How To Choose A Bible Commentary And Why You Should NOT Use One

/

There are 9 rules that will help you determine which Bible commentary to get.  But should you even use one in the first place?  We'll take a look at when and if you should use one.

The Right Commentary Will Offer Depth And Challenge Your Theology

A simple search for "[Book of the Bible] Commentary" will bring up a near endless list of commentaries.  How do you cut through the clutter?  How can you tell which offer the most value? If you're new to the Bible, it's hard to tell which are the good ones and which are the bad ones.  Even worse, you may have a bad one and not even know it!  The 9 rules below will help you navigate the overwhelming world of Biblical commentaries and narrow it down to a more manageable selection.

9 Rules For Choosing A Bible Commentary

1.  Avoid whole Bible commentaries

Look for a commentary that addresses only the book of the Bible that you are studying.  Commentaries that address the entire Bible just don't have the space to tackle the text in depth.

2. Avoid a set of commentaries by one author

An entire set limits you with one perspective and may not be as thorough as individual commentaries. Buy individual commentaries as you study through the different books of the Bible.    The same goes for buying a whole set of a particular series, since the quality may vary, so avoid them if you can.  

3. Pick a scholarly commentary, not a devotional/expository/popular commentary

A scholarly commentary will give greater depth and interact with the Biblical text in a much more serious way than a devotional commentary.  Devotional commentaries do serve a purpose and give practical application but they are basically written sermons that don't offer what the serious Bible student is looking for.  Matthew Henry, Everyman’s Bible Commentary, J. Vernon McGee’s notes and Warren Wiersbe’s commentaries are not what you're looking for. However, some scholarly commentaries can be quite technical, so if you're not quite at that level, look for a scholarly work that is a little more readable and geared for the general public.  The following rules will better define what a scholarly commentary is like.

4. Verse by verse

A good scholarly commentary will examine the Scriptures verse by verse - word by word even.  It will let the text speak for itself and give a detailed analysis.  Avoid commentaries that briefly review the text and then pontificate the author's favorite theology.

5. Interacts with extra-Biblical literature

Extra-Biblical literature can add additional insight to the Scriptures.  We now have many manuscripts and ancient texts to draw from and if your commentary doesn't utilize these, you're missing out!  Not only can ancient Jewish works, such as the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees help give historical and cultural background but ancient texts of the surrounding cultures of Israel provide helpful information.

6. Original languages

Look for a commentary that interacts with the original languages.  The author should be competent in the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic that is relevant to the text.

7. Newer

It's not that today's commentators are better or smarter than their predecessors, it's that they have so many more resources.  We've had so many archaeological finds and ancient texts discovered just in the last century.  Today's technology also gives commentators a huge advantage.  Personal computers and Bible software can greatly assist in research.

8. Go digital

As impressive as a set of physical commentaries can look on a bookshelf, you really should go digital if you can.  Bible software such as Logos will link to other helpful resources that you use in the software.  At the very least get something that is searchable on a computer.

9. Look for commentators that are open to mirror-reading

Not all commentators are open to mirror-reading because of its controversial nature. Look for a mirror-reading friendly commentary.  Be warned though, just because they mirror-read does not mean they mirror-read well.  Judge their mirror-reading for yourself and use the information from this site to help analyze it.  Here are a few commentators that are at least open to mirror-reading: John M. G. Barclay, Nijay K. Gupta, Douglas Moo, Ralph P. Martin, David Garland, and Robert Jewett,

Should You Use A Bible Commentary?

Everyone is different but in short, the answer is no... at least, not at first. Give yourself a chance to get to read the text and get to know it.  Read it over and over and over and over... you get the idea.  You basically want to do a Vulcan mind meld with it, so to speak.  Simply reading your Bible is not considered "research" but it will give you a chance to become familiar with the themes, keywords and phrases.  @@Get to know the Book of the Bible you are studying before being challenged by a commentary@@.

On the other hand, if you're already familiar with the book of the Bible that you are studying and have already gone through a commentary or two, then you may find articles from academic journals helpful.  Journals narrow their focus on very particular parts of Scripture. Websites such as Sage Journal provide access to many journals, sometimes for free.

Header Image PHOTO CREDIT: brett jordan cropped from original

1 Thessalonians: Why Did They Despise Prophecies?

/

The Thessalonians were afraid that God was going to drop the hammer on them.  Paul drop-kicks that false teaching!

This is part of a series on mirror-reading the books of the Bible.  You can view all posts in the series here.  They are only cursory mirror-readings and, although I give evidence for their validity, further research is desired for support.

Mirror-Reading 1 Thessalonians Gives Us A Greater Understanding

False teachers came to the Thessalonian Church and shared some Old Testament prophecies with them.  Those prophecies sounded like God was going to destroy the Gentiles when the Messiah came. This was a problem, since the Thessalonians were Gentiles.  Naturally, the Thessalonians didn't care for those prophecies. One might even say they "despised them".  Fortunately, the apostle Paul responded to the false teaching and let the Thessalonians know they were not in danger of God's wrath.

How Paul Showed The Thessalonians Why They Didn't Need To Despise Prophecies Any Longer

Paul states plainly that they will not be under God's wrath:

1 Thessalonians 1:10
and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.
1 Thessalonians 5:9
For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Paul also takes some swipes at the false teachers.  They had been using the Old Testament prophets to try to Judaize the Thessalonians, but Paul points out that they were the type of people who had killed the Old Testament prophets they were quoting!

1 Thessalonians 2:15
 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind

Then Paul turns the tables and says that God's wrath had come on the false teachers!

1 Thessalonians 2:16
by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!

One of the Old Testament passages that the false teachers were likely using is found in Isaiah, were he describes how God will wear His armor when destroying the Gentiles.

Isaiah 59:17
 “He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on his head; and he put on garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a mantle.”

However, Paul encourages the Thessalonians to put on the armor that was originally intended to destroy them!

1 Thessalonians 5:8
But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation.

Finally, this leads Paul to let the Thessalonians know they have no reason to despise those Old Testament prophecies that the false teachers were using against them:

1 Thessalonians 5:20
Do not despise prophecies,

Many assume that the prophecies being despised were ones given by the prophets in the Church at that time.  If the prophecies that Paul was referring to were those type of prophecies, then we would expect to find Paul dealing with that issue in the letter, much like he did in 1 Corinthians 13. However, we do not find any evidence of this. We do however, find plenty of references to the Day of the Lord, which is referenced numerous time in Old Testament prophecies.  It was the day that the Thessalonians had feared would bring God's wrath on them, but Paul shows that day, which is the 2nd coming of Christ, is nothing to fear.

1 Thessalonians 2:19 (see also 3:13, 4:15-16, 5:2 and 5:23)
For what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you?.

What Do You Think?

What do you think of this mirror-reading of 1 Thessalonians?  Was Paul trying to assure the Thessalonians that they would not experience God's wrath during the Day of the Lord?  What other situations do you think 1 Thessalonians was responding to?

 

 

Find Out Which Way You Interpret The Bible

/

@@Ever wonder why someone interprets a verse entirely different than you?@@  Especially when you think the meaning is so obvious?  Ever have an argument with someone about the Bible, where it seems like you are just talking past each other or talking in circles?  One reason that happens could be because they have an entirely different approach to the Bible than you do.  There are several perspectives to take when reading the Bible, some healthy and some not so healthy.  We'll take a look at 3 different ways to interpret the Bible.

Knowing These 3 Ways Will Help You To Better Understand Others - And Yourself

There's a popular worship song with the phrase "He gives and takes away".  One church lady didn't like that phrase and asked God how He could "take away".  She said, He answered her by saying that He gives the good but takes away the bad.  However, this stands in contrast with the context of the Book of Job where God does take away the good. So is she wrong?

Biblical scholar, D.A. Carson tells of a time that a man told him the meaning of a verse in the Gospel of Matthew.  D.A. Carson told that man he was wrong and clearly laid out why the man's interpretation was not possible.  However, the man still held to his interpretation even thought he couldn't deny Carson's facts.  Why?

Hopefully, the following 3 ways of interpreting the Bible with shed light on how you and other people understand your Bibles.  There are definitely wrong ways to interpret the Bible, but there are multiple right ways.  @@The Bible is multi-dimensional and understanding the dimensions may help us understand others@@.

The 3 Ways: Eisogesis, Exegesis And ExePneuma

1. Eisogesis

Eisogesis literally means "into the text" and it is one of the unhealthy ways to read your Bible.  Sometimes called "proof-texing", it's when people read their own meaning into the text or they may cherry pick a verse to support their theology, even though it contradicts the context of the verse.  An obvious example of this would be if someone said that Psalm 14:1 says that "There is no God".  However, the full verse is: The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

Less obvious are verses such as Jeremiah 29:11:

For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

It's funny that no one ever mentions the verse just a few chapters before:

And I myself will fight against you with an outstretched hand and with a strong arm, even in anger, and in fury, and in great wrath.
-Jeremiah 21:5

Both verses need to be read in context and shouldn't be cherry picked to use how anyone sees fit.

2. Exegesis

Exegesis means "out of the text", because when you're doing exegesis, you are trying to derive the meaning from the text and not reading your own meaning into it.  There are two main methods for doing exegesis.  They are called the historical-grammatical method and the allegorical method.

The historical-grammatical method tries to determine the original authorial intent.  In other words, what was the original author trying to say to the original reader? This method relies a lot on contexts.  It looks at literary context, historical context, and cultural context, to name a few.  I would consider mirror-reading to be part of the historical-grammatical method, as it tries to reconstruct the "situational context".  In other words, what was the situation that the original author was writing or responding to?  If you don't know about mirror-reading, be sure to subscribe.

The allegorical method sees the Bible as metaphor or analogy and tends to be more popular within the Eastern Orthodox Church. Here is an example about the Parable of the Good Samaritan from one of the great Church theologians, Augustine. Theologian, C. H. Dodd, summarizes:

"...the man is Adam, Jerusalem the heavenly city, Jericho the moon – the symbol of immortality; the thieves are the devil and his angels, who strip the man of immortality by persuading him to sin and so leave him (spiritually) half dead; the priest and levite represent the Old Testament, the Samaritan Christ, the beast his flesh which he assumed at the Incarnation; the inn is the church and the innkeeper the apostle Paul."

The difficult thing about the allegorical method is that it's hard to say whether it's correct or not.  It doesn't rely on context like the historical-grammatical method does and so it's hard to prove or disprove.

3. ExePneuma

@@Do you use ExePneuma when you interpret the Bible?@@ It's a term that I made up, and it means "out of the Spirit".   It seems to be a popular way that people interpret the Bible, especially among Charismatic Christians.  It's when the meaning of the text is revealed or inspired by the Holy Spirit.  Depending on your theology, this may not even be considered a possibility.  However, whether you believe it can be out of the Spirit or not, there are definitely some people that do believe that it can be.

It can be confused with eisogesis since it can appear that one is simply reading their own meaning into the text.  It's also similar to the allegorical method, since it is difficult to prove or disprove.

Recognize How You And Others Interpret The Bible.

There are other ways to interpret the Bible but the 3 ways listed above will probably be what you'll encounter when talking with others. When discussing Scriptures with others, be sure to understand which of the 3 ways they are interpreting the Bible.  It may not help you agree with each other, but at least you will know why they see things so differently and may help avoid unnecessary arguments.

Header Image PHOTO CREDIT: brett jordan cropped from original


Is There A Hidden Message In Habakkuk?

/

When the Babylonian army was steaming towards Jerusalem, Habakkuk levels some harsh words against the impending invaders, but hidden in those words is a warning to the Jews.

This is part of a series on mirror-reading the books of the Bible.  You can view all posts in the series here.  They are only cursory mirror-readings and, although I give evidence for their validity, further research is desired for support.

Mirror-Reading The Book of Habakkuk Gives Us A Greater Understanding

The Babylonian army had become the deadliest military force on earth.  They were obliterating ancient near east cities like it was going out of style and they were heading towards Jerusalem. The Assyrian army had laid siege to Jerusalem years before but Yahweh had saved the day then, sending the Assyrians away, never to return.  This time though, God had made no promises to save them, and the future looked bleak. With a dire outlook, there were temptations for those in Jerusalem and perhaps others in Judah.  Habakkuk addresses all of the issues they faced in a clever, even poetic way.

6 Hidden Messages In Habakkuk

Habakkuk fires five "woes" at Babylon.  The metaphors in them are clearly directed at the powerful empire. However, the principles in those "woes" are also subtly directed at the temptations facing the Jews.

1. Take care of your debt

An impending siege of a city would wreak havoc on the credit system.  Why pay back your creditors if you'll be given a clean slate after Jerusalem falls?  Habakkuk addresses the issue:

Habakkuk 2:6-7
Shall not all these take up their taunt against him, with scoffing and riddles for him, and say,
“Woe to him who heaps up what is not his own—
    for how long?—
    and loads himself with pledges!”
Will not your debtors suddenly arise,
    and those awake who will make you tremble?
    Then you will be spoil for them.

The statement is directed at the Babylon because they were taking cities that weren't theirs.  However, it also applied to the Jew who was thinking about gaming the credit system.

2. Don't make a deal with the enemy to save your own hide

The Jews may have been tempted to sell out their countrymen to avoid calamity in a potential siege.  Habakkuk responds:

Habakkuk 2:9-12
“Woe to him who gets evil gain for his house,
    to set his nest on high,
    to be safe from the reach of harm!
You have devised shame for your house
    by cutting off many peoples;
    you have forfeited your life.
For the stone will cry out from the wall,
    and the beam from the woodwork respond.
“Woe to him who builds a town with blood
    and founds a city on iniquity!
Habakkuk 2:15
“Woe to him who makes his neighbors drink—
    you pour out your wrath and make them drunk,
    in order to gaze at their nakedness!

Again, this is pointed at Babylon as they smashed neighboring cities, but it would also make an Jew think twice about cutting a deal with the Babylonians.

3. Don't worship other gods.

If God can't protect His people from the Babylonians, maybe they should worship other gods.

Habakkuk 2:19-20
Woe to him who says to a wooden thing, Awake;
    to a silent stone, Arise!
Can this teach?
Behold, it is overlaid with gold and silver,
    and there is no breath at all in it.
But the Lord is in his holy temple;
    let all the earth keep silence before him.”

It's a little ambiguous.  Is it a slam against the Babylonian gods or is it a exhortation to keep the Jews from worshiping them?

4. Jewish leadership will be judged.

Other statements in Habakkuk are ambiguous as well.  Are the verses below talking about the corrupt leadership in Jerusalem or the Babylonian army that is to surround it?  My answer is both.

Habakkuk 1:4
So the law is paralyzed,
    and justice never goes forth.
For the wicked surround the righteous;
    so justice goes forth perverted.
Habakkuk 1:12-13
Are you not from everlasting,
    O Lord my God, my Holy One?
    We shall not die.
O Lord, you have ordained them as a judgment,
    and you, O Rock, have established them for reproof.
You who are of purer eyes than to see evil
    and cannot look at wrong,
why do you idly look at traitors
    and remain silent when the wicked swallows up
    the man more righteous than he?

5. The righteous shall live by faith

Perhaps the most recognized verse in Habakkuk was made famous by it's allegorical use in the New Testament.

Habakkuk 2:4
“Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him,
    but the righteous shall live by his faith.

We are used to thinking of that phrase in terms of having faith in Christ.  However, in Habakkuk's time, this refers to being loyal to God and by extension, Jerusalem.  Any soldier thinking about going AWOL is contrasted with Habakkuk's actions:

Habakkuk 2:1
I will take my stand at my watchpost
    and station myself on the tower,
and look out to see what he will say to me,
    and what I will answer concerning my complaint.

6. God will save you even in defeat

Many of those in Jerusalem would be thinking about abandoning ship, but even though Habakkuk's message assured the Jews that Babylon would pay for it's sin, it also was adamant about the Jews not taking advantage of the situation.  The righteous were to refrain from doing anything to save themselves. God would save them, even if Jerusalem fell.  Habakkuk makes it clear in chapter 3:

Habakkuk 3:16
I hear, and my body trembles;
    my lips quiver at the sound;
rottenness enters into my bones;
    my legs tremble beneath me.
Yet I will quietly wait for the day of trouble
    to come upon people who invade us.
Habakkuk 3:18
yet I will rejoice in the Lord;
    I will take joy in the God of my salvation.

What Do You Think?

What do you think of this mirror-reading of Habakkuk?  Is Habakkuk speaking to both the Babylonians and the Jews?  What other situations do you think Habakkuk was responding to?

Header Image PHOTO CREDIT: Wayne Noffsinger cropped from orginal



Why Is This Bible Study Method So Controversial?

/

If there was a Bible study method that could give you profound insights into Scripture, would you use it? Or would you let fear stop you from learning?

There is such a method called mirror-reading, but it's not without controversy.  Mirror-reading assumes that Biblical authors were responding to a situation.  They were only one-half of the conversation but the other half can be inferred by what they've written.  And it's figuring out the other side of the conversation that has some people so afraid.  

Overcome Your Fears For Greater Understanding

Hopefully most of us prefer not to be false teachers. Many aspiring teachers of the Bible have James 3:1 "you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness" lurking in the back of their minds. Besides the "fail fast and fail often" mantra of silicon valley, most of us probably prefer not to be wrong about things.  When it comes to interpreting the Bible, many want to err on the side of caution, but error is still error whether cautious or not. One only needs to look to Matthew 25 and the parable of the golden talents to see that the cautious servant is not rewarded.  

@@Biblical interpretation must not be determined by fear.@@ This is not a license to be careless but to examine the text with prudence and wisdom.  So open your mind to mirror-reading and embrace the possibility of deeper understanding.

4 Reasons NOT To Fear Mirror-Reading

1. Inference is a legitimate way to reach a conclusion

Mirror-Reading is sometimes thought of as too speculative. In an ideal world, we would prefer to have clear, propositional phrases with which we can use deductive reasoning.  That's not always the case, however, but sometimes we can infer things to reach a conclusion.

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. You may not have seen the dog chew up the couch but with no other suspects and a history of mischief, we can be reasonably certain the dog did it.  We can never be sure the dog wasn't framed by the cat but the circumstantial evidence is enough to produce a verdict.  

Whether conscious or not, everyone makes inferences to some extent when reading the Bible.  From the New Testament we can infer that there is a conflict in the early Church between Jews and Gentiles.  We can even infer the reasons for the conflict.  At a broad level, most students of the Bible are comfortable mirror-reading.  Issues arise the more detailed one tries to mirror-read.  This site is dedicated to exploring how to mirror-read as accurately and as detailed as possible.

2. You can't know the "what" without the "why"

Some may suggest that we only focus on "what" the text of Scripture says and not "why" it says it.  However, sometimes we can't know the "what" without the "why".  Suppose a father tells his son "Don't use a hammer in the house" when the son is 5 years old.  It would be ridiculous for the son, after becoming an adult, to refuse to fix something in the house because his father said "Don't use a hammer in the house".  @@The reason something is said, impacts it's meaning.@@

3. Verify!

Mirror-Reading can become a cesspool of far-fetched theories, which is why we must always do what we can to verify any mirror-reading we do.  Not only is historical and cultural context important, but the context of the book that one is studying is also critical for finding evidence to support one's mirror-reading.  We must not just looking for possible interpretations of the Bible but the probable.

4. Be honest

If your mirror-reading is speculative, then admit that it's speculative.  Sometimes it's difficult to verify a mirror-reading and that's okay, as long as you let everyone know. Biblical scholar,  John M.G. Barclay, talks about putting mirror-reading into different categories such as:

  • Certain or Virtually Certain
  • Highly Probable
  • Probable
  • Possible
  • Conceivable
  • Incredible
Header Image PHOTO CREDIT: Ryan Hyde cropped from original

Book of Jude: Quelling A Slave Rebellion?

/

By reconstructing the situation that Jude was responding to, we can see the conflict that was happening between slaves and their masters in the Church.

This is part of a series on mirror-reading the books of the Bible.  You can view all posts in the series here.  They are only cursory mirror-readings and, although I give evidence for their validity, further research is desired for support.

Mirror-Reading The Book of Jude Can Give Us A Better Understanding.

False teachers had infiltrated the Church and they taught that Jesus had set the slaves free - literally.  The slaves began rejecting the authority of their masters because Jesus had leveled the playing field and they didn't have to be slaves anymore.  The masters were none too happy about this and began passing judgment on the slaves.  Jude steps in to settle the conflict.

How Jude Responded To The Master/Slave Conflict

Jude 1
Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:

"Servant" also translated "slave" is common in New Testament writings as Jude, Paul and others put themselves on par with the slaves.  This would have gotten the attention of the slaves and their masters.

The masters were upset that the slaves were denying them but Jude takes the phrase and uses it of the false teachers and their relationship with Jesus:

Jude 4
For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

The 2nd chapter of 2 Peter has several parallels to Jude and Peter seems to be addressing a similar situation in his letter:

2 Peter 2:1
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

Peter points out that they offer the slaves freedom but they are spiritually slaves themselves:

2 Peter 2:19
They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.

The false teachers despised authority because they saw Jesus as the great equalizer of the "holy ones".  Many New Testament writers worked hard to teach that Gentiles could be "holy ones" just like the Jews, but the false teachers took that to mean that contracts of servant-hood could be broken. They applied this principles, not just to slaves/masters but also angels/humans:

Jude 8
Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones.
2 Peter 2:10
and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones,

@@Korah's rebellion is a great example of this equalizing of the holy ones.@@  A similar situation had happened in the Book of Numbers:

Numbers 16:3
They assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! For all in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?”

Technically they were right in that God said he would make them a holy nation.  So they were all holy.  However, that did not mean Moses didn't have a position of authority.  That's why Jude mentions it:

Jude 11
Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error and perished in Korah's rebellion.

Jude and Peter speak of angels who did not behave properly.  The principles that they teach could also be applied to the slave masters and how they should respond to the slave rebellion.  The slave masters were pronouncing judgements against the slaves.

Jude 6
And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—
Jude 9
But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.”
2 Peter 2:11
whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord.

It's interesting that Peter uses the word translated "escape" 3 times in 2 Peter. Could he have runaway slaves in mind here and is importing a term for a word play?

2 Peter 2:20 (see also 1:4 and 2:18)
For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
 

What Do You Think?

What do you think of this mirror-reading of Jude?  @@Was Jude trying to resolve a conflict between slaves and their masters?@@  What other situations do you think Jude was responding to?

Header Image PHOTO CREDIT: Dennis Jarvis cropped from original

Did Israel Almost Split Into 3 Kingdoms?

/

Political turmoil was brewing as two kingly lines prepare for a head on collision.  The author of 1&2 Samuel brings it back from the brink of civil war.

This is part of a series on mirror-reading the books of the Bible.  You can view all posts in the series here.  They are only cursory mirror-readings and, although I give evidence for their validity, further research is desired for support.

Mirror-Reading 1 & 2 Samuel Can Give Us A Better Understanding.

In order to understand 1 & 2 Samuel, you have to know the situation the author, we'll call him "Sam", was dealing with.  

Sam had a problem.  After King Solomon, the kingdom of Israel had split into two kingdoms (Did you know that?). The northern kingdom (called Israel) and the southern kingdom (called Judah). The only tribes in the Southern kingdom were Judah and Benjamin. The kings that reigned over Southern kingdom were from the line of David.  David was from the tribe of Judah.  However, there was one other king that reigned over all of Israel before David. His named is Saul. Guess what tribe he was from.  That's right, Benjamin!

The tribe of Benjamin started to rethink this whole Davidic line of kings.  David and Solomon were great and all but since then, it's been a mixed bag as far as Davidic kings go.  Perhaps a descendant of Saul should be on the throne instead.  After all, Saul was God's first choice, right? And that violent David probably stole the thrown from him anyway. If that hadn't happened, maybe the kingdom wouldn't have split in the first place! @@A rift was forming between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.@@

How 1 & 2 Samuel Saved The Southern Kingdom From Falling Apart

So Sam wrote a book (originally 1 & 2 Samuel was one book, not two) and he made sure to address the situation that had the potential to rip the Southern kingdom apart.  Here are the main points that Sam wrote about regarding those issues:

1. God wanted David to be King and had rejected Saul

Sam made sure to point out that Saul was rejected by God as king:

1 Samuel 15:11
 “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.” And Samuel was angry, and he cried to the LORD all night.
1 Samuel 15:36
And Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you. For you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king over Israel.”

Any Benjaminite that wanted to play the God card to get the line of Saul back on the throne would be shut down.

2. David did not steal the throne

David had opportunities to kill Saul but did not. So why accuse David of stealing the throne when David clearly had no desire to steal it?

When Saul had to take a dump in a cave, David could have easily killed him. David's men wanted him to do it but peer pressure is no match for him:

1 Samuel 24:6-7
 He said to his men, “The Lord forbid that I should do this thing to my lord, the Lord's anointed, to put out my hand against him, seeing he is the Lord's anointed.” So David persuaded his men with these words and did not permit them to attack Saul. And Saul rose up and left the cave and went on his way.

The verse above not only shows that David was pro-Saul, but gives a warning to those who would try to kill the other king(or his sons) that was the Lord's anointed - a.k.a. David.

Later, David sneaks into Saul's camp at night and finds Saul sleeping.  Again, David is encouraged to kill him but he refuses.  

1 Samuel 26:10-11
But David said to Abishai, “Do not destroy him, for who can put out his hand against the Lord's anointed and be guiltless?”  And David said, “As the Lord lives, the Lord will strike him, or his day will come to die, or he will go down into battle and perish.  The Lord forbid that I should put out my hand against the Lord's anointed.

Yeah, so you definitely don't want to harm the Lord's anointed (hint, hint to the Benjaminites).

Furthermore, David killed the guy that killed Saul.

2 Samuel 1:14-16
 David said to him, “How is it you were not afraid to put out your hand to destroy the Lord's anointed?”  Then David called one of the young men and said, “Go, execute him.” And he struck him down so that he died.  And David said to him, “Your blood be on your head, for your own mouth has testified against you, saying, ‘I have killed the Lord's anointed.’”

So overall, Sam makes David look like a pretty great guy when it comes to Saul.

3. God wanted David to be king.

Sam also stresses that God wanted David to be king.

1 Samuel 13:14
But now your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought out a man after his own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you.”
1 Samuel 16:12-13
And he sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy and had beautiful eyes and was handsome. And the Lord said, “Arise, anoint him, for this is he.” Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers. And the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon David from that day forward. And Samuel rose up and went to Ramah.

But wait!

Those who were loyal to the Davidic line had a solution to this kingly dispute too.  Just kill the descendants of Saul! Problem solved!

Sam doesn't like that either, since it would also likely lead to civil war.

Enter Jonathon.

Friends...forever

@@David and Saul's son, Jonathan, are portrayed as best buds, but there's a purpose behind that portrayal.@@  Sam wants to make sure the Davidic loyalists know that harming Jonathan's descendants is a big no-no.

1 Samuel 18:3
Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul.
1 Samuel 20:15
and do not cut off your steadfast love from my house forever, when the Lord cuts off every one of the enemies of David from the face of the earth.”

Sam is sure to point out that David was faithful to that agreement when he found Jonathan's crippled son and treated him kindly.

2 Samuel 9:7
And David said to him, “Do not fear, for I will show you kindness for the sake of your father Jonathan, and I will restore to you all the land of Saul your father, and you shall eat at my table always.”

What Do You Think?

What do you think of this mirror-reading of 1 & 2 Samuel?  Do you think the situation I described above is true?  What other situations do you think "Sam" was responding to?

Header Image PHOTO CREDIT: Borya derivative of original

When Israel Split In Two

/

Many Christians don't know that Israel split into two kingdoms after the reign of king Solomon. For those who read the Bible, it's important to know about the split in order to have a better understanding of the Scriptures.  The effects of the split had a large impact on the history of Israel, rippling even into the New Testament.

How It Happened

One of Solomon's servants, named Jeroboam, was on a road trip when he ran into a prophet named Ahijah, who predicted the split that was to come.

1 Kings 11:29-31
And at that time, when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him on the road. Now Ahijah had dressed himself in a new garment, and the two of them were alone in the open country. Then Ahijah laid hold of the new garment that was on him, and tore it into twelve pieces. And he said to Jeroboam, “Take for yourself ten pieces, for thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘Behold, I am about to tear the kingdom from the hand of Solomon and will give you ten tribes

However, it wasn't an arbitrary decision by God to divide the kingdom.  It was idolatry that had provoked him:

1 Kings 11:33
because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of Moab, and Milcom the god of the Ammonites, and they have not walked in my ways, doing what is right in my sight and keeping my statutes and my rules, as David his father did.

As you can imagine, Solomon wasn't to happy about the news of Jeroboam:

1 Kings 11:40
Solomon sought therefore to kill Jeroboam. But Jeroboam arose and fled into Egypt, to Shishak king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon.

After Solomon died, the people came to his son, Rehoboam.  They said his father had been too hard on them and hoped Rehoboam would make things a little easier.  Rehoboam turned to his council for an answer. The old men said he should be easier on them but the young men said he should not.  Rehoboam responded to the people:

1 Kings 12:11
 “My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke. My father disciplined you with whips, but I will discipline you with scorpions.”

Yeah, so that went over like a lead balloon and the 10 northern tribes seceded to form their own kingdom of which Jeroboam became king.   The northern kingdom was referred to as Israel (sometimes Ephraim) and the southern kingdom was referred to as Judah (sometimes Jacob).  The southern kingdom consisted of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (and technically the tribe of Simeon, which was absorbed into Judah).

Many of the books of the Bible deal with the split kingdom and its ramifications.  I speak in an episode of RE2 about the theme of brotherly reconciliation and how it may have been addressing the issues of a divided kingdom.

Header Image PHOTO CREDIT: Rosino cropped from original

This Bible Study Technique Will Blow Your Mind!

/

You've probably never heard of this method of Bible study, but it can give you incredible insight and understanding of the Bible verses that you care about the most. If you know what to look for, some of the mysteries of Scripture can be solved.  It has totally changed the way I look at the Bible and I'm glad it did.   It's called mirror-reading.

The Bible Will Make More Sense To You

Comedian, Bob Newhart, has a hilarious sketch where he pretends to be an air traffic controller.  He speaks to several different pilots but we only hear Newhart's side of the conversation.  Even with half of the conversation missing, we can still understand the conversation to great comedic effect.  How can that be?  Because we can infer the rest of the conversation by what Newhart says.  We may not know exactly what the pilots said but we know enough to understand.  

Mirror-reading can help us fill in the "gaps" of the Bible. There's an interesting post going around on social media that highlights our ability to be able to fill in the gaps.  You may have seen it before, but those of you who haven't can read it below:

“Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteers be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.”

Our minds automatically try to fill in the missing pieces of information.  We do this even when we read the Bible.  The question is, what are you filling in the gaps with?  Are you inferring the other half of the conversation or @@are you filling the gaps in with your predetermined theology?@@

It is said that theologian F.F. Bruce spoke of Paul's letters by saying "Reading the letters of Paul is like hearing one side of a telephone conversation." @@The Bible is not a theological dissertation.@@  It is made up of various genres, including narratives, epistles and proverbs.  The Bible was not written in a vacuum but was written to specific situations and was responding to particular things that were being said.  If we approach Scripture as if it were a theological dissertation, we assume there is no other half of the conversation.  When that happens, we miss out on the full meaning of the text and our understanding suffers.

Just like we can infer what is said by what Newhart says, we can sometimes infer what was being said by what the Biblical authors wrote in Scripture.

Here's How To Mirror-Read

Mirror-reading can be a complex and sophisticated way of studying the Bible but if you're just starting out, here are 3 simple steps.

1. Read it over and over and over

When you pick a book of the Bible to study, you must read it repeatedly.  You want to become familiar with themes, phrases and even words that are repeated throughout the book. This familiarity will help you when you're looking for other verses to verify (see step 3) your mirror-reading.

2.  Ask the opposite

When reading a verse, ask the opposite of what it says.  Take Ephesians 1:1 for example:

“Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus:”

Most people blow through this verse and see it as a simple introduction, without any idea of the insight that can be mined from it.  

Were there false teachers in Ephesus saying:

  • Paul was not an apostle of Christ Jesus?
  • Paul was not an apostle by the will of God?
  • They were not saints in Ephesus?
  • The saints were not faithful in Christ Jesus?

These are all questions that we could ask to help us get started on mirror-reading Ephesians 1:1.  However, we can't leave it at that.  

3.  Verify

Whatever questions we ask, we need to verify it with additional evidence, preferably from the same book that is being studied.  Without additional evidence, our mirror-reading becomes more speculative and dangerous teachings could arise from misunderstanding the text.

Header Image PHOTO CREDIT: Rafiq Sarlie cropped from original

A Review of “Mirror-Reading Moral Issues in Paul’s Letters”

/

Summary

Nijay K. Gupta builds on John Barclay’s methodology for mirror-reading by developing it further to deal specifically with moral issues. You can read the entire article here.

Gupta begins by giving a brief overview of mirror-reading, the importance of John Barclay’s contribution and previous attempts by others (primarily D. Peterlin’s work in Philippians) to mirror-read moral issues. Next, he divides his study into four parts: A review of Barclay’s methodology, his own mirror-reading model with respect to moral issues, applying that model to sexual immorality in 1 Thessalonians, and then again with sexual immorality in Romans.

I won’t take the time to review his review of Barclay’s work. Feel free to read about it in Gupta’s article or you can read my own review here.

Building on Barclay’s model, Gupta says he builds on Barclay’s eight criteria. However, I can only find seven in Barclay’s article. Furthermore, Gupta says five will be carried over with little modification and three more will be added. But again, I found four were carried over and four were added.

The ones carried over are:

  1. Type of Utterance: All things being equal, mirror-reading imperatives(commands and prohibitions) will provide more appropriate grounds for arguing that the letter-writer is reacting against moral problems among the readers, though with each kind of utterance (assertion, denial, command, prohibition) there is a range of possible exigencies to which it may address.
  2. Tone: If the tone of particular statements and commands involving moral issues are more urgent and emphatic, the more likely it is that the author is concerned with the readers’ current state of behavior.
  3. Frequency: The more frequent a reference to a particular moral problem (especially in commands and prohibitions), the more likely it is that the author is reacting against failure in such an area.
  4. Rarity (modified from Barclay’s “Unfamiliarity”): If the moral subject that is addressed in the letter is relatively uncommon, it is reasonable to suggest that it has been brought up in direct relevance to the situation of the reader.

The ones added:

  1. Coherence (this is perhaps modified from Barclay’s “Consistency”, although Gupta seems to categorically disregard it in his footnote): Any theory regarding moral problems behind an ethical discourse must take into account the character of the whole letter.
  2. Variety: One can more securely establish that the author is responding to moral failure (and not simply offering stock advice) if a variety of terms and forms of speech are used to describe the moral problem that is raised.
  3. Elaboration: If the discussion of a moral issue is extensive, it is likely that such an issue is being highlighted as a response to failure among the readers.
  4. Centrality: If particular moral issues are addressed at key points in the letter, it is more likely that a moral failure has encouraged the author to write the discourse and place this issue at the center of his discussion.

After establishing his principles, Gupta moves on to sexual immorality in 1 Thessalonians. The question is whether Paul wrote about sexual immorality as reparative or preventive. Did some or all of the Thessalonians commit the said sexual sins or was Paul simply warning them as a precaution?

The type of utterance in 4.3 is an assertion, but Gupta finds a hint of imperative. The principles in favor of reparative are tone and centrality, along with elaboration. The principles working against the reparative view are frequency, variety, rarity and perhaps the most damaging, coherence. He then lays out a range of possibilities as follows:

Certain
Paul is very concerned that the Thessalonians maintain a state of moral purity which is particularly characterized by control of their sexual desires.

Highly Probable
Some of the Thessalonians struggled with detaching themselves from the general social habits of their surroundings and former lives.

Possible

  1. Paul was made aware of at least one serious sexually deviant matter in the believing community and wished to address this while offering general counsel to the whole group.
  2. Some Thessalonian Christians did not hold to a stricter sexual ethic due to a misunderstanding of the eschatological implications of the gospel.

Incredible or Tenuous
Some Thessalonians have supported a full-scale opposition against Paul and his ministry demonstrated in their very dubious ethical practices including
sexual immorality.

He then moves on to sexual immorality in Romans. Again, Gupta applies his principles to analyze whether it is reparative or preventive.

Frequency and Centrality: There are four primary places that Paul discusses sexual immorality and two of them are located within important parts of his argument.

Types of Utterances: Only in 13.11-14 are there prohibitions. In 1.18-32, Gupta thinks it acts to indict the readers or the ‘judging ones’. Though 7.1-25 is within an autobiographic-like framework, the personal characterization would be intended to be a warning to Roman Christians who may be in danger of misplacing their trust in the law.

Rarity: Although sexual immorality is mentioned often throughout Romans, Paul does occasionally list specific vices.

Elaboration: In Romans 13.11-14, Gupta feels that although different vices are listed, they all fall under the category of “lust”.

Tone: Gupta finds urgency in Paul’s words when he claims that it is already the moment to wake from sleep.

With the above in mind, Gupta lays out the following range of possibilities:

Certain: Paul saw the temptation to commit sexual immorality as a real problem
(if only a future one) for the Roman believers.

Probable: It is probable, though not able to be sufficiently proven, that problems were already in existence in Rome.

Possible: The suggestion that ‘Jewish teachers’ are in mind as a group that Paul has singled out as unworthy leaders who demonstrate ‘immoral conduct’

My Thoughts

I question whether tone and frequency are able to indicate whether a statement is reperative or preventive (I question Barclay’s use as well). Is there data that proves that tone and frequency can indicate such or do we just assume it? Tone can indicate passion and frequency can indicate importance but I’m not sure they can go any further than that. Also, tone itself could be a matter of debate. What are the defining characteristics of tone? Regarding tone in Romans 13.11-14, Gupta says:

His words would seem to be unnecessarily charged if his readers were not ‘sleeping’ or guilty of demonstrating such vices.

But what if Paul was just responding to those were saying they were not awake yet and that they would awake later? The tone may not be charged at all.

I really like what Gupta says about the text as a whole:

Some theories, though they cannot be empirically proven, can make sense of a text as a whole and produce fresh insight.

However, he only uses the text that discusses sexual immorality. I propose that even the text that does not discuss sexual immorality could be useful in the discussion. If the other text could be mirror-read to reconstruct the false teaching that the Romans heard, then the implications of living out that false teaching may require or allow for sexual immorality that Paul is responding to.

I find both Gupta’s and Barclay’s methodologies valuable, but they are not designed to give definitive answers. They are good at tearing down the house of cards built by some with mirror-reading but they are unable to rebuild anything in its place and can only provide sets of blueprints that may or may not be possible to build. Could we develop a new methodology that would provide more certainty?

I appreciate Gupta’s contribution to the discussion of mirror-reading and I will keep his principles and Barclay’s criteria in mind during my studies.