Navigating Tough Texts

A Guide to Problem Passages in the New Testament

Murray James Harris

• Verlag: Lexham Press
• Jahr: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781683593966
• Thema: Théologie et religion
• Thema: Critique et interprétation bibliques

A guide for reading and understanding difficult New Testament verses. While the core message of the New Testament is clear, there are often puzzling, alarming, or confusing things we encounter when we get into the details of the text. Murray J. Harris, veteran scholar and translator, is an ideal guide through these complicated passages. In Navigating Tough Texts, he clearly and concisely provides exegetical insights to over one hundred tricky New Testament verses that have implications for theology, apologetics, mission, and the Christian life. Navigating Tough Texts is an indispensable resource for pastors, students, and curious Christians who want to be better readers of the many important--and often confusing--New Testament passages.

PART 1

GOSPELS AND ACTS

MATTHEW

1: MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY? (Matt 1:25)

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary became official teaching of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. In the liturgies of these churches Mary is referred to as aeiparthenos, “the ever-virgin” or “the perpetual virgin”; that is, she was a virgin before and after the birth of Jesus Christ. But is this view in keeping with Matthew 1:25a: “But he (Joseph) had no sexual relations with her (Mary) until she had given birth to a son”? Does the word “until” imply that sexual relations began after the birth?

After establishing the Davidic ancestry of Joseph, the foster father of Jesus, by tracing the genealogy of Jesus (Matt 1:1–17), Matthew proceeds in 1:18–25 to describe the circumstances of Jesus’ birth. Verse 25a states the one qualification (introduced by “But”) to the statement “he took Mary home as his wife” (v. 24b): “But he did not know her.” “Know” is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. There was an unbroken period of sexual abstinence.

The prepositional phrase heōs hou (“until”) is a shortened form of “until the time when.” When it is preceded by a negated action (“did not know”), there is sometimes an implication that the negated action continued after the point of time indicated. For example, when we read in Genesis 28:15 (in the LXX) “I will certainly not leave you until I have done everything I have promised you,” we may assume that God did not desert Jacob after the fulfillment of his promises.

But far more often we may assume that the opposite of the negated action occurs. In Genesis 8:7 (again in the LXX) we read, “The raven went out and did not return until the water had dried up from the earth.” Like the dove subsequently (Gen 8:8–11), the raven apparently did return to the ark. Similarly, in John 13:38, “The rooster will not crow until (heōs hou) you have disowned me three times”; and Matthew 17:9, “Tell no one what you have seen until (heōs hou) the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.” In such cases, the negated activity ends at the point of time indicated by the “until” clause, and the implication is that the opposite then occurs.

If Matthew believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, he would be unlikely to express himself in a way that linguistically leaves open the possibility that Joseph began to have sexual intimacy with Mary after Jesus was born. If he had wished explicitly to assert Mary’s permanent virginity, he could have simply added “or from that time on” (ē apo tote) after “she had given birth to a son.”

Five renderings of the verse, while paraphrastic, highlight its clear implication:

•“while yet refraining from being on terms of intimacy with her until after she had given birth to her son” (Cassirer)

•“but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son” (NASB)

•“but did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son” (HCSB; similarly CSB)

•“But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born” (NLT)

•“But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son” (NIV)

See also part 1, ch. 16: “Mary’s Perpetual Virginity? (Mark 6:3).”

2: GOD AND SATAN ACTING TOGETHER? (Matt 4:1; 2 Cor 12:7)

It might sound blasphemous to suggest that God and the devil could act in unison on some project. But there are two noteworthy scriptural passages (among several others, such as Job 1:6–2:7) where it appears that these two persons are acting together, in the sense that they are working at the same time in the experience of the same person, although for completely different purposes.

The first is found in Matthew 4:1. “Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness in order to be tempted (peirasthēnai, an infinitive that expresses purpose) by the devil.” The “then” looks back to Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist, when the Holy Spirit witnessed the Father’s confirmation of Jesus as the Son whom he loves and who brings him consummate pleasure (Matt 3:16–17). One and the same preposition (hypo, “by”) is used in reference to the two agents, the Spirit and the devil, who were acting on the same person, Jesus. But one is “leading,” the other “tempting.” It is characteristic of the Spirit to guide, superintend, and direct, always for the person’s benefit. It is characteristic of the devil to entice people to sin, always to their detriment (1 Cor 7:5; 1 Thess 3:5).

The Spirit’s aim in guiding Jesus into the wilderness was apparently to confront him with the taunts of the devil (Matt 4:3, 5–6, 8–9), so that in rejecting the devil’s temptations Jesus would be confirmed in his understanding of his true mission as the Suffering Servant of Yahweh. He would not be satisfying people’s desire for physical satisfaction, nor dazzling them by the misuse of his divine prerogatives, nor abandoning his exclusive worship of God in exchange for worldly splendor. We may assume the devil was seeking to deflect Jesus from his “messianic cross-purpose” (in H. E. W. Turner’s phrasing). This was to be Satan’s aim throughout Jesus’ ministry, as when he used Peter to rebuke Jesus for his intention to suffer and die (Matt 16:21–23; see part 1, ch. 18), and later used the passersby at the crucifixion, together with the Jewish hierarchy, to encourage Jesus to come down from the cross and so terminate his messianic suffering (Matt 27:29–43).

The second relevant passage is 2 Corinthians 12:7. In the context of Paul’s boasting about the things that showed his weakness (2 Cor 11:30; 12:5), he says, “Because of the extraordinary nature of the revelations (see 2 Cor 12:1–4), then, so that I might not become over-elated, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan sent to pummel me so that I might not become over-elated.” In Classical Greek, skolops often means “stake,” but in the regulative Greek OT (the LXX) the term never means “stake,” but always “thorn” or “splinter.” In all probability, some painful physical ailment is indicated. “A thorn in the flesh was given (edothē)” is a theological passive, with God as the implied agent, as is the case with the preceding passive, “caught up,” in 12:2 and 4. Yet this God-given thorn was simultaneously “a messenger of Satan,” a messenger belonging to Satan or, better, a messenger sent by Satan (a subjective genitive). It is not that God is here working through Satan, but that Satan is active at the same time as God and by his permission (compare Job 1:12; 2:6).

As Paul experienced his “thorn,” he discovered it to be both a gift from God and a tool of Satan. It was God’s gift because it had the effect of deflating Paul’s elation in having been caught up to the third heaven and hearing inexpressible things (2 Cor 12:2–4). Twice in verse 7 Paul notes the divine purpose of the “thorn”: “so that I might not become over-elated.” The deflation of pride is God’s distinctive work (Prov 16:5; Isa 13:11; Matt 23:12; Luke 1:51). The “thorn” was Satan’s tool because it inflicted suffering: “to pummel/harass me.” The infliction of suffering is Satan’s distinctive work (Job 1:8–19; 2:3–7; Luke 13:16; 1 Cor 5:5). Also, if the “thorn” was a recurrent physical malady, it may have sometimes been a hindrance to the spread of the gospel, either by arousing the contempt of Paul’s hearers (compare Gal 4:13–14) or by so incapacitating him that travel plans were frustrated (see 1 Thess 2:18). See further part 2, ch. 31.

We can therefore conclude that sometimes, by God’s permission, the devil’s actions promote or fulfill God’s purposes. Since Satan is not omniscient, he will be unaware of God’s overarching aims when he, unwittingly, by his machinations serves those aims.

3: HEADING FOR HELLFIRE (Matt 5:22)

In Matthew 5:21–48 we find six sections, each of which begins with Jesus using some variation of the antithesis, “You have heard that it was said … but I tell you.” In the first part of each antithesis Jesus cites some commandment or well-known saying that was given “to the people long ago” (Matt 5:21, 33). Then, on the basis of his authority as the One who fulfills the Law and the Prophets (= the Scriptures of the OT) (Matt 5:17), Jesus proceeds to point his hearers to the real and ultimate meaning of those earlier commandments or sayings. In all six antitheses, Jesus begins his redefinition with the emphatic “I” (egō, “I myself”), “But I tell you.” Verses 28–41 exemplify the new righteousness of the kingdom of heaven that outstrips the righteousness of the Pharisees and teachers of the law (Matt 5:20) in both quality and quantity.

You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not murder, and whoever commits murder will be guilty before the court.” But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother or sister will be guilty before the court. Again, whoever says to his brother or sister, “Raka,” will be answerable to the Sanhedrin. And whoever says, “You rebel!” will be guilty enough to go into the hell of fire. (Matt 5:21–22)

Here, in Jesus’ redefinition of the nature of murder, there is a gradation in the nature of the offense committed:

•Angry thoughts directed against one’s brother or sister that remain unchecked and consequently grow with time lead to murderous acts (this is assumed), acts that are culpable before any court. Anger that is unchecked gives the devil a foothold and leads to sin (see Eph 4:26–27). To reduce the impact of this hard saying of Jesus, some scribes later added the qualifying phrase “without a cause” to “everyone who is angry.” This reading is reflected in the KJV but is missing from the original Greek text.

•“Raka” was apparently an Aramaic term of dangerous and provocative abuse, a put-down denoting a lack of intelligence—comparable to the English terms “imbecile,” “empty-head,” “blockhead,” or “numskull.”

•To Greek ears, the insult mōre would mean “You fool!” But for Jews the term would have meant “You rebel,” someone guilty of open rebellion against God, for the similar-sounding Hebrew word mōreh denotes willful disobedience (Num 20:10; Ps 78:8; Jer 5:23). In his frustration and anger at the rebellion of the Israelites in the Wilderness of Zin, Moses chided them with the words, “Listen now, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?” (Num 20:10). Because of these damning words and his own disobedient action in twice striking the rock, Moses was excluded from entering the promised land (Num 20:11–12).

There is also a gradation in the tribunal that assesses and carries out judgment on the offense. In the first case, the “court” referred to could be the local courts established for each tribe (Deut 16:18), but more probably it is a general reference to legal processes—the judiciary. In the second case, the reference is to the supreme court of Judaism, the Sanhedrin. Finally, Jesus identifies the last and ultimate tribunal as (literally) “the Gehenna of fire,” or “hellfire” (KJV). Gehenna was a ravine on the south side of Jerusalem that in the first century was the city’s rubbish dump and permanent incinerator. It symbolized the eternal punishment of hell.

In his redefinition of the nature of murder, Jesus teaches that murderous action begins with unchecked anger (see Gen 4:5–8) that may spiral into provocative insult and devilish accusation.

4: “LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION” (Matt 6:13)

Although the Greek of this sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer is unambiguous, its meaning is certainly elusive and has exercised the minds of Christians for centuries. The key word is peirasmos, which may mean “temptation” in the sense of “enticement to do wrong.” But against this possible meaning, James 1:13 states a truth that admits of no exceptions: “When tempted, no one should say, ‘I am being tempted by God.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, and he himself tempts no one.” Consequently, it is impossible for God actively to lead people into wrongdoing; he cannot contradict his nature.

This prompts the interpreter to consider the other, more common meaning of peirasmos—“trial,” “test,” or “testing.” Thus the NAB translates the verse, “Do not subject us to the final test,” the trials or tribulations destined to occur at the end of the age (compare Rev 3:10). But the difficulty here is that the noun peirasmos lacks the definite article, which would be expected if the meaning were “the (well-known) final test.”

Attention is therefore some...