Pesky Passages
Rationale and disclaimers:
These passages are picked for various reasons.
Some have a meaning that is not particularly transparent. (That's what makes them pesky!)
Some contain practical lessons or important teachings that deserve to be highlighted. (Not all these are pesky.)
For many of these passages, I’ve heard wrong explanations promoted which furthers bad Bible study (which is worse than pesky).
I've heard in Bible classes such weak statements as, "It means what it says, and it says what it means" and "It doesn't affect our soul's salvation." Both of these dodges have sadly sometimes been used to avoid close study. If a teacher doesn't know how to explain a passage, s/he should simply say, "I don't really know how to put that in my own words," or "I don't know which is the better way to understand the passage,” or "Why don't we study that more later?"
I’ve tried to identify what’s “at stake,” in other words, the consequences of (mis)understanding the passage in question.
This highlights larger points that are related to the particular study.This is a work in progress; please help by submitting questions or other verses to add to this list (with an explanation and/or comments, if you prefer).
List of verses addressed Genesis 3:16 - “Your desire shall be for your husband"
Genesis 9:18-27 - Ham "saw the nakedness of his father”
Genesis 15:13-14 - The time line of Israel's future
Judges 7:1-8 - Gideon's 300 hand-picked men
Mark 2:9 - "Which is easier to say?"
Romans 9:13 - "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."
Romans 9:14-18 - Pharaoh: "Whom He (God) wills He hardens."
Romans 9:19-23 - "Vessels of wrath prepared for destruction"
Romans 11:26 - "All Israel will be saved"
1 Timothy 2:14-15 - The woman shall be “saved in childbearing”
Hebrews 10:25 - “…not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together”
Your turn! Submit a worthy passage
Genesis 3:16 - “Your desire shall be for your husband"
At stake: Understanding the relationship between men and women
“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.” (God to Eve, Genesis 3:16, NKJV)Notes on translations: The ESV renders Genesis 3:16b, "Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you." However, it includes a footnote "toward your husband" and actually references 4:7. Note that the precise list of curses earlier in the verse also varies by the English translation. The degree of variation among translations makes it understandable why this would appear on my list of "missed" passages.
God's curse on the woman to multiply her "sorrow, conception, and pain in childbearing" apparently involved biological changes to women's anatomy, in the same way that cursing the serpent to "go on his belly" would have involved a change in the serpent's anatomy. We don't have further detail from the text.
However, the statement that really catches my attention is "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." (Genesis 3:16, NKJV, NIV) I have heard some suggest that a woman would newly have some kind of natural affinity for her husband, taking "desire for/toward" in the sense of wanting (closeness with) him. However, note that the context (verses 14-19) is that of curses.
The key to understanding how this phrase is a curse actually comes from the next chapter. In Genesis 4:7 God warns Cain: "Sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it." The same phrase is used here as is used when addressing Eve. In Cain’s case, the "desire" by sin (personified) was clearly a desire for dominance or mastery or rule. (The NIV renders it, "Sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.") With this in mind, returning to Genesis 3:16, we indeed see a curse: God instituted (to an unspecified degree) an innate battle of wills, with the woman desiring to dominate/rule, but God granting rule in the household to the man.
[ Top ]
Genesis 9:18-27 - Ham "saw the nakedness of his father” and, his son was cursed.
At stake: Understanding one aspect of God's choosing of Abraham, through Shem's lineage.
(These comments appear in the Bible Class Materials on “Genesis” at MyPreachingPen.com.):21 (Noah) became uncovered in his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. (Genesis 9:21-22)
My understanding is that Ham, one of Noah’s three sons, took a perverse pleasure in seeing his father’s nakedness, to the extent that he announced it to his brothers. The two brothers showed respect for their father and were careful not only to avoid seeing him in his shameful condition, but also to cover him. So Noah realized when he awoke that someone had covered him, and then found out who had seen him and how word of his condition had spread (inferred from 9:24, “knew what his younger son had done to him”).
The phrase that is a bit enigmatic is "saw the nakedness of his father.” Jewish rabbis apparently speculated about it meaning everything from castration to homosexuality to lying with Noah’s wife. It is true that lying with someone – or even with his or her spouse! – in the sex act is synonymous with uncovering his or her nakedness in Leviticus 20:17-21, but that doesn’t seem to be what happened in this case. These rabbinical explanations
1) Don't fit the context of Genesis 9:22.
2) Don't clear up the passage’s meaning. And
3) Don't explain how Shem's and Japheth’s actions would have been an appropriate response.The key to understanding what Ham did comes from reading about what his brothers did. Verse 23 uses the same language when it says of Shem and Japheth, "Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness” (emphasis added). Because the same phrase is used in the two verses (saw the nakedness/did not see the nakedness), we learn that Shem and Japheth avoided doing what Ham had done. They even undid this (countered it, kept it from happening again) when they “covered” Noah’s nakedness. Clearly verse 23 refers to Shem and Japheth avoiding simply seeing Noah’s nakedness with their eyes, so apparently simply seeing Noah is what Ham had done in verse 22.
Not surprisingly, Noah pronounced a curse because of how he had been treated. Surprisingly, though, he cursed Ham’s son, Canaan, to be “a servant of servants … to his brethren” (9:25). Canaan’s servitude was also mentioned in each of the blessings for Shem and Japheth, while the relationship between Shem and Japheth was specifically blessed (i.e., the mention of them dwelling in each other’s tents).
Perhaps another factor that makes the passage difficult is the severity of the curse that Noah pronounces. The strong curse might seem to us to be more fitting if Ham had committed some sexual abomination, rather than simply looking at Noah in his exposed condition (and talking about it instead of helping). But cultural differences frequently seem strange to us, and we may simply not appreciate the seriousness of violating one’s honor like Ham apparently did.
Noah’s pronouncement of a curse and blessings are the only utterances from Noah recorded in the Bible. As such, the statements take on a greater, even a prophetic, significance. We read in Genesis 10 that Japheth’s descendants eventually inhabited Asia and Europe, Shem’s family settled in Arabia and the upper part of the fertile crescent (not Canaan or Egypt), and Ham’s children moved into Canaan, Egypt and Africa. The Canaanites would later become the object of God’s wrath because of their ungodliness and shameful practices.
[ Top ]
Genesis 15:13-14 - The timeline of Israel's future
At stake: Clarifying the Bible's timeline for Old Testament history and harmonizing Bible passages by two writers.
(These comments appear in the Bible Class Materials on “Galatians” at MyPreachingPen.com.)“Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. . . . And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect.” (Galatians 3:16-17)
This passage dates the Law of Moses 430 years after the promise to Abraham. Unfortunately, this makes for an apparent contradiction with a passage in Genesis, which suggests that the Israelites’ bondage in Egypt lasted 400 years. (There were many more than 30 years from Abraham to the start of the captivity, so the time spans do not add up.)
“Then [God] said to Abram: ‘Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years. And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions.’” (Genesis 15:13-14)
There are several difficulties inherent in sorting out Old Testament chronology, especially before the Exodus, given the fact the writer of Genesis does not always give us specific reference points. So it doesn’t help to be dogmatic, but it is always helpful to see how Bible passages can be reconciled, particularly in the face of apparent contradictions.
There are two key points which yield a shorter captivity and reconcile the accounts:
1) Punctuation was not used in the original documents of the Old Testament. By simply adding a dash, the “400 years” of Genesis 15:13-14 would cover the time from Abram to the captivity, rather than the captivity itself:
“… Your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them – four hundred years….’”
Or by moving a period, the passage gives the same meaning:
“…Your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them. Four hundred years, and also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions.’”
2) An alternate reading: In the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint (two of the three major texts from which we get our Old Testament books), Exodus 12:40-41 reads as follows, which fits perfectly with Paul’s statement in Galatians:
“Now the sojourn of the children of Israel who lived in Egypt and Canaan was four hundred and thirty years. 41 And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years—on that very same day—it came to pass that all the armies of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt.” (Most English Bibles omit “and Canaan.”)
So God’s prediction in Genesis 15:13-14 probably means 400 years from Abraham to the captivity. This rounded number is consistent with Paul’s “430 years later” in Galatians 3. One final clue suggesting this same idea comes from that same passage in Genesis, two verses later:
“But in the fourth generation they shall return here….” (Genesis 15:16)
There were more than four generations between Abram and Moses, so “the fourth generation” that God refers to here must mean the fourth to live in Egypt.
(For a complete discussion, including charts of the genealogies from Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and 1 Chronicles, see the Appendix of “A Simplified Summary of Old Testament Events” by Vicki Copeland, available on Amazon.)
[ Top ]
Judges 7:1-8 - Gideon's 300 hand-picked men
At stake: Giving God full credit for His works
This is a classic story where God effects a victory for His people, the nation of Israel, against all odds and contrary to human expectations. Israel was being oppressed because of their spiritual unfaithfulness, but God sent them a deliverer, a judge. (Reference the cycle in chapter 2 in the class notes on “Judges and Ruth”.) Judges 6:5 says that the Midianites were “as numerous as locusts; both they and their camels were without number; and they would enter the land to destroy it.” God calls Gideon to deal with these bullies, and Gideon rallies fighters from four tribes of Israel.
The story continues in chapter 7, and even though the Israelite army is already tiny in comparison to that of the Midianites, God directs Gideon to pare down his army and ends up using only 300 men to accomplish the victory. (Apparently at least some in the enemy camp were already on edge, interpreting a dream to be predicting their defeat at the hands of Gideon. Perhaps this was an isolated event which only happened for Gideon’s benefit, but the surprise tactics in the middle of the night caused such confusion that the enemy forces started battling each other.)
But let’s focus on the number of Israelite fighters. They started with 32,000, but 22,000 were allowed to leave because they were afraid. (Gideon was afraid, too, but was called by God to do battle, and was then reassured by God using the above-mentioned dream.) The remaining 10,000 were reduced to 300 based on what position they got in to drink water apparently from a stream or river.
Now comes the test of our Bible interpretation skills. I’ve heard people try to explain that the drinking position of the 300 showed that they were more watchful and thus were better qualified to be soldiers. This suggests that God is selecting the best fighters, an elite corps of black ops specialists, if you will. The New King James Version online (at BibleGateway.com) even adds a title for this section, “Gideon’s Valiant Three Hundred”. But this totally misses the point of the passage and even contradicts God’s stated purpose. Read Judges 7:2 where God says of the 32,000,
The people who are with you are too many for Me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel claim glory for itself against Me, saying, ‘My own hand has saved me.’
Then He dismissed those who were afraid. Of the remaining 10,000, God said, “The people are still too many…”
So the point of reducing their numbers was so that no one could give credit for the victory to any man, any human power. And the 300 were selected, not because they drank in a special way and had some special valor or tactical advantage, but because there were fewer who drank that way!!
Let’s always be careful to avoid reading into passages thoughts spawned by human reasoning. God wanted full credit for that victory, so let’s give it Him!
[ Top ]
Mark 2:9 - "Which is easier to say?"
At stake: Honoring Jesus for His full power
Jesus often asked questions as part of His teaching (i.e., rhetorical questions), and in order to understand His teaching, we must be sure of the answers. In Mark 2, Jesus pronounces forgiveness of sins on a lame man. (Verse 5) He is accused of blasphemy, so defends himself in the following way:
Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise, take up your bed and walk’?
So let’s be clear: It’s easier to say, “Your sins are forgiven” because no one can really see the person’s guilt or their forgiveness when it takes place. Therefore, pronouncing forgiveness is "easy" in the sense that no one can really prove or disprove that it happened. In the account, Jesus had already said the easy thing. Some people disputed His authority to forgive sins, so to prove that He could truly do that “easy” thing, He proceeded to say the “hard” thing:
10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the paralytic, 11 “I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.”
Jesus’ many miracles proved that He had power (authority) on earth to forgive sins. When we feel so guilty that we are tempted to doubt that God can ever forgive us, let’s remember the lame man here in Mark 2. The account also shows that Jesus is ready and willing to forgive people who act in faith, like the lame man did. In fact, forgiveness seemed to be Jesus’ priority for the man; it was the first thing Jesus offered him! As the Scripture says elsewhere, “God our Savior … desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-4), and the Lord “is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).
[ Top ]
Romans 9:13 - "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."
At stake: Understanding God's free, sovereign will to bestow blessings
Esau. Notice in the context (verse 11) that the different destinies of Jacob and Esau were determined by God before those twins were born, before they had done good or evil.
First, God only judges us based on what we do (the actions with moral implications - "good or evil" - over which we have responsibility and control).
2 Corinthians 5:10 We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
Ecclesiastes 12:14 God will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, Whether good or evil.
Ezekiel 18 (the whole chapter)
Hated. Second, "hate" is a strong word, but it has a context. Jesus taught,
Matthew 19:19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
So when He taught,
Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple,"
we understand that "hating" our parents and even ourselves is only in contrast to the love that we have for the Lord. We can gain some clarity from the parallel passage,
Matthew 10:37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
So God "hated" Esau only in the sense that he "loved" Jacob more and decided to give Jacob special blessings.
Blessings. If you think this passage is referring to the eternal destinies of the boys or their descendants, you are mistaken. Out of all the families on earth, God chose Jacob's family, so in a sense, He "hated" every other family! But a major point of the passage is that God is sovereign and can therefore show mercy (i.e., grant special blessings) to whomever he wishes. He chose Jacob's family to receive many blessings, blessings which Paul had listed at the beginning of the context:
Romans 9:4 the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God.
But even these great blessings did not speak to (much less guarantee!) the Jews' salvation (as is seen in reading through Romans chapter 11). And the lack of these blessings did not speak to the condemnation of Esau. These blessings gave the Jews great advantages, but were temporal blessings which were replaced by a better adoption, greater glory, a new covenant, the law of liberty, a new and better priesthood, and greater promises in Christ Jesus. That new set of blessings is offered to people from all the families of the earth.
[ Top ]
Romans 9:14-18 - Pharaoh: "Whom He (God) wills He hardens."
At stake: Understanding our free will to make moral choices
What is it to "harden" something? Hardening pottery is taking a vessel and making it more solid. It does NOT involve changing its shape. Hardening a heart is NOT changing the nature of that heart. Hardening a heart is taking a heart as it is, with its desires, and making it more determined to fulfill those desires. It's like nudging someone who is already leaning. You're not overriding that tilt and making the person go the other way, you're simply encouraging the person to do what they're already doing, only more. Compare how God stirred up the spirit of Cyrus (Ezra 1:1).
Who did the hardening? The Scriptures say that God hardened Pharaoh's heart (e.g., Exodus 7:3; 9:12; 10:1) and that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (e.g., Exodus 8:32; 1 Samuel 6:6).
How did the hardening happen? Notice how God hardened Pharaoh.
By granting relief from the plagues. Ironic, isn't it? The plagues made Pharaoh more likely to let the Israelites go; stopping them made him less likely to let them go. You can sure tell which way Pharaoh was leaning!
