to them. But they went out singing joyfully with peace in their hearts. Jehovah had conquered the enemy. Jesus has conquered this world. It is mortally wounded, in its death throes yet still capable of inflicting tribulation. We therefore need courage but the peace comes from knowing that the battle is not ours. It has been fought and won for us, for you and me collectively and severally. It is the ‘peace of God’ (Phil 4:7) that is neither dependant on or subject to events. It is the profound inner peace of the meek and peaceable. We patiently await to collect the spoils in the Entire Planet of Blessing.
‘… I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples—if you have love among yourselves.’
We are all conscious of corporate identity; the trademarks, logos, colour schemes, jingles, taglines and typefaces that instantly identify a certain corporation, marque of car, brand of beef burger, make of cosmetic… These are all jealously and aggressively protected from misuse and imitation. Anyone found using them without authorisation, anyone found to be mimicking them, will be dealt with harshly. Why? Because these corporations do not want to be anonymous or confused with anyone or anything else. They want you to see their trademarks and instantly know whose product or service is before you.
What has this got to do with our text from John? Well, Jesus is here giving his disciples a new identity, one that will instantly distinguish his disciples as belonging to him, Jesus. That identifying mark is love – love among themselves. It is such a love that all men will know and instantly recognise these people as Jesus’s followers. This is not an any old kind of love, common to mankind, but this is the self-sacrificing love that Jesus showed towards his friends, indeed to all mankind. He died for them and for us. This is love from Jehovah because God is love. But why did they need this new identity?
The answer is found in the context. Jesus is saying goodbye. These are poignant, valedictory words. Jesus is to be glorified and is going away to a place where they, for the time being, cannot follow. Up to this point Jesus had been their identity. Everyone knew who Jesus was - they either loved him or hated him. His friends followed him wherever he went and so, by association, they were Jesus’s disciples. But when Jesus had departed, what then? How would anyone recognise them as his disciples without Jesus in their midst? Would they disperse back into anonymity? Would they return to fishing, collecting tax, going about their mundane familial duties as if that three-year period had been little more than an amazing sabbatical? That was a very real danger that Jesus had to avoid. So these men and women needed something to bind them together, to give them common purpose, a goal upon which to focus, an identity. We know that at Pentecost the operation of holy spirit was transformative. Suddenly they went from being a loose association of friends and family and became a congregation focused on the preaching work. But what would identify them from any and every other group with similar ideas? What was the trademark to be? It was not a logo, a symbol, but a living real-life identity, one that would follow them to the ends of the Earth. Wherever they happened to be, whatever they were doing, whoever they were with, this identity would stick. And it was love. Self-sacrificing love. Love that had never before been seen. Love that was unique. Everyone experiencing this love would know – yes, these are Jesus’s disciples.
‘… This is my commandment, that you love one another just as I have loved you. No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his life in behalf of his friends…’
This is another passage improved by considering the context. The metaphor in operation is that of a vine. Jehovah is the cultivator, Jesus is the stem, or trunk, and his disciples are the branches. The branches bear the fruit but only if they remain attached to the vine. Jesus depends upon us to bear fruit on his behalf; he wants us to remain in the vine. Branches that fail to bear fruit are lopped off and, conversely, lopped off branches cannot bear fruit. Therefore all branches have to remain in union with Jesus. This also and necessarily means that all the branches have a relationship with each other. They have a common inheritance. Just as each one of us would state his or her undying love for our Lord, Jesus here amends the illustration slightly in saying that we must have the same undying love for each other. The branches are not attached to each other directly, and therefore are not dependent upon one another in the same way as each branch is dependent on the stem, yet nevertheless we are to love each other in the same way as if we were.
'Who will separate us from the love of the Christ? Will tribulation or distress or persecution or hunger or nakedness or danger or sword?'
'For I am convinced that neither death nor life nor angels nor governments nor things now here nor things to come nor powers nor height nor depth nor any other creation will be able to separate us from God’s love that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.'
In this passage we have perhaps the greatest affirmation of the security, the unity and love that the Christ has for those whom he calls his friends (John 15:14). Just as Jesus summarised the law in two commands ‘You must love Jehovah your God… and your fellow man as yourself’ (Matthew 22:37-39), this equally applies to Jesus himself. The greatest bond of love and unity ever is between Jesus and his father, Jehovah. The second greatest bond is between Jesus and his devoted followers. It is so great that nothing can break that bond – except we ourselves! That is a concept so difficult to grasp that Paul here uses experiences from his own journey, expanded out to include every possible extreme, to illustrate the utterly extraordinary relationship and privilege that is open to all who wish to enjoy such wonderful things (2 Corinthians 11).
Paul supplies two separate lists. The first opens with the word ‘who’ although he lists, not persons, seven experiences that we might ordinarily believe could sever us from Christ.
Tribulation, (Thlipsis). This applies to pressure from without, affliction from external causes, in general, trial of any kind..
Distress, (Stenochoria). Literally narrowness of place. Dire straits, anxiety, distress of mind, not knowing what to do, or where to turn for relief and comfort.
Persecution, (Diogmos). This signifies a driving from place to place, banishment from home, family, all that is familiar because of our convictions and love for Jesus.
Hunger, (Limos). This refers not only to hunger in general but also as a result of being driven from home, wandering among strangers, deserts, desolate places, possibly due to the aforementioned persecution.
Nakedness, (Gymnotes). In want of proper clothing, wandering in sheep skins and goat skins, due to extreme poverty.
Danger, (Kindynos). A general term referring to danger of any kind.
Sword, (Machaira). Persecution because of love for Christ, figuratively for death itself, persecution taken to its ultimate point, judicial punishment.
For his second list, Paul heads for the polar opposites. Just in case what we have previously experienced is insufficient for our comprehension he now lists every possible category of being. Curiously KJV lists them in a slightly different order. So on a point of technicality we have either:
Two pairs of pairs of opposites plus triplets
Death LifeOr, more commonly, three pairs plus a chiasmus
Angels Governments Powers
Here To come
Height Depth Anything else at all
Death LifeDeath and life. These are poles apart, the extremes of existence. Now, if both are equally close to God’s love then every intermediate place must also be. There is, can be, no form of existence that can alienate us from God. Specifically, death includes the fear of death, the process of dying in any of its appalling possibilities, death in any form. David’s beautifully poetic words recorded at Psalm 139 illustrate this. Conversely life – that is life now, the hope of life to come, our love of life. To try to preserve this life, our current life, in exchange for one act of worship, a few grains of incense to the Emperor, would be betrayal deserving of eternal alienation - compare Matthew 4:10.
Angels Governments
Here To come
Powers Height Depth Anything else at all
‘Christ Jesus… who also pleads for us.’
What an absolutely stunning image these words arouse in the mind – Jesus on his knees before his father Jehovah, hands clasped, a tearful eye perhaps, pleading our cause. Just stop and think upon that for a moment…
Alas, we might, rather than admire in wonderment, start to think that Jehovah is a harsh and unmerciful God. If so, please pay attention to the following account. It is recorded at 2 Chronicles 30 and involves the reforms of King Hezekiah. The previous chapter tells us that he opened the doors of the temple in the first year, in the first month of his reign. This was in actuality the first month of the calendar year, Abib or Nisan. At what point did Ahaz his father die we cannot say, but nevertheless we know that Hezekiah set about his task with alacrity. His intention was to hold the Passover that year but that gave him just 14 days to prepare; after 16 years of apostasy by his father there was much to do. Not only that but he had invited all of Israel and some of them had far to travel. So they decided to hold the festival on the second month, a concession allowed in The Law for unavoidable circumstances (Numbers 9:9-11). But even then, despite the enthusiasm and zeal with which they went about their task we are told in verse eighteen ‘For a great number of the people, especially those from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun had not cleansed themselves, but they still ate the Passover contrary to what is written.’ Hezekiah pleaded their cause. He interceded. How sad it would have been for all these people, having travelled so far, not to be allowed to participate in the festivities, to go home disappointed, to feel that the whole effort had been a waste of time, all because of a clause in law. They were worshipping in spirit and truth, wholeheartedly. This was not a wilful sin but one of circumstance. Did it work? Yes. Verse twenty tells us that Jehovah listened and pardoned the people. All they needed was someone to plead their cause, just as Abraham, Moses and others had done previously. And they had a great time. After seven days of rejoicing they just didn’t want it to stop so they carried on for another seven days!
We have someone to plead our cause. It is none other than Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God. Yes, stop and ponder. Be amazed. And having pleaded for us and persuaded his father to listen, when we get to celebrate the wonderful things Jehovah has done for us, we won’t want it to stop either. Indeed our rejoicing will not stop. It will carry on forever!
‘Let us build along with you; for like you, we worship your God and we have been sacrificing to him since the days of King Esar-haddon of Assyria, who brought us here.’
The deceptive power of a partial truth, or in this case an outright lie dressed up to seem plausible. These people did not worship Jehovah ‘like you’, Judah and Benjamin. But who are these people? In the context they are described as ‘enemies’ (v1) who lived in Samaria and the region ‘beyond the river’ Euphrates (v10). In other words, these are the Samaritans who lived in the land formerly occupied by the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel. Several waves of deportation and re-population by the Assyrians meant that the inhabitants were now a mongrel, multi-ethnic race, some of whom feared Jehovah but certainly did not worship him as ‘you do’. The account in 2 Kings 17:24 onwards tells us who they were and, bluntly put in verse 34, ‘None of them worship Jehovah, and none follow his statutes, his judgements, the Law, and the commandment that Jehovah gave the sons of Jacob, whose name he changed to Israel.’
In our ministry we often encounter individuals who claim that we are all Christians and as long as we accept the Lord as our Saviour then all is well, we’re all the same. This is not true. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christians of the popular perception – indeed I am not sure that we should term ourselves ‘Christian’; it gives the wrong impression. Mainstream, putative Christianity is filled with idolatry, immorality, nationalism and the blood of all the holy ones slaughtered in the name of religion (Revelation 17:6). We worship Jehovah and in so doing we must be concerned with performing ‘holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion’ (2 Peter 3:11) because ‘you must be holy because I am holy’ (1 Peter 1:16). The religion of the Samaritans was all-inclusive. There was no state religion. Everyone worshipped his own gods, even, in some cases, burning their sons in the fire. Inclusivity is not a modern idea but is certainly one that is being pursued with a religious zeal across the amoral, western world. The idea that someone could be excluded simply for their sexuality or ‘gender’ is put forward as an abhorrent idea. Yet anyone who even hints at disagreement is instantly ‘cancelled’, excluded with liberal helpings of bile and hatred. Oh, the irony! And where, we might ask, is the spiritual leadership from the Church? Not only is the Church silent, missing in action with regard to moral leadership but it is embracing these grotesque perversions and melding them into some form of ‘Christianity’ that can be acceptable to anyone in this modern, ‘enlightened’ world, and doing so with glee. Thus the clergy fully approve of all who practice such things and very often take the lead in performing acts deserving of death (Romans 1:32). No wonder we, as Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to have any fellowship with anyone who worships otherwise. Yet we genuinely love our neighbours and wish to help them come to know the God of love, Jehovah. We want our neighbours to worship Jehovah as we do. We share with them the good news of God’s Kingdom. We do not hate anyone. We hate these sick perversions but it is out of genuine love that we spend our own time, energy and resources helping people understand that they do have a choice. No matter how far a person has travelled the road to destruction there is still an escape route, an exit (1 Corinthians 6:11). Only Jehovah knows when it will be too late. In the meantime we continue to assist our neighbours in coming to know Jehovah as we do.
‘After these things, during the reign of King Artaxerxes of Persia, Ezra returned. He was the son of Seraiah…, …son of Aaron the chief priest. 6 This Ezra came up from Babylon…' (NWT 2013).
'And after these things in the reign of Artaxerxes the king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah… 6 the said Ezra himself went up from Babylon;' (NWT 1984)
At the point where Ezra switches from being historian to autobiographer, a curious emendation in the translation of the 2013 adds a verb that does not exist in any other translation that I can find – ‘returned’. It is true that the sentence that begins in verse one is very long, extending as it does through to verse six. Long sentences do not make for easy reading so splitting it into shorter sentences might have merit, especially when it comes to translating from American into other languages. But ‘returned’! This strongly suggests that the subject of the verb, Ezra, had once before been to Jerusalem. This is improbable. The events here recorded occurred almost seventy years after the first mass departure for Jerusalem in 537 BC. Ezra had likely not been born and so had probably never been to Jerusalem in his life. It is therefore a peculiar and misleading choice of verb to insert. I wonder why the verb ‘came up’ from verse six was not repeated, or better ‘went up’. Of course there is nothing wrong with the long sentence. Ezra has a provenance of which to be proud; his genealogy is his qualification, a son of Aaron himself and a grandson (great?) of the last High Priest at Solomon’s temple.
It is easy for the casual reader to confuse Ezra’s travels with those of Nehemiah who did a lot of returning. From Shushan he travelled to Jerusalem, returned to Shushan and later returned to Jerusalem. There is no evidence that Ezra did any returning.
Things you note when reading with a curious mind…
'For we hear that some are walking disorderly among you, not working at all, but meddling with what does not concern them.'
Work; work around; lit. nothing working meden ergazomenous but working around periergazomenous. Working enough and to spare, being overbusy, overdoing, and thus signifies either doing useless things that concern no one or meddling with matters which do not concern the doer (Ellicott). Of course we wish to render aid to our spiritual siblings whenever it is needed but beyond that it is up to each one to manage his or her own affairs. If they do so poorly, well, that is their affair and no one else’s. If we find that we have time to meddle then perhaps we are overly idle and need to find work that is of value, that fulfils our own responsibilities.
That the Thessalonians were prone to meddling is clear from Paul’s first letter in which 4:11 exhorts them to ‘Make it your aim to live quietly and to mind your own business and to work with your hands'. The apostle had unwittingly stoked this tendency by telling them that Jehovah’s day was coming as a thief and that they must stay awake and keep their senses. They fully believed that the presence of the Lord was imminent. So they enthusiastically embraced his suggestions – they were giving up work, cashing in the pensions, spending the inheritance, telling everyone else to do so too – so much so that Paul had to write again, this time to assuage their enthusiasm and remind them ‘not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed…’ (2:2).
Similar counsel to avoid being a busybody in other people’s affairs was offered in the first epistle to Timothy (5:13) where the same word, periergazo, is used. Peter also warned against busy-bodying. He used a different word – allotriepiskopos – an overseer, bishop of what is another’s. If we need an overseer of our souls, that is the role that Jesus fulfils (1 Peter 2:25). Shepherds within the congregation are available to assist but they too must resist the urge to manage another’s business. Yes, we all appreciate help with our burdens but the load is ours alone (Galatians 6:2,5).
'Preach the word… do the work of an evangeliser, fully accomplish your ministry.'
Three distinct commands from Paul to Timothy which might seem tautological. Preaching, evangelising, ministry – are they not all the same thing? Of course Christianity is obsessed with title and rank and thus these activities are assigned to those who carry out the corresponding responsibilities. But let us see what meaning the original language words convey.
Preach keryxon from kerysso to be a herald, to proclaim: to herald, to preach (Strong). To herald; to preach (announce) a message publicly and with conviction. To herald refers to preaching the gospel as the authoritative word of God, bringing eternal accountability to all who hear (HELPS Word-studies). To publish, proclaim openly; something which has been done, ought to be done… specifically used of the public proclamation of the gospel and matters pertaining to it (by John the Baptist, Jesus, the apostles, others) (Thayer).
Evangelise euaggelistes: an evangeliser, one who brings good news, a missionary, bearer of good tidings (Strong). Someone with a vocational calling from God to announce the good news of the gospel. Every Christian is called to share the gospel but [euaggelistes] does so as a vocation which includes preaching the full message of Christ’s salvation (HELPS). This name is given in the NT to those heralds of salvation through Christ who are not apostles (Thayer).
Ministry diakonian: waiting at table, service, ministration (Strong). Active service done with a willing voluntary attitude, service guided by faith (HELPS).
All very interesting but does it help in any way? Well, we can see the assigning of specific roles to titles, the clergy class of Christendom coming through nicely. But in the first-century congregations there were no clergy. Whilst there were shepherds (Latin pastors) to care for the flock, preaching, evangelising and ministering were the responsibility of all. So, returning to our words:
A preacher proclaims what he sees and hears, be it good or bad. One is reminded of Ezekiel the watchman whose role was to warn people of impending activity. Or of Jesus who preached to imprisoned spirits (1 Peter 3:19). That would not have been good news! But when Paul exhorts Timothy to preach, although the message does have a warning element, it is predominantly a message of good news. ‘The good news of the kingdom will be preached…‘ (Matthew 24:14). An evangeliser brings only good news. The word evangelist appears just three times in the Bible – here, at Acts 21:8 regarding Philip and at Ephesians 4:11 as a gift of Christ from on high. Gabriel bore good news to the shepherds regarding the birth of Jesus. So being an evangelist is, and can only be, a joyous assignment.
Now here is something to ponder; do we need others around us in order to preach and evangelise? No. History, biblical and secular, is littered with lone preachers and evangelisers who obeyed their ‘calling’, being compelled to spread the gospel to the unbeliever, the pagan, the sceptic, the heathen, the apathetic; whoever they could find and wherever they could be found. For those of us less driven having a companion is both encouraging and motivating. That is the purpose of communal worship. We preach and evangelise together. But it is toward those within, our fellow workers, to whom we minister. This is the universal sense and usage of the word throughout the Greek scriptures. Angels came and ministered to Jesus and Jesus ministered to the needs of his disciples. The apostles were to minister to each other in like manner. Paul was a minister to various congregations. Timothy, Tychicus and others were described as ministers in their pastoral roles within the congregation. Phoebe was a minister in Cenchreae. Even the superior authorities are described by Paul as God’s minister for both good and for expressing wrath. We all minister to each other; therefore we are all ministers. Elders and Ministerial Servants take the lead in ministering to God’s flock in their care, but that does not relieve those not appointed from their personal responsibility. We cannot divest or delegate our obligations to others.
How do we minister to each other? We encourage, we strengthen, we support, we do whatever it takes to keep our brother and sister spiritually strong and motivated. It also includes physical acts of mercy. Providing transport, doing their shopping, showing hospitality, helping them move home, visiting in hospital, being there at the funeral – and long after! There is a time to laugh together and a time to cry together and many other things besides that we do - together. Being generous in all these things and more is very much our ministry. We cannot be a lone minister. That would be an oxymoron.
What motivates our ministry? It is not, nor should be, a ministry of mere duty, an appointment, a role. It must be a visible manifestation of our ‘intense love (agape) for one another’ (1 Peter 4:8).
So when we go out in pairs to talk to our neighbours we do so in order to preach, and predominantly to evangelise. We might minister to each other as we go. We may even find an opportunity to minister to some of those to whom we talk, but our door-to-door work is not specifically ‘on the (field) ministry’. Paul even distinguishes between ministry and teaching (Romans 12:7). Whilst we hope to become teachers as a result of our preaching, ministering is a distinct activity.
Therefore we can say with confidence that Paul is not being needlessly verbose and tautological. There are real differences in his requirements to Timothy and, by extension, to all his readers. Preaching, evangelising and ministering are all different and are all necessary. The latter is primarily an inward facing activity the former two are outward looking.
Another strange translation from NWT. The Greek is given as to super-abound, in excess, to excel - more (perisseuein mallon). Most translators go with a variation on ‘abound even more’. In what are we to super-abound? To love one another (v9). The problem with ‘fuller’ is one of pure logic. When pouring your morning brew, once the cup is full you stop pouring. It cannot be more than full. Attempting to fit in more will result in spillage, waste and a mess to clean up. Yes, the cup can be half full, mostly full, nearly full, fuller than it was, full, but never fuller (other than in comparison with another cup, and that we are strongly advised not to do – Galatians 6:4). When it comes to loving our brothers, is there a point at which we decide we can love them no more? That our love for them is full and we can stop pouring, so to speak? With love there is no limit. To abound has no physical definition. Only we know if our love is abounding and whether it might abound more.
The First Pharisee: self-assured and self-satisfied. While we admire his zeal and single-minded determination, he cannot have been an easy man to work with. Like the Pharisee in Jesus’s illustration, Nehemiah loved to boast of his piety and tell us about his prayers, how well he had done and how Jehovah would remember him for all his good works. Nevertheless he was clearly the man for the moment. The Jews were in a bad way. They had returned to the city devastated by the Babylonians half a century or more before. It was not a welcoming sight. The temple had been destroyed, the city walls demolished, the city gates burned and the houses made uninhabitable.
The returnees had started well; they rebuilt the temple and that gave them a focus and a restored identity. They could now concentrate on serving Jehovah. Yet having got that far enthusiasm waned. There was opposition from Sanballat the bad Samaritan and Tobiah the Ammonite, focused on Jerusalem itself. Due to this many of them had headed off to the countryside and the smaller towns where they could be inconspicuous, return to their agricultural heritage and be relatively prosperous farming and shepherding – notwithstanding illegal filial usury and the crippling taxes levied by the ruling power. They had lost the will to live, so to speak. Even their old habits were returning – neglecting the Sabbath, the temple liturgy, inter-marrying with the nations. Had they learned nothing? This was not Jehovah’s will. He had restored them to the Promised Land, not out of any regard for their convenience, but for his son to come to Earth, to be born of David in Bethlehem, to preach at the temple in Jerusalem and to die a sacrificial death. Something had to be done. Step forward Nehemiah!
After a secret survey of the walls he motivated the people to action. Every section of the wall was assigned and despite opposition the project was completed in 52 days. There was an outcry over usury and taxation which he sorted, well the usury bit – he had no control over Persian taxation. He was intelligent enough to spot the evil schemes and intents of the enemy – even an assassination attempt. The Law was read and explained to the people. Their was a general counting of the populace for administrative assignments. Jerusalem was indeed under-populated and so that was remedied by volunteers and an assigning of every tenth man by lot. Finally there was a great celebration with two choirs circumnavigating the walls and joining forces before the temple. Then he went away, back to his illustrious career in the city. Twelve years later he returned and found Tobiah ensconced in the temple courtyard, the Levites not receiving their due portions (and so reduced to working for a living), the Sabbath being disrespected and many foreign wives in evidence along with their foreign-speaking offspring. So going once again into action, Tobiah was forcefully expelled, the Levites were reassigned, the Sabbath traders sent away under threat and those with foreign wives were cursed, beaten and exfoliated!
It is an indictment on those Jews that they served Jehovah properly only when cajoled and bullied. One also wonders, if the correct worship of Jehovah at the temple was so precious to Nehemiah, why he had not returned to Jerusalem voluntarily before learning that the city was in a disgraceful and terrible situation. In Shushan he had a prestigious career as cup bearer to the king. Was that more important to him? Why did he return to Shushan for twelve years, knowing that Jerusalem was sparsely populated and that the Jews had wayward tendencies?
There is a lot about Nehemiah to admire but there is equally much to ponder. There is much to imitate and much to avoid. In the congregation we are expected to be gentle to each other (1 Thess 2:7, 2 Tim 2:24), like a nursing mother. Harsh language and physical violence are not acceptable. We may feel like tearing our own hair out at times, when our brothers and sisters do not respond as we would like or as they ought. But then, would it be right to stand up before the congregation and exhort them to dedicated activity, to seek first the Kingdom (Matt 6:33) and then ourselves neglect such as we return to our well-paid career, our investments, our luxury lifestyle…? Telling the flock what they ought to be doing but ourselves not prepared to lift a finger (Matt 23:4)? It is easy to be a Pharisee, less so to be a worthy yet humble example to follow. It is easy to tell the flock, harder to show them. Easier to send, harder to lead. As brothers in the congregation we all need to decide whom we wish to imitate. Jesus is the perfect example and we are encouraged to follow in his footsteps (1 Peter 2:21). But looking at men like Nehemiah can be instructive. Firstly we know that he was not perfect, unlike our Lord. That helps! We can pick out his characteristics worthy of imitation and spot those that we might wish to avoid. He was a dynamic character from whom we can learn much if we ponder and apply.
15 My own brothers have been as treacherous as a winter stream,
Like the water of winter streams that dry up.
16 They are darkened by ice,
And in them the melting snow is hidden.
17 But in due season they become waterless and come to an end;
When it becomes hot, they dry up.
18 Their course is diverted;
They flow into the desert and vanish.
19 The caravans of Tema look for them;
The travellers from Sheba wait for them.
A reliable and steady source of water is essential to life. Water is a precious commodity that we, especially here in Scotland, tend to take for granted. Water is everywhere and not too infrequently, in such quantities as to be highly inconvenient! In the Middle East the situation is very different. In the winter the wadis become torrent valleys and the water flow is too great, posing a threat to life. In the summer the reverse is true. The land is parched – there’s not a drop to be seen, posing a threat to life. The torrents have disappeared, leaving not even a trickle. Desert travellers especially rely on known sources of water, the streams and oases that are landmarks and staging posts along the way. If these are found to have dried up then the subsequent lack of water becomes a matter of life or death.
This is the metaphor Job uses as he describes his companions. They drown him in torrents of approbation and yet when he seeks a refreshing draught of cool water, there is nothing available. That life-supporting stream has been diverted into the desert sands and has vanished, leaving Job wanting to die.
In Isaiah 32 a similar illustration is used to describe princes who rule for justice. Each one will prove to be like a stream of water in a waterless land and as the shadow of a crag in a parched land. This world that we navigate is scorched and parched; there is nothing refreshing to be found anywhere. We all need to be restored, stimulated even exhilarated at times. Whilst everyone in the congregation has the responsibility to be refreshing, this verse makes it clear that the responsibility for taking the lead in this are the princes, the elders appointed to shepherd Jehovah’s sheep. Occasionally justice has to administered, only to the proper degree, but mostly what our brothers and sisters need is reassurance that they are wanted, valued and loved – not just by Jehovah but by all in the congregation. So often, all that is needed is someone to take the time to just listen, or to offer some words of encouragement, or to say a heartfelt prayer for and with them. This is a matter that elders should consider frequently – am I refreshing? Or am I drowning in a torrent of stuff that has to be done that I have become little more than a manager and administrator for Head Office? Do I really know the brothers, or am I so busy preparing for meeting parts, implementing guidelines, attending pointless and badly facilitated elders’ meetings that achieve nothing, building and maintaining halls – the list is endless – that I have become remote? Do those in the congregation who are rightly expecting me to be refreshing stream find that I have dried up and disappeared into the sands of meaningless irrelevance? Because an elder who is not refreshing has become just that – ineffectual and useless, regardless of how competent he may be in all those other aspects that distract him from what is truly important. Job’s metaphor is a beautiful and timely reminder to us all.
This is one of those passages that is rolled out biannually, so predictably, on the occasion of the visit of the Circuit Overseer, by either or both parties, that is endangered by familiarity, but is actually worth a bit of dissection.
For I am longing to see you, that I may impart some spiritual gift to you for you to be made firm; or, rather, that we may have an interchange of encouragement by one another’s faith, both yours and mine.‘I am longing’ suggests that Paul is off to see long-lost friends. The opposite is true; having never before visited Rome he likely has never met any of them. But the brotherhood is a small community, though widely spread, and so he would have known the congregation by reputation. He may have known some by name, through mutual friends or perhaps in passing on his travels, but the common bond is love of the Christ, and in this we long to see each other whoever we are and wherever we live.
‘Stop judging that you may not be judged; for with the judgement you are judging, you will be judged, and with the measure that you are measuring out, they will measure out to you.’From our text we discern very clearly that judging is a serious business. It is apparent that some amongst Jesus’s audience were indeed judging and that they ought to stop forthwith. On the other hand, at 1 Corinthians 5:12 Paul says that we should judge those on the inside of the congregation, leaving those on the outside to Jehovah. Yet again, in his epistle to the Romans he concurs wholeheartedly with his Lord – ‘for when you judge another, you condemn yourself’ (2:1) and ‘let us not judge one another any longer’ (14:13). If the consensus is leaning towards not judging, then what did Paul have in mind when writing his letter to Corinth? The context tells of a man within the congregation who was doing immoral things with his step-mother. Whilst this woman is not further mentioned, and therefore we can assume that she was not within the congregation, Paul emphatically instructs the congregation to ‘remove the wicked person (the man) from among yourselves’ (v13). In his next letter, all becomes clear. The passage at 2 Corinthians 2:6-8 assures us that the rebuke worked as the man desisted from his erroneous ways and that Paul encouraged the brothers to welcome him back and confirm their love for him. So although Paul spoke about judging in his first letter he is actually referring to discipline, an altogether different matter. So what is the difference?
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers1. Judge no man unless it be a duty to do so 2. As far as maybe, judge the offence not the offender 3. Confine your judgement to the earthly side of faults, and leave their relation to God, to Him who sees the heart 4. Never judge at all without remembering your own sinfulness, and the ignorance and infirmities which may extenuate the sinfulness of others.
Benson Commentary
Nay, judge not any man without full, clear, and certain knowledge of the blameableness of his conduct, nor without absolute necessity, and a spirit of tender love. Awful words! So we may, as it were, choose for ourselves, whether God shall be severe or merciful to us.
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
This command refers to rash, censorious and unjust judgement.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
The context makes it clear that the thing here condemned is that disposition to look unfavourably on the character and actions of others, which leads invariably to the pronouncing of rash, unjust, and unlovely judgements upon them.
*** w03 1/10 p. 22 Appreciating the Purpose of Discipline ***Humans tend to be far more judgmental than Jehovah ever is. The door of the ark was open up to the very last moment. Jehovah pleaded with Lot. The vast mixed crowd departed from Egypt along with the children of Israel even after all ten plagues had been visited upon the host nation. Nineveh repented having been told by Jonah that they were all about to die. Abijah, son of Jeroboam, in whom was found ‘something good’. King Manasseh! In Jerusalem, surrounded and besieged as it was by Babylonians, Jeremiah continued to urge surrender to save life and city. In Jesus’s parable the eleventh hour workers received the same full-day’s wage. In every time-based judgement there has to be a cut-off moment, a point at which judgement is passed. Doors cannot be left open indefinitely, else what are the point of warnings and urgings to action?
If they focused only on administering punishment, they would simply penalise the erring one and leave it at that. Divine discipline involves much more. Motivated by love, elders follow up and follow through on their counsel. Because they are genuinely concerned, they often schedule several sessions of encouragement and training. Only such discipline is spiritually productive and beneficial—even desirable. In contrast, discipline that is based on human thinking that is in conflict with Jehovah’s lofty principles is often abusive and hurtful. That explains why many have a negative attitude toward discipline.
Discipline as expressed in the Bible has many aspects—guidance, instruction, training, reproof, correction, and even punishment. However, in each case, Jehovah’s discipline is motivated by love, and its goal is to benefit the recipient. Jehovah’s corrective discipline is never for the sole purpose of punishment. God’s acts of punishment are not always aimed at correcting or educating the recipient.
‘Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and compassionate, slow to anger and abundant in loyal love and truth, showing loyal love to thousands, pardoning error and transgression and sin. . .’ (Exodus 34:6, 7).
‘he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. . .’ (2 Peter 3:9).Are we not so appreciative that we serve Jehovah alone and that it is Jesus who is the head of the congregation?
Now Philip went down to the city [ftn ‘a city’] of Samaria and began to preach the Christ to them.Here we have a fairly innocuous statement of action; Philip went to Samaria. We know what instigated this journey – on the day of Stephen’s death great persecution arose against the congregation and all except the apostles were scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1). If we look at this superficially there does not seem to be too much of interest. There was a region called Samaria where the Samaritans lived and a city called Samaria, founded by Omri of Israel and enhanced by Ahab of the same nation. But when we learn that in the first century CE there was no city called Samaria, that footnote takes on additional interest. The city had been destroyed several times during its history, latterly by Alexander in 331 BC and by John Hyrcanus in 108 BC. More recently it had been rebuilt by Herod the Great c.30 BC and renamed Sebastia. Thus, every reference to Samaria in the Greek Scriptures refers to the region of Samaria.
‘the love of God has been poured out into our hearts’.A boat enters the dismal and dank confines of a canal lock. The gates close slowly but firmly behind. The sailors await. The sluices start to open and water pours in, swirling all around. The boat rises from those dark recesses into bright and pleasant daylight. The waters calm, the forward gates open and the vessel goes serenely on its way onto the elevated reaches of the canal. The love of God pours, does not trickle, into our hearts. The effects are immediate and uplifting. As the indestructible central strand of this three-fold cord in which faith gives us peace, and hope makes us rejoice (5:1-5), we can never be disappointed. His undeserved kindness leads to righteousness and everlasting life through Jesus Christ our Lord (v21).
‘With what result? Only that in every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed, and I rejoice over this. In fact, I will also keep on rejoicing,’In the context of this verse, Paul is discussing the motives behind the preaching of the Christ by certain elements within the congregations. Some are preaching out of envy and rivalry and others out of goodwill and love. The motivating factor is Paul himself. The former are trying to create trouble for Paul whilst the latter preach from the knowledge that Paul has been ‘appointed to defend the good news’. Is Paul worried that some are trying to undermine his work? Not in the least! In fact he rejoices, because either way Christ is being proclaimed and that is the only concern of his. Neither is he concerned about the content of the message. Had the envious group been promoting a ‘different doctrine’ (1 Tim 1:3), an apostate teaching, then that would have been a real problem. But they weren’t so there was no problem on that front. We are reminded of the occasion when John protested at someone expelling demons in Jesus’s name. The response? ‘Whoever is not against us is for us.’ (Mark 9:40). Are Jehovah’s Witnesses the only group preaching Christ today? Are their methods the only acceptable ones? Are they really divinely appointed? Whatever their motives are, they are very much ensuring that the good news is being preached to the entire inhabited earth and for that reason Jehovah is pleased to allow them to continue. ‘And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.’ (Matt 24:14). Note the passive voice. It will be preached but by whom is not stated!
This short letter, originally intended to discuss salvation, is devoted to the identification of apostates. By giving us historical examples, Jude shows us the causes, characteristics and tragic results of apostasy and provides us with some advice on how we can safeguard ourselves. The conclusion is a beautiful doxology.
| Attitudes and Behaviours of the Apostate |
| 1. Ungodly (v4) |
| 2. Shameless conduct (v4) |
| 3. Prove false to Jesus (v4) |
| 4. Indulge in dreams (v8) |
| 5. Defile the flesh (v8) |
| 6. Despise authority (v8) |
| 7. Speak abusively of glorious ones (v8) |
| 8. Speak abusively of things they don’t understand (v10) |
| 9. Self-corrupting (v10) |
| 10. Murmurers (v16) |
| 11. Complainers (v16) |
| 12. Follow their own desires (v16) |
| 13. Make arrogant boasts (v16) |
| 14. Flatter others (v16) |
| 15. Ridiculers (v17) |
| 16. Cause divisions (v18) |
| 17. Physical, animalistic (v18) |
| 18. Devoid of spirituality (v18) |
| Apostates are like (v12-13) |
| 1. Rocks hidden below water |
| 2. Shepherds who feed themselves |
| 3. Waterless clouds |
| 4. Fruitless trees |
| 5. Wild waves of the sea |
| 6. Wandering stars |
| Jude’s Triplets |
| 1. His letter is to those who are - called, loved, preserved |
| 2. With greetings of - mercy, peace, love |
| 3. Warning examples (Collective) - Israel in Egypt, fallen angels, Sodom & Gomorrah |
| 4. Warning examples (Individual) - Cain, Balaam, Korah |
| 5. Positive examples - Michael, Enoch, the Apostles |
| The Antidote |
| 1. Strengthen your faith |
| 2. Pray with holy spirit to remain in God’s love |
| 3. Show mercy to doubters and others |
Doxology
Now to the one who is able to guard you from stumbling and to make you stand unblemished in the sight of his glory with great joy, to the only God our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, might, and authority for all past eternity and now and into all eternity. Amen.
(see also Romans 16:25-27)
Another one apparently written during the rebellion of Absalom. Even in the land of Canaan, flowing with milk and honey, there were parched deserts.
David, expelled from home by those he trusted, continued to thirst, not for water but for the company of his God Jehovah (v1). He was satisfied with that friendship and all the blessings that flowed therefrom and would continue to praise him with joy (v5). Upon his bed (v6), such as it might have been in the wilderness, in the sand, amongst the rocks and shrubbery, with the jackals for company and with the stars as a ceiling, he would remember and meditate on his helper.
When things go wrong for us we cling to Jehovah’s right hand (v8). He is always there for us despite the Absaloms, the Ahithophels, and the barren wastelands of this world. We joyfully share with him our blessings and concerns, and we listen to his words of encouragement and support as we read, ponder and deeply meditate on his messages of comfort in his word the Bible.
This psalm stands alone for its unrelenting misery and hopeless sorrow. Even the Lamentations of Jeremiah admit some strains of hopefulness. Here only is darkness to the close. We can only guess at the events that gave rise to such desperation and anguish in the heart of the composer. Nevertheless he was still talking to Jehovah; he never blamed Jehovah; he never abandoned Jehovah. This psalm challenges us to face our rawest emotions and loss while reminding us of the importance of unceasing prayer, even – especially - in our darkest hour.
‘Take, eat. This means my body.’ (NWT)The verb in the Greek is estin or ‘is’ – third person singular of the verb ‘to be’. This is my body. Changing it to ‘means’ is interpretation not translation. Interpretations belong in a commentary not in emending holy scripture. Compare John 6:55 – ‘for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.’ Two cases on the same subject where estin is correctly translated. NWT stands out on a limb in this regard. Note too Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19 and 1 Cor 11:24.
So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.
Therefore, become imitators of God, as beloved children…Should we be children or not be children?
Ephesians 5:1 (Part 2) This verse is closely associated with the previous. The ‘therefore’ suggests that. We must forgive because we have been freely forgiven by God. We know that this is true, but it is not the most inspiring of reasons for Godly imitation. It leaves us with a feeling of obligation. I have been forgiven so I must go forgive someone else. But as beloved children, adopted at that, who truly love our father we want to imitate Him in all aspects of our life. We love him and want to be like him. Beloved children will always imitate what is good in a beloved father. This is the purest manifestation of our devotion.
The narrative to this book is quite shocking, so much so that many commentators believe that it might be allegorical or something that occurred in vision. Given Jehovah’s view of adultery, divorce, prostitution and the like it seems extraordinary that he would ask his prophet to engage with such immoral activities. But that does appear to be the case. So what do we know?
Hosea was a prophet who served during the reigns of Uzziah (52yrs), Jotham (16), Ahaz (16) and Hezekiah (29) of the kingdom of Judah and of Jeroboam II (41) of Israel. He was active for a long time. At the beginning of his role as Jehovah’s mouthpiece, so as a young man, he is told to marry a ‘woman of prostitution’ (immoral, promiscuous; ftn) and have ‘children of prostitution’ (1:2). He obeyed and married a woman called Gomer. Was she already a prostitute or did she become one subsequent to the marriage? That is difficult to determine from the language used in NWT. She conceived and bore him a son. He was named Jezreel, meaning ‘God will sow seed’. She conceived twice more and gave birth to a daughter and a son but in neither case does the pronoun ‘him’ appear. We are lead to believe that these latter two were fathered by someone other than Hosea, yet he was instructed to name them and, presumably, care for them as his own. Their names were Lo-ruhamah (‘Not shown mercy’) and Lo-ammi (‘Not my people’) respectively.
When we come to chapter three, we find that Gomer has left Hosea and is living with another man and committing adultery with him. Hosea is told to love her, to repurchase his own wife with his own money, and then live with her for ‘many days’ in a celibate relationship. What does it all mean? The prophet was inspired to write a commentary on each event
Hosea 1:4, 5
“Name him Jezreel, for in a little while I will hold an accounting against the house of Jehu for the acts of bloodshed of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the royal rule of the house of Israel. In that day I will break the bow of Israel in the Valley of Jezreel.”Hosea 1:6, 7
“Name her Lo-ruhamah, for I will no longer show mercy to the house of Israel, because I will certainly drive them away. But I will show mercy to the house of Judah, and I will save them by Jehovah their God; I will not save them by bow or by sword or by war or by horses or by horsemen.”
Hosea 1:9
“Name him Lo-ammi, because you are not my people and I will not be yours.”
Hosea 3:4, 5
It is because for a long time the people of Israel will dwell without a king, without a prince, without a sacrifice, without a pillar, and without an ephod and teraphim statues. Afterward the people of Israel will come back and look for Jehovah their God and for David their king, and they will come trembling to Jehovah and to his goodness in the final part of the days.
Compare 1 Peter 2:10
For you were once not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not been shown mercy, but now you have received mercy.
‘…the scripture was fulfilled that says: “Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness,” and he came to be called Jehovah’s friend.’Although this feels like a quotation it appears not to have a direct source. So the first thing we might consider is, when and by whom was he called God’s friend? The idea is taken from 2 Chr 20:7 where Jehoshaphat calls him ‘your friend’ and Isa 41:8 where Jehovah himself calls Abraham ‘my friend’.
‘and I make a covenant (diatheke) with you, just as my Father has made a covenant (diatheke) with me, for a kingdom,’ (NWT)
kago diatithemai hymin kathos dietheto moi o pater mou basileian - And I make/bestow to you according as made/bestowed to me the father of me kingdom (lit).
Note Appendix 7D of the NWT 1984 Reference Bible. Here is listed all 33 occurrences of the Greek word diatheke. Luke 22:29 does not feature!
Does the unique translation of the NWT make any material difference? Please note the following entry under 'Covenant' in the Insight book:
'Jesus’ Covenant With His Followers. On the night of Nisan 14, 33 C.E., after celebrating the Lord’s Evening Meal Jesus made this covenant with his faithful apostles. To the 11 faithful apostles he promised that they would sit on thrones. (Lu 22:28-30; compare 2Ti 2:12.) Later, he showed that this promise extended to all spirit-begotten ‘conquerors.’ (Re 3:21; see also Re 1:4-6; 5:9, 10; 20:6.) On the day of Pentecost he inaugurated this covenant toward them by the anointing with holy spirit of those disciples present in the upper room in Jerusalem. (Ac 2:1-4, 33) Those who would stick with him through trials, dying his kind of death (Php 3:10; Col 1:24), would reign with him, sharing his Kingdom rule. The covenant remains operative between Jesus Christ and these associate kings forever.—Re 22:5.'
Does the insertion of one word twice, not found in the original Greek make a difference? Is making a covenant the same as appointing, bestowing, conferring, etc? Did Jesus, at that point, whilst still a human on earth, have the authority to make personal covenants (See Matt 20:23)? I will let you decide!
| Object | Times | Verses |
|---|---|---|
| Law | 25 | 1,18,29,34,44,51,53,55,61,70,72,77,85,92,97, 109,113,126,136,142,150,153,163,165,174 |
| Reminder | 23 | 2,14,22,24,31,36,46,59,79,88,95,99, 111,119,125,129,138,144,146,152,157,167,168 |
| Orders | 21 | 4,15,27,40,45,56,63,69,78,87,93,94, 100,104,110,128,134,141,159,173,168 |
| Commandments | 22 | 6,10,19,21,32,35,47,48,60,66,73,86,96,98, 115,127,131,143,151,166,172,176 |
| Judgements | 21 | 7,13,20,30,39,43,52,62,75,91, 102,106,108,120,132,137,149,156,160,164,175 |
| Sayings | 18 | 11,38,41,50,58,67,76,82, 103,116,123,133,140,148,154,158,162,170 |
| Ways | 2 | 3,37 |
| Regulations | 21 | 5,8,12,23,26,33,48,54,64,68,71,80,83, 112,117,118,124,135,145,155,171 |
| Word | 20 | 9,17,25,28,42,49,57,65,74,81,89, 101,105,107,114,130,139,147,161,169 |
| Statutes | 1 | 16 |
| None | 4 | 84,90,121,122 |
| Two | 2 | 48,168 |
| Total | 176 |
All serious students of the Bible agree with the apostle Paul in his assertion that ‘All scripture is inspired of God, and beneficial for…’ (2 Tim 3:16). Can the same be said of the various translations of the Bible? Are some translations inspired leaving others out in a God-forsaken wilderness? Which are which? How can we tell? Whilst the message and the original words that conveyed that message were most definitely inspired of God, those original documents and the words contained therein are long gone with the languages themselves, Hebrew and Koine Greek, being dead. Nevertheless there is plenty of evidence to prove that the extant manuscripts and fragments are remarkably accurate, with very little amendment and corruption over centuries of reproduction. The copyists were professional men who took pride in the accuracy of their work. We can have great confidence that the word of God has been accurately preserved. That can only be by the will of Jehovah, given the waves of persecution that has been unleashed against his word; it has been burned, banned, forcibly kept in dead languages, discredited, ridiculed, corrupted, subtly changed... Where scribal errors are apparent these are usually footnoted with a suggested alternative or commentary thereupon.
The other issue is translation from dead languages. All professional translators agree that it is highly preferable to translate into the mother tongue. When this is not possible, the resulting text, however well translated, never has the flow and natural feeling of composition by a native speaker. It feels awkward and just not quite right! Not only are the Bible languages themselves dead (i.e. having no native speakers), but languages are living, constantly evolving to cope with the ever-changing pace of life and this presents a real challenge to Bible translators. We get a clue into this fact from the Bible itself.
In the eighth century BC the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians. The population was dispersed and the land repopulated. The Hebrews, descendants of Eber, ceased to exist as a nation. In Second Kings chapter six we have the first Bible instance of the appellation ‘Jew’ – Judaeans, descendants of Judah, the surviving southern kingdom with its capital in Jerusalem. Two chapters later, the Rabshakeh was asked to speak in Aramaic, not ‘in the language of the Jews’ (2 Kings 18:26). Is this a suggestion that over several centuries of separation, the two nations had developed distinct dialects? It is possible, even probable. Both would have been mutually intelligible but it might be likened to the difference English and American – different spellings, different word usage in the vernacular, different pronunciation. One is more readily understood; the other needs a little extra thought. This was in contrast to the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic, both languages having a common parentage but with distinct dictionaries, making them mutually unintelligible. One thinks of English and French.
Returning to the original question – are translations of the Bible inspired of God? The answer has to be no – not even the NWT. It is really difficult to translate into another language and especially one that has been out of use for thousands of years. And to be honest, it doesn’t need to be inspired. Jehovah has ensured that his Word has been preserved largely unaltered, over thousands of years, and that in itself is a miracle. What it does mean is that the Bible often reads in a slightly awkward manner as the translator grapples with the conundrum of how to maintain accuracy to the source text whilst simultaneously making it meaningful and accessible to a modern reader. There is a balance. Formal equivalence translations are really difficult to read. Paraphrase Bibles such the New English Bible and The Bible in Living English are not translations: they are commentaries. The Amplified Bible is a disgraceful attempt to use the word of God to indoctrinate the unwitting reader into accepting the personal beliefs and theology of the ‘translator’ thus obviating the need to fact-check. NWT tries to reconcile these two extremes and on the whole it does very well. Occasionally I discover bits that are overly formal (John 8:58) and, at the other extreme, colloquialisms that don’t feel entirely appropriate (2 Sam 14:21). Why ‘do away with’ when you can more accurately kill, murder, slaughter and massacre as appropriate? At 1 Samuel 14:18 there is an error. It seems that the error is that of a copyist that has gone unchecked, given that it contradicts the narrative of the ark. Some translations correct it (Septuagint, Byington). At the very least it should be footnoted, as per the error with reference to Michal at 2 Samuel 21:8.
Here’s an example of ‘we just do not know’. At Ezra 10:15 we are told about two men, Jonathan and Jahzeiah. NWT et al say that they objected to the proposal. KJV et al, says they were employed, or assisted. These translations are at the polar opposites. The verb used literally means ‘to stand up’, so here, they ‘stood up’. Stood up for what purpose? We do not know. We cannot say for certain. However, considering the context and by comparing how this verb is used in other passages allows the translator to assume a most likely meaning. As an aside, we do not really know what they were standing up for. Was it for the disposal of foreign wives or for the adjournment until the rain stopped? Either way, in this case ‘objected’ seems the more likely but it beautifully illustrates the problems encountered when translating dead languages.
Is it wrong to find errors? Is it wrong to suggest that it might be better worded? Is it wrong to think about what is being read? Is it wrong to discuss these points of interest? Is it wrong to be fascinated? No, No, No, No, No! We are not expected to take everything at ‘face value’ (2 Cor 10:7). Rather we are required to be ‘Beroean’ in eagerly, carefully and daily, examining the scriptures to see if these things are really so (Acts 17:11). This is not fault-finding or in doubt, but in proving to ourselves that these things really are so and not because we read it in some magazine. We are not part of a spiritual dictatorship – at least I hope not! We have divinely provided ‘thinking ability’ and a unique personality. If Jehovah wanted us to be robots he would have made us to be robots. When we find something of interest, whatever it is, we should be excited. We should share that excitement. It is stimulating to alight upon a subject for debate and discussion. That we are doing so proves an undying love of the Bible and that we are reading it properly, not simply allowing meaningless words, or familiar phrases to wash over us without getting wet, duck-like so to speak. Then having had a mature conversation with a like-minded individual we might decide that our original conclusions were a bit off because we had failed to consider this angle or that facet. Alternatively our friend might learn something wonderful and when he discovers something wonderful, he might share that with us. This is why we are part of a congregation and not operating as individuals in splendid isolation.