Posted in Announcements, Books

Kindle version now available for new Acts commentary

Mac Deaver’s new commentary on Acts, I Will Pour Forth of My Spirit, is now available in paperback and Kindle editions. Order your copy if you haven’t already.

Though they do not generate email notices to your inbox, we are constantly adding sermons to the “Audio” section (Mac Deaver’s sermons are added weekly). There are also a couple of debates you can listen to.

We encourage readers to know about two great resources. For online Christian education, check out Tennessee Bible College. An excellent resource in the ongoing war between Christianity and our increasingly secular culture is the new Warren Christian Apologetics Center. Take a look at what they have to offer.

If you find a Biblical Notes article helpful, please do hit the “like” button and/or share it on your social media sites. Encourage your friends to subscribe. This month has already set a new record for visitors, page views, and shares. Also, remember that there are articles in the archives going back over five years. You can search the archives by category, by month, or by keyword.

Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen. (Eph. 3:20-31, ESV)

Posted in Christianity and Culture

Unreal Reality

By Weylan Deaver

The fact of God is the ground of all truth. Reality is what it is because God made it. Truth is what corresponds to reality. Take away God and you take away the anchor for truth, morality, purpose, value, beauty and obligation. God’s book—the Bible—explains where we came from, why we are here, where we are all headed, and how to prepare for judgment. Reject the Bible, and you are left a life without substance. Early on, people “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25, ESV). That old bargain never gets better with time or technology. But it does explain where our culture is today, when anything goes and each person (or group) determines his own “truth,” as though human thought is the deciding factor for what is real. It explains why so many believe that humanity descended from lower life forms. It explains why so many think it is right to take the life of an unborn baby. It explains why so many now see nothing wrong in men sleeping with men, or two women who want to “marry” each other. It explains why so many applaud a man who decides he wants to be a woman. It explains why so many think all religions are equally valid (or, equally invalid). But, to embrace the unreal as real is to labor under a “strong delusion” and “believe what is false” (2 Thessalonians 2:11). Feeling good about a belief does not make it true, just as drinking grape-flavored poison does not make it safe. Fantasy is not made fact by wanting it badly enough, or thinking about it long enough, or getting enough people to agree with it. Lies cannot save. Jesus still says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Visit us at the church of Christ, “which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).

Posted in Announcements, Books

Announcing: A New Commentary on Acts by Mac Deaver

I Will Pour Forth of My Spirit is a new commentary on Acts by Mac Deaver, published in May 2015. Its 246 pages cover each of the 28 chapters in Acts, with an outline, commentary, and study questions for each chapter. Two appendices offer discussion of the fulfilling of the Great Commission, and a helpful, explanatory outline of what was happening in Acts 2. The author’s preface states:

“I hope the reader finds his excursion through this little book both enjoyable and profitable and that he is encouraged in truth and comes to a better understanding of the New Testament book of Acts, which Luke so long ago by inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote. And I sincerely hope that he comes to comprehend that all men who have ever entered the kingdom (the church) of our Lord in the first century as described by Luke in Acts have, with regard to the essentials mentioned by Jesus to Nicodemus in John 3, entered in the same way. Furthermore, it is very important that we all see that if anyone enters the kingdom today in the twenty-first century, then, if the words of Jesus to Nicodemus hold true regarding all men of our time as well, we enter just as did those whose entries are recorded for us by Luke in Acts, when they entered during the first century by birth of water and Spirit.”

Paperback copies can be ordered from CreateSpace or Amazon. A Kindle version will soon be available, as well.

Posted in Church History

Ignatius and the Bishop

By Weylan Deaver

Among other books, I’m currently reading The Apostolic Fathers, translated from the Greek by Michael W. Holmes. The so-called “apostolic fathers” are ancient authors who have left us the earliest uninspired Christian writings (from late first to mid-second century). One of them, Ignatius, may have been martyred early in the second century. His letter to the church in Ephesus (as well, his letters to other congregations) is disturbing for its seeming portrayal of congregational structure foreign to the New Testament pattern. For example, Ignatius wants the Ephesians to be “subject to the bishop and the council of presbyters” (To the Ephesians, 2:2). He writes that “it is proper for you to run together in harmony with the mind of the bishop, as you are in fact doing. For your council of presbyters, which is worthy of its name and worthy of God, is attuned to the bishop as strings to a lyre” (ibid., 4:1). Though the gospel knows nothing of a church bishop who is distinct from and superior to a “council of presbyters,” Ignatius goes so far as to say, “For everyone whom the Master of the house sends to manage his own house we must welcome as we would the one who sent him. It is obvious, therefore, that we must regard the bishop as the Lord himself” (ibid., 6:1). That is quite a claim! Ignatius writes, “I dedicate myself to you Ephesians, a church that is famous forever” (ibid., 8:1).

Whether or not “famous forever,” the Ephesian church figures prominently in the New Testament. The apostle Paul wrote a letter to them in the mid first century. Paul also wrote to Timothy, telling him to “remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:3, ESV). Evidently, “different doctrine” was a genuine threat to the church at Ephesus. Toward the late first century, Jesus himself sent to the church at Ephesus, “I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent” (Rev. 2:4-5). Earlier, Paul, in a face to face meeting with the Ephesian church’s elders, told them that “after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30).

It is possible that, within a hundred years of the church’s beginning in Jerusalem, there were already departures in the leadership structure God put in place for congregational rule. But an error is not made right just because it is old. And, if “the bishop” in Ephesus is a scary thing to contemplate at such an early time in the church, we can take encouragement from the fact God had—through Paul—already warned the Ephesian elders years earlier that trouble would rise from themselves. Such warning is testimony to God’s omniscience, Paul’s inspiration, and the truth that Christians are never, whether back then or now, to veer from the gospel’s original design.

Posted in Doctrine, Marriage

Remarriage Right and the Law of the Husband

By Mac Deaver

Recently, Weylan posted the oral exchange between my father, Roy Deaver, and Gus Nichols (listen at: biblicalnotes.com/audio/roy-deaver-gus-nichols-debate). The exchange took place on the campus of the then Harding Graduate School of Religion in Memphis, Tennessee in 1973. At issue between the two parties was whether or not the “guilty party” of Matthew 19:9 could by scriptural authority remarry. Deaver said that the “guilty party” could not remarry. Nichols said that he could.

Deaver spoke first and gave an argument based on the alleged unfairness of allowing the guilty party to remarry since God disallowed the “innocent party unjustly put away” the option of a remarriage. That is, according to Matthew 19:9, if A put his wife B away, not for fornication, then A and B were still joined in marriage, and so if someone married B after the legal divorce, the second marriage was only legal but not scriptural. The case is such that A’s condition at the time of the putting away is simply that of a non-guilty party who legally divorces his wife but not for fornication. The wife in the now legally divorced condition commits adultery with whoever legally marries her. So, she is stuck in a scripturally necessitated celibacy as long as she remains the “innocent party” unjustly put away by a person not guilty of fornication. She is still scripturally married to her husband regardless of his attempt to get rid of her.

Now, Deaver’s argument that he presented was based on this point. That is, if God necessitated the perpetual celibacy of the “innocent party unjustly put away,” that it would be unfair for God to allow the remarriage of a “guilty party” put away because of his fornication. How could God reward the “guilty” with a new marriage and “punish” the “innocent” by withholding one? Dear reader, it doesn’t seem to make sense, does it? Deaver’s syllogism was:

(1) If it is the case that Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 do not allow the remarriage of an innocent party unjustly put away, then it is the case that Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 do not allow the remarriage of the guilty party justly put away.

(2) It is the case that Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 do not allow the remarriage of an innocent party unjustly put away.

(3) Then, it is the case that Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 do not allow the remarriage of the guilty party justly put away.

This syllogism was based on the principle that punishment is justly related to sin committed. He cited Matthew 12:41-45, Matthew 11:20-24, Luke 12:47-48, and 2 Peter 2:20-21 to identify the principle that the syllogism incorporates.

In response, Nichols declared that we, as a people, have always taken the position that someone who kills his wife has a scriptural right to a new marriage, but that if we say that (1) a murderer can remarry, but that (2) a guilty fornicator cannot, we are allowing, in effect, the more guilty more right and the less guilty less right. Nichols did not use these exact words, but these words represent precisely his point. He was saying, in effect, that Deaver’s position is not fair. That is, if a man can kill his wife in order to marry another woman, but that the “guilty party” cannot remarry, then we are imposing on people a position that is completely unfair. So, he was hitting at Deaver’s argument based on the concept of fairness. I must confess that I had always taken Nichols’ position on the murderer’s right to a remarriage as the correct position, but in this reinvestigation, I think that my father was, after all, correct in his analysis of the situation. And I am very glad to now see what he and Warren affirmed in 1973. As usual I come to the truth as a latecomer.

Now, let me say that Deaver’s position (that the guilty party has no right of remarriage) did not depend upon any argument on “fairness,” though I now agree that the argument is sound. And in all fairness to my father, in his discussion with Nichols, he rightly observed that the contention that the guilty party can remarry is in outright contradiction to the “except for fornication” clause! It was not clear to Nichols at the time, however, that Deaver’s own position regarding the guilty party was fair at all.

When my father later faced James D. Bales (from whom Nichols said that he had learned his position on the “guilty party”) at Searcy, Arkansas he had a syllogism based on Matthew 19:9 that was not based on the concept of fairness. The syllogism was written:

Maj. Prem. If it is the case that Mt. 19:9 teaches that the only scriptural ground for divorce and remarriage is the ground of one’s having put away his companion because of that companion’s fornication, then it is the case that any interpretation of any passage which contradicts that teaching is an erroneous interpretation.

Min. Prem. It is the case that Mt. 19:9 teaches that the only scriptural ground for divorce and remarriage is the ground of one’s having put away his companion because of that companion’s fornication.

Con. It is the case that any interpretation of any passage which contradicts that teaching is an erroneous interpretation (“Marriage, Divorce, And Remarriage—Harding Lecture, April 19, 1977, p. 15).

Now, this more wide-sweeping argument covers the “guilty party” issue as well as other matters. But in Deaver’s 1973 confrontation with Nichols, he used an argument that was more narrow in scope or focus and which he thought would do the job in exposing the idea that the “guilty party” did have a right to a remarriage. God is, after all, always fair. That is certainly correct, but it needs to be noted that “divine fairness” is not always easy to comprehend due to human failure to grasp features of a situation that only God can know. What was fair to Deaver didn’t seem fair to Nichols at all.

Fairness” is not always easy to discover. Some issues become so involved that it is hard to determine where fairness lies. And I would repeat that, though we know God is always fair since he is infinite in justice, we are not always able to determine how it is that he is fair when he gives definite positive legislation. At times the “fairness” is somewhat hidden from our view. God kept Cain, the brother-murderer, alive and allowed him to remarry and yet later decreed that all such murderers should be put to death (Gen. 4:9-15, 17; 9:6). And following his humanly undetected adultery, David was allowed to marry the widow of the soldier that David had killed under the camouflage of war (2 Sam. 11, 12). Because we are not privy to all knowledge to which God is, we are not always aware of how something is fair or “fair enough” in the eyes of God at a given time. So, from this angle of examination, “fairness”—though always rightly ascribed to God and to God’s applicable law—can be fair without our being able to explain in what way it is fair or why it is fair at all. The “fairness” of some laws is not on obvious display.

The issue of “divine fairness” has come up many times in marriage discussion. Some have wondered how it is fair for God to allow fornicators (before marriage) to commit fornication for hundreds of times and then be given scriptural right to marriage, while at the same time disallowing a “guilty party” the right of one more marriage. No preacher that I know has ever taken the position that the Scriptures teach that unmarried fornicators cannot enter a scriptural marriage. What about a person who—knowing Bible teaching—purposefully refuses to marry for years, during which time he fornicates over and over again? Let us say that in his 60’s he decides finally to marry. Where is the passage that disallows the marriage? Is the New Testament law on marriage and divorce unfair if it allows an habitual fornicator to get married?

Note carefully that we are not discussing whether practicing fornicators can go to heaven. They cannot (Gal. 5:19). But entry into heaven is not to be confused with marriage rights on earth. Nichols made this point in his part of the discussion. And he was correct. To say that a man has a right, given his circumstances, to another marriage is not at all the same thing as saying that the man stands before God approved and heaven bound. Plenty of people have a right to marriage who at the time of the application of the right are not in fellowship with God. But since God allows all persons guilty off pre-marriage fornication the right of entering a scriptural marriage and yet disallows, per Matthew 19:9, some parties to remarry, it is evident that God looks at the marriage covenant as something to be protected and maintained. After all, God does the actual joining in marriage (Matt. 19:6); he is no party to fornication!

Now, at the 1973 confrontation between Deaver and Nichols, Nichols took the position that if a man killed his wife in order to marry some other woman, that even though the murder was certainly sinful, marriage right still characterized the murderer since his wife was now dead. Evidently Nichols was thinking of Romans 7:1-6, though I do not remember his actually referring to the passage. But when he said that a man could kill his wife and marry again, both Deaver and Thomas B. Warren (who was in the audience and who in the question/answer session asked Nichols some questions) objected and declared that the murderer had no such right. When Nichols called for the passage that prohibited the murderer from remarrying, Deaver cited Matthew 19:9.

Earlier in his own presentation, Deaver had gone over Matthew 19:9 very carefully, presenting the words in Greek and giving a detailed analysis of the passage. Clearly, per Matthew 19:9, someone may and someone may not remarry. If all can remarry, according to God’s approval, then, Deaver asked, why did the Lord address the topic at all? The passage affirms that someone may remarry without being guilty of adultery and that someone may remarry but only by becoming guilty of adultery. “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.” According to Deaver, the Lord said that only persons who put away their mates for fornication are persons who may marry again without committing adultery. And guilty fornicators are not in that class of persons.

I agree with my father and Warren that the guilty party cannot with divine sanction remarry. And it is my view that Deaver’s 1977 syllogism that he gave to James Bales presents the truth on the topic. Furthermore, in the past (although I have taken the position that Nichols took at Memphis with regard to a wife-murderer having the right to another marriage since his wife was now dead), I now confess that such is absolutely wrong. I now see that Deaver and Warren were both correct in their claim that no wife-murderer has the right of remarriage even though his wife is dead. I had taken the position that even though a wife-killer was hell bound, his eternal destiny and his marriage rights were not to be confused. And they should not be. However, as we will see as our examination continues, though a wife-murderer is no longer bound to a wife, he is still bound to God who in the New Testament gives him no more marriage rights.

When Nichols called for the passage that prohibits a wife-killer from remarrying, Deaver, as already stated, cited Matthew 19:9. Now, Matthew 19:9 deals with putting away and marrying again and with someone’s marrying the party put away. Murder either is a form of putting away or is not a form of putting away. If Deaver cites Matthew 19:9 as conclusive that a murderer (who kills his own wife in order to marry some other woman) has no right to a remarriage, then he is saying either that murder is a form of putting away or he is saying that murder is not a form of putting away. But, he cannot be saying that it is a form of putting away, because the last part of the verse contemplates a marriage on the part of the put away party. The “put away party” is not a dead person but a living one. Since we are told that “he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery,” we know that the “put away” party is a living party. If we say that murder is a form of putting away, we are then implying that someone can marry the dead which is, of course, absurd.

So, Deaver must be saying that murder is not a form of “putting away.” So, why would he think that Matthew 19:9 applied to the murderer’s case? How does the passage apply at all to the case of a murderer? Evidently, he thought it did because the only cases of remarriage allowed by Matthew 19:9 were cases involving “putting away” by parties whose spouses or ex-spouses were still living. No one else (no murderer) was being contemplated in the cases that involved “putting away.” Since all that we are to do is to be authorized by the New Testament (Col. 3:17), and since Deaver knew or at least assumed that there was no other passage that gave the scriptural right of remarriage to anyone else, then he cited the passage as conclusive that no man could kill his wife and then marry again. And this would mean that Deaver (and Warren, who agreed with Deaver that no man could kill his wife and remarry) considered Romans 7:1-6 to be inapplicable to the murderer’s case.

And this would mean, then, that Warren and Deaver considered Matthew 19:9 as applicable to the case of murder in the sense that it authorized only cases of remarriage on the part of non-murderers (just as the passages that authorize singing authorize singing only, and because of the complete absence of any other passage authorizing mechanical instruments in worship in addition to singing, then only singing is authorized). Deaver and Warren evidently thought that Romans 7:1-6 was inapplicable to the case of the murderer since, though the passage teaches that when the husband dies, the wife is free from the law of the husband so that death ends the application of the law of the husband generally speaking, it does not terminate the application of that law in cases of murder.

Now, if Romans 7:1-6 does not apply to a wife-killer (thus giving him a right to another marriage), how can we prove it? How was it that Deaver and Warren were both convinced that the wife-killer had no marriage rights? This exact point was not a part of the formal discussion at Memphis. And I do not remember ever discussing this point with my father or with Warren. But if they were right, how could we prove it now? From the discussion it is clear that Nichols thought that Romans 7:1-6 released the wife-killer so that he could remarry; it was Deaver’s and Warren’s contention that Romans 7:1-6 did no such thing. But there was no recording of any elaborate support of the Deaver-Warren position. I want to supply that information right here.

In Romans 7:1-6, Paul draws an analogy between the relationship that obtained between (1) a man and his wife and between (2) a Jewish Christian and his relationship to Christ. First, he gives the fundamental principle that the law was binding on a person only so long as that person was still alive. The law ceased in application to anyone who had been under it at the point of that person’s death (7:1). Second, after stating the fundamental feature of any law regarding its application, he then applies the binding nature of applicable law to marriage. He states that a married woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he is living. When he dies, she is free from “the law of the husband” (7:2). If she is joined to another man while he still lives, she is an adulteress, according to marriage law, but if the husband is dead she is not an adulteress though joined to another man (7:3). Third, Paul then draws an analogy between the two cases: that of a woman bound to a husband under the law and to Christian Jews who were once married to Moses but who are now married to Christ (7:4). Paul affirms that Christian Jews are not now in “spiritual adultery” because the first husband was dead (7:4). Moses, (the binding law of Moses) was now dead. And even though they were now joined to Christ, the joining was not “spiritual adultery” because the first husband had passed away.

Now to the very point of contention: how do we know that this passage does not free a wife-murderer to remarry? We know it because Romans 7:1-6 is a discussion of the relationship of the law of Moses to Jews who were now Christians. And these Jewish Christians who were now joined to Christ had been formerly married to the first husband (the law of Moses, or Moses) to whom they were “made dead” by the body of Christ (7:4). And notice: that law (the first husband) to which these Jewish Christians had formerly been married was a law that demanded the death of any murderer! Murderers did not have remarriage rights in Israel. Murderers were to be put to death (Exod. 21:12; Lev. 24:17). The analogy that Paul draws is between (1) the law of Moses and its binding nature on Jews (a law that gave no marriage rights to murderers) and (2) the law of Christ which, unless it be Romans 7:1-6, gives no marriage rights to murderers either). This proves that “the law of the husband” does not give marriage rights to murderers of their wives even though their wives are now dead! Wife-murderers are still bound to God’s marriage law which disallows them a new marriage.

And this serves as proof that in Deaver’s confrontation with Nichols, he and Warren were correct to think that according to Bible teaching, no wife-killer had scriptural right to another marriage. Notice further that if “the law of the husband” (now completely incorporated within the law of Christ) still binds the “put away fornicator” (the “guilty party”) to God so that any marriage attempt on his part in the future will be simply a case of “adultery,” then it follows that “the law of the husband” binds a wife-murderer to God so that any marriage attempt on his part in the future will be simply a case of “adultery” as well. Both cases entail “adultery” by parties no longer bound to their spouses but still bound to God’s marriage law. Nichols had contended that when the handcuffs that bound a husband and wife together were taken off due to fornication or death, both parties were free to remarry since they were now free from each other. Deaver had correctly observed that there were three sets of handcuffs in any scriptural marriage. One set of handcuffs bound the married persons to each other, and one set bound the husband to God’s law, and the final set bound the wife to God’s law.

It amazes me that my father and brother Warren were so clear and correct in 1973 in their contention that not even Romans 7:1-6 gave a wife-murderer the right to remarry. They were far ahead of most of us then and, perhaps, many of us now.

Let me make one final comment concerning the relationship of Matthew 19:9 to Romans 7:1-6. Please note that the precision in language used by Paul together with the precision of language used by the Lord presents to us a striking instance of internal testimony to the profound inspiration of Scripture! Not only does Romans 7:1-6 not condone “murdering one’s way” out of a marriage so as to give the remarriage right to the murderer, but the language is so precise as not to contradict the allowance of polygamy under Gentile-ism and Judaism! Notice carefully that while Jesus restricted divorce right, compared to the most generous divorce allowance by the law of Moses (Deut. 24) in his remarks in Matthew 19:9, that Paul is careful in his use of marriage in his analogy as to protect divine sanction of polygamy under the previous regimes. He says that if a woman is joined to another man while she retains a living husband, she shall be an adulteress, but he does not say that a man joined to another woman while having an already living wife shall be called one under the governance of “the law of the husband.” The “law of the husband” allowed, in principle, both polygyny (one husband with more than one wife) and monogamy (one husband with one wife). The kind of polygamy (many marriages) allowed by God in the previous regimes was only polygyny. It was never polyandry (many husbands with one wife). Thus, Paul’s precision is for the purpose of harmonizing his illustration not only with the permanent New Testament requirement of monogamy but with divine approval of polygyny under Gentile-ism (i.e. Patriarchy) and Christianity. Incredible!

Posted in Christianity and Culture, Gender, LGBTQ

“Transgenderism” and the Bible

“For all intents and purposes, I’m a woman.” That’s what former Olympian, Bruce Jenner, told Diane Sawyer in a much-hyped two-hour interview aired April 24 on ABC’s “20/20”. Jenner is 65, has been married to three women, has six biological children and four stepchildren. He thinks he has crossed from manhood to womanhood. “Transgender” is identifying with a gender other than the one a person was born with. The first known use of the word dates to 1979. It seems American culture is eager to embrace the most outlandish claims, as long as biblical morality is eroded in the process. Instead of new categories of gender expression, what we need is divine instruction (cf. Mark 6:34). What Bible truths can be brought to bear on this subject?

First, gender cannot be changed verbally. A man’s claim to be a woman does not make it so. The idea that men have a feminine side (or, that women have a masculine side) is without foundation in the Bible. Likewise, the idea that a man could have a body with one gender, but a mind with the opposite gender. God is the Father of spirits (Hebrews 12:9), but not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). Jesus highlighted human inability to do such a small thing as “make one hair white or black” (Matthew 5:36). If we cannot even alter hair color (without temporary, artificial means), surely we cannot change as fundamental a thing as the gender with which we were born.

Second, gender cannot be changed behaviorally. David “changed his behavior” on one occasion and pretended to be insane (1 Samuel 21:13). Acting insane did not make him insane. Nebuchadnezzar, for a while, lived outdoors “and ate grass like an ox” until his reason came back to him (Daniel 4:33-34; cf. Jude 10). He was not pretending. But, his behaving like an animal did not make him an animal. Behavior is not identity. A man who wears a dress does not become woman thereby. Moreover, he sins in so doing. “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 22:5, ESV). The New Testament, as well, is plain on the distinction between men and women, and clear about their God-given roles.

Third, gender cannot be changed medically. No person is just a surgery away from becoming the opposite gender. “Sex reassignment surgery” (as it is called) is simply the severest form of playing make-believe. It is the drastic resort of desperation to be what one can never become, and thrives on the money of the mentally ill. Whatever surgeons may cut off or stitch on will never change a person’s DNA. Nor is genetic makeup changed by taking hormones. God asked, rhetorically, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23). Some things are not subject to surgery. Jesus did say, “there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:12). On being taken captive, Daniel may well have been made a eunuch (cf. Daniel 1:7), but, if so, he was still a man. The Ethiopian officer baptized by Philip in Acts 8 was a eunuch, but he was still a man. Gender is more than anatomy and hormones, and surgically altering anatomy does not change gender.

As Jesus stated about the sexes, “he who created them from the beginning made them male and female” (Matthew 19:4). He did not say that God made them male, female, transgendered, confused, or undecided. Veering from Scripture is never the path to spiritual prosperity. “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done” (Romans 1:28). “Transgenderism” is a manmade concept, and those who respect the Bible ought lend it no endorsement.

Posted in Debates, Doctrine, Marriage

Roy Deaver-Gus Nichols Debate: Can the Guilty Party Remarry?

By Weylan Deaver

A preacher’s forum took place in November 1973 at the Harding Graduate School of Religion in Memphis, Tennessee between Roy C. Deaver and Gus Nichols. Each man respected the other. In fact, in the November 1972 issue of his paper, Biblical Notes (p. 73), Deaver wrote: “When brother Nichols preaches, it is obvious to the hearer that here is a man who is not just keeping an appointment. It is apparent that he knows the difference between having to say something and in having something to say.” But love for the gospel compelled Deaver to defend it, even if doing so meant opposing a friend. At the time, Deaver was in his prime (around age 51). The question at issue that day at Harding Graduate School was: “Can the guilty party, put away for fornication, scripturally remarry?” Gus Nichols said “yes” and Roy Deaver said “no.” Thomas B. Warren was in the audience and, when it came time for the Q&A session, he also held Nichols’ feet to the fire on this crucial doctrinal point. Listen to the two speeches and the Q&A session at the three links below.

1 Roy Deaver. Can the Guilty Party Remarry? (November 7, 1973 / Harding University Graduate School of Religion)

2 Gus Nichols. Can the Guilty Party Remarry? (November 7, 1973 / Harding University Graduate School of Religion)

3 Questions and Answers. Can the Guilty Party Remarry? Deaver vs Nichols (November 7, 1973 / HUGSR)

Posted in Christianity and Culture, Church History

“Hatred of the Human Race” (A Lesson from Nero Caesar)

By Weylan Deaver

An age that worships sin does not relate well to people who teach moral purity. The gospel of Christ demands godliness, as defined in the pages of his New Testament. The less the gospel is known and respected, the bolder sin becomes. That is how an ethically challenged culture can pit itself against God, who loved enough to send Jesus to die in our place: the supreme expression of divine love for humanity that, somehow, evokes derision, opposition, rejection. It explains how Christians who proclaim heaven’s ultimate message of love can be condemned as unloving, bigoted, intolerant, hateful just because they refuse to endorse homosexuality, Islam, skepticism, evolution, or other things contrary to the gospel. It explains how the Bible, whose principles once wove our national fabric, can now be considered “hate speech.” America is in a moral fog, wandering to the wrong side of reality. When Rome burned in July of the year 64 A.D., emperor Nero looked for someone to blame, pointing an accusing finger at the city’s Christians. In his Annals, Tacitus, the ancient historian, tells what happened. Christians “were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race.” Two millennia ago, a godless culture decided Christians were too “hateful” to put up with. In the interest of power, sometimes a government has to do hard things. So, those “hateful” Christians were slaughtered by the enlightened who, we assume, had only love for the human race. Tacitus notes that “derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts’ skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed, were burned as lamps by night.” Many see today’s society as more open-minded than people used to be. Loud are the voices calling us to tolerate diversity of every stripe, assaulting the walls of long held prejudice. But, the gospel is not about diversity, and therein lies the insuperable difficulty, as today’s confused masses seem unable to respond peaceably to the fact. That is why Christians now can be so vilified by the spiritually myopic, not unlike in the days of the progressive minds of ancient Rome. And so, let Nero teach us this: the more things change, the more they really stay the same.

Posted in Expository, New Testament

Another Look at Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh

By Glenn A. Jobe

Introduction

In 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 the apostle Paul makes reference to “a thorn in the flesh” that had been given to him:

7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. 8 Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9 And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong. [NKJV]

In the past any investigation as to the identity of this “thorn” has come to be synonymous to those “secret things that belong to the Lord our God” (Deut. 29:29). Thus, many conclude that no one can know what the “thorn” was that plagued Paul. Can the same be said about the original recipients of Paul’s letter, the Corinthian church? Did they not know what Paul’s thorn in the flesh was? If they could not know what it was, why would Paul include a discussion of it here in Second Corinthians? If they did know, are there any clues from the epistle itself that might identify what Paul’s thorn was?

So what is this “thorn?” Unfortunately, various attempts at identifying Paul’s thorn often remove the study away from the immediate context. Halley’s Bible Handbook offers a typical approach at the question: [from Halley’s Bible Handbook; 23rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), p. 607].

. . .Paul suffered from Chronic Ophthalmia, a disease of the eyes which was not extremely Painful, but, at times, made Paul Repulsive in Appearance.

This seems to be borne out by the language of the Epistles. It came upon Paul 14 years before he wrote this Epistle (12:2, 7), which was about the time of his entrance into Galatia, on the First Missionary Journey.

His entrance into Galatia was occasioned by some sort of Physical Infirmity, Galatians 4:13, so offensive in appearance that it constituted a sore trial to anyone in his presence, Galatians 4:14.

They would have given their own eyes, Galatians 4:15. Why eyes, unless that was his particular need?

Paul’s customary “large” handwriting, Galatians 6:11, may have been due to poor eye-sight. This may have been the reason Paul Dictated his epistles to some of his helpers.

Does this not approach the question through the back door? Instead of beginning with the text and from there identify the thorn, the suggestion is to begin with some known ailment and try to make it fit the passage.

Suppose one grants that Paul suffered from poor eyesight. Undoubtedly he did. How do we know that this was his “thorn in flesh?” How do we know that he did not have other “physical” infirmities? Several years ago I had the sad duty of preaching the funeral of a close fellow preacher. Jim suffered for years with many maladies. He had hepatitis C, epilepsy, kidney failure, heart disease, diabetes, and did I mention to you that he was also blind? What would you say was Jim’s thorn in the flesh?

The purpose of this study is to suggest that the identity of Paul’s thorn can be ascertained from the immediate context of 2 Corinthians 12:7-10. Thus, this article hopes to stimulate the reader to look at the question from the immediate context.

Contextual Considerations

Paul’s Defense of His Apostolic Authority

(10:1-13:10)

A. Paul replies to those who reject his apostolic authority. He stresses that he is not a coward, that his warfare is not fleshly (carnal), but mighty before God to the casting down of every stronghold (of the devil) that might stand against the knowledge of God (10:1-16).

B. Paul desires to use his apostolic authority for building up and not for tearing down–but to those who might think his letters “weighty” and his presence “weak”, let them know that what was said in his letters will be followed in deed (10:7-11).

C. Paul is not of the group that compares themselves by themselves: “For not he that commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends” (10:12-18).

D. Paul is concerned that the Corinthians might be beguiled by those that parade themselves as “super apostles” (11:1-6).

  1. Paul calls upon them to bear with him in a little foolishness.
  2. He wants them to know that he is not at all behind any that might claim to be apostles.

E. Paul’s sacrificial preaching and the absence of physical sustenance from others demonstrates the genuineness of his apostleship so that the slander of “false apostles” might be cut off (11:7-15).

F. Paul says if they want to get into a contest of foolish boasting he stands ready to meet them on their own ground (11:16—12:13). He cites his (1) “pedigree” in the Jewish religion (11:22), (2) his sufferings for the cause of Christ (11:23-33), (3) his visions and revelations, and states that lest he be puffed up in pride due to such, God left “a thorn in the flesh,” identified as “a messenger of Satan,” to buffet him (12:1-10).

  1. Finally, he states that the signs of a genuine apostle were wrought among them by him.
  2. The only privilege they had missed was that they had not financially sustained him as he worked among them.
  3. In this regard, if the apostle has conducted himself inappropriately, the apostle begs from the Corinthians, “Forgive me this wrong!” (12:11-13).

[Adapted from outlines by Jackie M. Stearsman]

Brief Observations of the Context

Some of the things Paul states in the above outline will surely assist in identifying what his thorn was, that causes him grief. Note carefully that the apostle has already stated that (1) his conflict is not a carnal one (10:3-6); (2) he is confronting those who present themselves as “super apostles” (11:13); and, (3) he is behind no one in his development in the religion of the Jews (11:22).

At the end of 2 Corinthians 11 Paul declares, “I will boast in the things that concern my infirmity” (verse 30). He thus mentions his infirmity in chapter 11 before he begins his discussion of “a thorn in the flesh” in chapter 12. Then in the remaining three verses that end chapter 11 Paul cites an occasion in which he suffered from his infirmity:

31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. 32 In Damascus the governor, under Aretas the king, was guarding the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desiring to arrest me; 33 but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped from his hands.

Acts 9:19-25 supplies additional information to the aforementioned “infirmity.” The Jews plotted to kill Paul and apparently they had persuaded the governor of Damascus to arrest him. Paul escaped by the help of disciples who “took him by night and let him down through the wall in a large basket” (Acts 9:25). What is the “infirmity” the apostle mentions? Surely the “infirmity” is identical to “a thorn in the flesh.” By now its identity should be obvious to us, but let’s continue.

After adding to his apostolic credentials in 2 Corinthians 12:1-6, Paul returns to the discussion of his “infirmity,” only this time he adds another descriptive phrase: “a thorn in the flesh.” We can know that 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 continues the discussion of the infirmity in chapter 11 because after Paul describes his thorn in the flesh he concludes:

Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong” (12:10).

Indeed this is a further description of the “infirmity” that is introduced in the previous chapter.

Paul has received not only every advantage under the law (for he was a “doctor” of the law), but he has also received the advantage of “visions and revelations of the Lord” (12:1). Applebury correctly observes,

It was not foolish to boast in the thing which the Lord had done. Paul spoke the truth about what the Lord had done with him and limited his remarks to this lest anyone should exalt him above what they saw in him and heard from him [Corinthians, Vol. 2, p. 214].

Now, in the midst of his defense, the same apostle refers to a thorn that God had given him. Further he explains why such a thorn was given him: to keep him from being “puffed up.” Thus in light of this, note that in verse 22 he proudly cites his own “pedigree” in the Jewish religion. This acknowledgment is followed by his own affirmation of his sufferings for the cause of Christ (11:23-33). Is there any connection between his “pedigree” as a Jew and the sufferings that he is called upon to endure? Surely there is! Already we are learning the source of his infirmity, “the thorn in the flesh.”

It is within this setting that Paul states,

a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure.

Paul then continues his defense of his apostleship in verses 11-13. The apostle issues a strong rebuke to the church at Corinth:

I have become a fool in boasting; you have compelled me. For I ought to have been commended by you; for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing.

Applebury’s summary on this is interesting: “It is difficult to understand how they could have forgotten all this and gladly listen to the claims of false teachers in the absence of Paul” [Ibid].

Has Paul wandered away from his subject to speak about the thorn in the flesh or is his thorn in the flesh directly related to his boasting as an apostle? Surely the latter is true. As to the identity of those who questioned Paul’s apostleship, several possibilities exist: (1) unconverted Gentiles and Jews outside the church, (2) unconverted Gentiles only, (3) unconverted Jews only, (4) converted Gentiles and Jews in the Corinthian church, (4) converted Gentiles only, (5) converted Jews only, or (6) converted and unconverted Jews. The descriptions in both epistles seem to indicate the last possibility—converted and unconverted Jews.

The Words “Thorn” and “Flesh”

How are the words “thorn” and “flesh” used in scripture? If “flesh” means literally “flesh”, should we not say that Paul’s “thorn” is a literal thorn that impales his body? And if his ailment is poor eyesight, should one not conclude that that the “thorn” is in his eyes and cannot be removed? However, if the “thorn” is not literal, should we not suspect that “flesh” isn’t either? To so conclude is consistent with the immediate context for the apostle had already stated, “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh” (10:3).

What does the word “thorn” signify in scripture? The usual word for thorn, akantha (Matt. 7:16; 13:7, 22; 27:29; Mark 4:7, 18; Luke 6:44; 8:7; 8:14; John 19:2; Heb. 6:8), designates a wood sliver of a plant or tree. But the word in 2 Corinthians 12:7 is skolops and means literally, “what is pointed,” and it is also related to skallō which means “to hack” [Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, VII, p. 409].

Interestingly, Paul does not employ akantha, but skolops, a word that occurs nowhere else in the New Testament! Fortunately skolops does occur three times in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX). A consideration of these three occurrences is very helpful.

First Occurrence. As the Israelites prepared to enter the promised land, Moses charged the people that they drive the inhabitants out of the land, for if they fail in this, these non-Israelites will oppress the people (Numbers 33:55-56):

NKJV reads: 55 But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall be that those whom you let remain shall be irritants in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall harass you in the land where you dwell. 56 Moreover it shall be that I will do to you as I thought to do to them.'”

The RSV reads: 55But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them whom you let remain shall be as pricks in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall trouble you in the land where you dwell. 56 And I will do to you as I thought to do to them.”

What proved to be “thorns” in the sides of the Israelites? It was the inhabitants of the land whom Israel had failed to remove from the land.

Second Occurrence. As we know, the Israelites did not drive out the inhabitants from the land. Rather they became like their heathen neighbors and adopted their gods. Consequently, Israel became an unfaithful wife to the Lord. Hosea prophesied to the Northern Kingdom from 750 – 725 B.C. and predicted the coming consequences to Israel:

Therefore, behold, I will hedge up your way with thorns, And wall her in, So that she cannot find her paths” (Hos. 2:6).

The Northern Kingdom fell to Assyria in 722 B.C. What was the hedge of thorns here in Hosea 2? Assyria was. The Assyrian captivity was cruel and painful.

Third Occurrence. The Southern Kingdom also entered captivity. While in captivity, Ezekiel spoke of the time when God would release his people from their misery:

And there shall no longer be a pricking brier or a painful thorn for the house of Israel from among all who are around them, who despise them. Then they shall know that I am the Lord GOD” (Ezek. 28:24).

What was the painful thorn that irritated Israel during the time of Ezekiel’s prophecy? It was Babylon for they were in Babylonian captivity.

What is common about all three of these occurrences of skolops in the Old Testament Septuagint? Each time “thorn” is figurative not literal and every time “thorn” designates an oppressing people who are set against God’s people. Any Jew acquainted with the history of his own people surely is familiar with this usage of “thorn” in the pages of the Old Testament scriptures.

Apparently Gerhard Kittel in his Theological Dictionary of the New Testament sees the connection of “thorn” referring to oppressing people. First, he begins by saying that in the LXX Old Testament skolops is never used for “stake” (i.e., in a literal sense of impaling a person on a stake (VII, p. 305). Kittel then comments,

One may perhaps connect these two passages [i.e., Num. 33:55; Ezek. 28:24; G.A.J.] with the use of skolops in NT even the ref. here is hardly to oppression by men.”

One can only ask, “Why not?” Kittel acknowledges, “Some early expositors referred to the skolops of 2 C 12 to individuals, Plummer, ad loc., 350.” [This is A. Plumber’s A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (International Critical Commentary) (1925).] Plummer and other “early expositors” were right!

Thus the figure of “thorn” in the Old Testament refers to a wayward people who harass the people of God. Surely Paul had this picture in mind as he describes his own thorn in the flesh in 2 Corinthians 12. If this be true, the issue boils down to one question: Who are these people?

The identity of these oppressing people must be identified with the words “in the flesh.” What does this phrase mean in our present text and context? The word “flesh” occurs a number of times leading up to our present study. For example he wrote in 10:2-3,

But I beg you that when I am present I may not be bold with that confidence by which I intend to be bold against some, who think of us as if we walked according to the flesh. 3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh.

A similar usage of “flesh” is found in the book of Romans. “Flesh” can refer to both the physical body and the unregenerate state. Consider the following readings from Romans.

(1) Paul speaks of the time when he and his hearers were “in the flesh” (7:5). Paul states,

Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another — to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death (7:4-5).

“In the flesh” is contrasted with “newness of the Spirit” (7:6). The Spirit in this section (7:1-12) refers to freedom in Christ through the Spirit; the “flesh” refers to the old law that said, “You shall not covet,” the Mosaic law (7:7), in which is death (7:9-10).

(2) Consequently, saints walk according to the Spirit (or “in the Spirit”) and not according to the flesh (8:1-4).

(3) We are not in the flesh but in the Spirit (literally “in flesh” and “in Spirit,” 8:9).

(4) Paul speaks of his kinsmen according to the flesh (9:3). His kinsmen according to the flesh were the Jews.

Thus “flesh” refers to the Jews who held to the Old Testament law with its regulations and, failing to realize that the law which once held them has now been done away, they constantly sought to impose that law upon the church. We know them as the judaizing teachers whom Paul constantly battles throughout his ministry. Surely unconverted Jews were in league with judaizers in the church for they were both defenders of the Law. This situation leaps out at us in the immediate context.

Note carefully how Paul concludes his discussion in 2 Corinthians 12:10—

Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

These miseries came from what source? From the Jews!

“Weak” is the same word that is translated “infirmity” in chapters 11, 12, 13. So Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” is termed his infirmity. If we are to understand what he means by infirmity, we must study these three chapters.

Information in these chapters helps establish the immediate context and reveals the infirmities, the reproaches, the needs, the persecutions, the distresses, about which the apostle Paul speaks. Consider chapter 11, verses 22-33:

22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I. 23 Are they ministers of Christ?I speak as a fool—I am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. 24 From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; 26 in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; 27 in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness– 28 besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I do not burn with indignation? 30 If I must boast, I will boast in the things which concern my infirmity. 31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. 32 In Damascus the governor, under Aretas the king, was guarding the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desiring to arrest me; 33 but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped from his hands.

What is Paul’s infirmity (astheneias) in 11:30? It is the things that he had suffered as a servant of Christ. What event does Paul reference in verses 30-33? It was the time when in Damascus certain Jews plotted to kill him and he escaped their murderous intentions by being lowered down a wall in a large basket (Acts 9:22-25). Clearly the “they” of verse 22 includes both converted and unconverted Jews and perhaps some converted Jews, too.

In 2 Corinthians 12:5 Paul employs the same word for infirmity, but this time it is plural and he makes a general statement of the benefit that he received from all of his infirmities: “Of such a one I will boast; yet of myself I will not boast, except in my infirmities.”

Verse 7 continues,

And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure.”

Now read chapter 12:9-10:

9 And when I was present with you, and in need, I was a burden to no one, for what I lacked the brethren who came from Macedonia supplied. And in everything I kept myself from being burdensome to you, and so I will keep myself. 10 As the truth of Christ is in me, no one shall stop me from this boasting in the regions of Achaia.”

Paul continues to talk about his weaknesses or infirmities (which includes more than only his “thorn in the flesh” as we saw in verse 7). (1) In chapter 13 Paul speaks of the “weakness” (or infirmity) of Christ that resulted in his crucifixion. Read verses 1-4. (2) The fact is that the word “infirmity,” appears both as a noun or verb some 13 times in chapters 11, 12 and 13 of 2 Corinthians. The noun is the word astheneia and the verb is astheneō, words that refer to weakness of any sort. It is certainly not limited to afflictions to the human body. If astheneia always refers to physical weakness, what was Christ’s affliction (weakness)?

For though He was crucified in weakness [noun], yet He lives by the power of God. For we also are weak [verb] in Him, but we shall live with Him by the power of God toward you (13:4).

It appears that Christ’s weakness was identical to that of Paul. Christ’s thorn crucified him, Paul’s thorn caused him aggravation but not death. In both instances the thorn is people of their own race who were zealous about the Mosaic Law—the Jews.

Let’s now return to these chapters and see if we can identify the infirmity (infirmities) about which Paul speaks. Let’s do a little more analysis of these chapters, especially as they relate to the word “infirmity” which is also rendered “weakness” in our text. Let us see if we are able to follow the continuity of Paul’s thoughts by reading these sections together.

2 Corinthians 11:16-21 Reluctant Boasting

16 I say again, let no one think me a fool. If otherwise, at least receive me as a fool, that I also may boast a little. 17 What I speak, I speak not according to the Lord, but as it were, foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. 18 Seeing that many boast according to the flesh, I also will boast. 19 For you put up with fools gladly, since you yourselves are wise! 20 For you put up with it if one brings you into bondage (i.e. they tolerate judaizers who seek to enslave them in the Law; G.A.J.), if one devours you, if one takes from you, if one exalts himself, if one strikes you on the face. 21 To our shame, I say that we were too weak [verb] for that! But in whatever anyone is bold—I speak foolishly—I am bold also.

2 Corinthians 11:22-33 Suffering for Christ

22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I. 23 Are they ministers of Christ?I speak as a fool—I am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. 24 From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; 26 in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; 27 in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness— 28 besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the churches. 29 Who is weak [verb], and I am not weak [verb]? Who is made to stumble, and I do not burn with indignation? 30 If I must boast, I will boast in the things which concern my infirmity [noun]. 31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. 32 In Damascus the governor, under Aretas the king, was guarding the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desiring to arrest me; 33 but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped from his hands.

2 Corinthians 12:1-6 The Vision of Paradise

1 It is doubtless not profitable for me to boast. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord: 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a one was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know such a man—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. 5 Of such a one I will boast; yet of myself I will not boast, except in my infirmities [noun]. 6 For though I might desire to boast, I will not be a fool; for I will speak the truth. But I refrain, lest anyone should think of me above what he sees me to be or hears from me.

2 Corinthians 12:7-10 Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh

7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. 8 Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9 And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness [noun].” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities [noun], that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities [noun], in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak [verb], then I am strong.

2 Corinthians 12:11-13 Signs of an Apostle

11 I have become a fool in boasting; you have compelled me. For I ought to have been commended by you; for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing. 12 Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds. 13 For what is it in which you were inferior to other churches, except that I myself was not burdensome to you? Forgive me this wrong!

2 Corinthians 12:14-21 Love for the Church

14 Now for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be burdensome to you; for I do not seek yours, but you. For the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children. 15 And I will very gladly spend and be spent for your souls; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I am loved. 16 But be that as it may, I did not burden you. Nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you by cunning! 17 Did I take advantage of you by any of those whom I sent to you? 18 I urged Titus, and sent our brother with him. Did Titus take advantage of you? Did we not walk in the same spirit? Did we not walk in the same steps? 19 Again, do you think that we excuse ourselves to you? We speak before God in Christ. But we do all things, beloved, for your edification. 20 For I fear lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I wish, and that I shall be found by you such as you do not wish; lest there be contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, backbitings, whisperings, conceits, tumults; 21 lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and I shall mourn for many who have sinned before and have not repented of the uncleanness, fornication, and lewdness which they have practiced.

Apparently the Corinthian church itself did not walk in Spirit but walked in flesh.

2 Corinthians 13:1-6 Coming with Authority

1 This will be the third time I am coming to you. “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.” 2 I have told you before, and foretell as if I were present the second time, and now being absent I write to those who have sinned before, and to all the rest, that if I come again I will not spare— 3 since you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, who is not weak [noun] toward you, but mighty in you. 4 For though He was crucified in weakness [noun], yet He lives by the power of God. For we also are weak [verb] in Him, but we shall live with Him by the power of God toward you. 5 Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?unless indeed you are disqualified. 6 But I trust that you will know that we are not disqualified.

2 Corinthians 13:7-10 Paul Prefers Gentleness

7 Now I pray to God that you do no evil, not that we should appear approved, but that you should do what is honorable, though we may seem disqualified. 8 For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. 9 For we are glad when we are weak [verb] and you are strong. And this also we pray, that you may be made complete. 10 Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the authority which the Lord has given me for edification and not for destruction.

So, prior to 2 Corinthians 11:30 Paul had already introduced his “infirmity.” Most students want to begin discussing Paul’s infirmity (thorn in the flesh) beginning with chapter 12. Yet Paul had already introduced the discussion of his “infirmity” in chapter 11. What is that infirmity? Is it not the treatment that he received from his own kinsmen in the flesh? These were judaizing teachers who held that Gentile Christians were obliged to keep Old Testament ordinances of the Law. When Paul makes sharp distinctions between the two covenants, as he fully develops in chapter 3, judaizers attack his apostleship wherever he goes. Paul was also abused by unbelieving Jews nearly every time he entered a city and began preaching in their synagogues.

Conclusion

Consequently “flesh” does not mean literal “flesh” as in Paul’s physical body anymore than “thorn” means a literal irritant to one’s body. “Flesh” refers to his kinsmen according to the flesh who insist in keeping the Mosaic law, walk in flesh, and war against the law of the Spirit.

1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain 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. Amen. (Rom. 9:1-5)

Indeed this is interesting in light of the fact that Paul had just contrasted the law of the flesh with that of the Spirit:

1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. (Rom. 8:1-5)

These judaizers reject the Law of the Spirit and their conduct demonstrates such (cf. Matt. 7:15-20). The Spirit’s fruit was conspicuously absent from their lives (cf. Gal. 5:22-23).

Paul had already written in Romans 5:8-10,

8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. 10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

Paul explicitly states what he means by “flesh” in our present context (2 Corinthians chapters 11 and 12):

18 Seeing that many boast according to the flesh, I also will boast. 19 For you put up with fools gladly, since you yourselves are wise! 20 For you put up with it if one brings you into bondage, if one devours you, if one takes from you, if one exalts himself, if one strikes you on the face. 21 To our shame, I say that we were too weak for that! But in whatever anyone is bold—I speak foolishly—I am bold also. 22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I. 23 Are they ministers of Christ?—I speak as a fool—I am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. (2 Cor. 11:18-23)

As has been pointed out in this analysis, Paul utilizes the word “thorn,” not the usual word for thorn (which we know as a wood sliver), but “thorn” (skolops) in the sense of a pointed thing that causes persistent irritation (2 Cor. 12:7).

“Flesh” is another way of referring to Jews who are diligent to keep the law of Moses which is weak according to the flesh when compared to the law of the Spirit (see Romans 8). Thus, judaizing teachers were Paul’s thorn in the flesh. They were people who persistently opposed God’s righteous economy. Paul felt that these judaizers were a persistent hindrance to his ministry and prayed that they be removed. Judaizing teachers in the Corinthian church went so far as to question Paul’s apostolic authority. Perhaps some of our readers can identify their own “thorn in the flesh” from brethren who oppose them who war against the Spirit and walk in the flesh and not in the Spirit.

Final Exhortation

In reading Paul’s words one can sense the strong political tension in the church between those who had honestly investigated Paul’s credentials as an apostle, his teaching, the abolishment of the requirements of the Law and Paul’s foes who refused to reason through the evidence, deceiving themselves due to the fact they stubbornly refused to lay aside the ordinances of the Mosaic Law which they had always observed. Unable to refute Paul’s arguments, judaizers attacked Paul personally (ad hominem) by impugning the apostle’s character and authority. These false teachers had not the courage to confront Paul in person, so they discredited and ostracized him in absentia.

Sadly, today’s brethren share in the same malady that irritated Paul. Other brethren are so tied to their former understandings of scripture, are so steeped in tradition, feel that they cannot possibly be mistaken, and bow to the approval and pressures of others that they refuse to rethink their assumptions even if a solution is present that could resolve a century of conflict. They use fleshly tactics in order to protect their positions. Paul resolved that, though his warfare is spiritual, he does not fight according to the flesh (2 Cor. 10:2, 3).

Paul never lived to see the results of his labors, but because he fought as one who walked in the Spirit, God saw to it that his efforts have blessed generations for 2,000 years. May we learn to handle whatever “thorn” is given to us in the same graceful manner as did the apostle Paul.

9 And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

REFERENCE WORKS CITED

Applebury, T.R. Studies in Second Corinthians, Volume II in One Volume: Studies in Corinthians Joplin, Mo.: College Press.

Friedrich, Gerhard. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1971.

Halley, Henry H. Halley’s Handbook. 23 ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959.

Kittle, Gerhard and Gerhard Friedrich, editors. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1971.

Stearsman, Jackie M. II Corinthians. Included in outlines of Bible books, presented to the Central Church of Christ, 1454 Belleair Road, Clearwater, Florida. March 1977.

Posted in Christian Living

Good Is Not Good Enough

By Weylan Deaver

Many think they are going to heaven, who are not headed that direction at all. Such is not God’s wish, but does state the sad reality (cf. 1 Timothy 2:4; Matthew 7:13-14). Many think they can live a “good” life and that they will be saved on that basis, without having to be involved with the Lord’s church, and without having to be too wrapped up in things religious. They attempt to live life largely on their own terms, just trying to be decent and moral, and without feeling like God is intruding on their schedules on a daily basis. But, man’s “goodness” (however it be defined) cannot get any man to heaven because it is not really good. Jesus said, “No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18, ESV). We are marred by the sins we do, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Being sinners, we deserve death (Romans 6:23). No one is going to heaven without a whole lot of help from God, and the help will be on God’s terms—not mine—as revealed by Jesus Christ (John 14:6). It will require lifelong commitment and willingness to put God before everything else in your life (Matthew 6:33). Becoming a Christian and living faithfully will be the hardest and also the most rewarding thing you ever do. The only alternative is eternally catastrophic. Hell is as real as heaven, and to be avoided at all cost (Matthew 25:46). Trying to be “good” is not good enough. I have to be born again by God’s power, by water and Spirit (John 3:3-5), as I am immersed into the death of Christ (Romans 6:3-4), baptized into his spiritual body (Galatians 3:27), which is the church that Jesus will save (Ephesians 5:23). Visit us at the church of Christ, where we worship an infinitely good God, who still saves those who obey his gospel (Hebrews 5:9; 2 Thessalonians 1:8).