The Missing 1000?

Prior to entering the land of Canaan, the Israelites brazenly committed idolatry and sexual immorality with the Moabites. They consequently suffered divine judgment, and “those who died of the plague were twenty-four thousand” (Num. 25:9, ESV).

About fifteen centuries later the apostle Paul references the exploits of ancient Israel to warn the disciples at Corinth about the sins of idolatry and sexual immorality. He writes: “We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day” (1 Cor. 10:8).

Moses says “twenty-four thousand” and Paul says “twenty-three thousand,” an apparent discrepancy that has been referred to as “the infamous case of ‘the missing thousand,’ for which there is not an entirely satisfactory solution.”¹ But before we so readily dismiss the foundational principle of biblical inerrancy, why not consider other plausible explanations? 

It has been suggested that the additional 1000 of Moses’ account is applicable to “all the leaders” who were hanged (v. 5) and other men who were killed (v. 6) prior to the subsequent deaths.² While the number cited by Moses refers to “those who died of the plague,” we are assessing the statement in English translation. The operable word in the Hebrew text is maggephah, which can also be rendered “fatal blow” (Ezek. 24:16) or “slaughter” (1 Sam. 4:17; 2 Sam. 17:9; 18:7).³ In Numbers 25 not all the deaths were the result of a plague (vv. 4-8). In contrast, Paul speaks of the victims who “fell in a single day” rather than the total fatalities inclusive of the ones before and/or after this single day.

The solution may be even simpler. It is not a foregone conclusion that Paul is even alluding to the incident in Numbers 25. In the previous verse he has just quoted Exod. 32:6 and is likely referring to the number who fell on that occasion. Even though Exod. 32:28 records the deaths of “about three thousand men,” this figure applies to those killed by the sword, while vv. 33-35 report the ensuing aftermath of the plague.⁴ Paul simply reveals the death toll of a separate event. 

Whatever may or may not have been the nature of Paul’s example, there is no legitimate (much less blatant or provable!) discrepancy as many have surmised.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Gordon D. Fee, First Corinthians 456.

     ² John Gill, Exposition of the Bible <Web>.

     ³ Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, s.v. מַגֵּפָה.

     ⁴ Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties 141.

Related Posts:

Related Articles:

Image credit: https://unlockingthebible.org/2019/03/confuse-hosea-heres-need-know/confused-by-hosea-heres-what-you-need-to-know/

Textual Variation: An Angel Stirring the Water (John 5:3b-4)

A textual variant is found among the extant Greek manuscripts of John’s Gospel at 5:3b-4, where the NKJV reads: “…waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had” (also ASV, HCSB, ISV, JUB, KJV; bracketed in NASB). But these words are omitted in other versions. Most NT scholars consider this text a gloss (inserted by a later copyist) because (a) it is absent from the earliest and what many regard the better manuscripts; (b) in more than twenty manuscripts the words are marked as spurious by asterisks or obeli; (c) the occurrence of non-Johannine expressions; and (d) the wide variety of variant forms.¹ On the other hand, Zane Hodges observes that the absence of the text is essentially limited to the minority of manuscripts representing the Alexandrian text form (the superiority of which is not universally conceded), while the alleged non-Johannine vocabulary is disputable, v. 7 demands its inclusion, and its excision from some witnesses is due to theological aversion.²

Gordon Fee offers a full assessment of the textual data, as well as intrinsic probability and external evidence.³ His study concludes that the weight of evidence shows the disputed text was not in John’s original, and its depiction of a clear advantage of the least disabled over those who needed healing the most seems at variance with divine grace affirmed elsewhere in scripture. The text is most likely an explanatory note, whether inserted by John or a later copyist, to clarify the sick man’s superstitious thinking and otherwise obscure statement in v. 7.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See Bruce M. Metzger, Textual Commentary (2nd ed.) 179.

     ² Zane C. Hodges, “The Angel at Bethesda—John 5.4,” BibSac 136 (1979): 25-39.

     ³ Gordon D. Fee, “On the Inauthenticity of John 5:3b-4,” EQ 54:4 (1982): 207-18.

Related Posts: Pericopae Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11), Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8)

Related articles: Dave Miller, Stirring of the Water

Image credit: https://www.entrustedtoteach.org/2015/08/14/when-jesus-hangs-out-by-the-pool

The Holy Spirit’s Role in Biblical Understanding

Grant Osborne, like many evangelical interpreters, claims that biblical interpretation is “a spiritual act, depending on the leading of the Holy Spirit,” although Osborne also concedes, “God does not miraculously reveal the meaning of passages whenever they are read” (The Hermeneutical Spiral 21, 24). D. A. Carson sensibly observes, “When two equally godly interpreters emerge with mutually incompatible interpretations of a text, it must be obvious even to the most spiritual … that they cannot both be right” (Exegetical Fallacies 16).

Interpreting the Spirit’s Word

The most commonly cited passages that seem to support this idea of the Holy Spirit’s direct guidance are John 16:13 (perhaps also 14:26; 15:26) and 1 Cor. 2:6-16. If popular inferences are correct, then the production and utilization of Bible-study tools, the learning and application of exegetical methods, and having classes on biblical interpretation, all seem superfluous. Nevertheless, exegesis is still necessary to determine whether or not these passages are being interpreted properly. Otherwise, why appeal to them at all or engage in any kind of Bible study? If, in the exegetical process, it is determined that these texts have been misconstrued and misappropriated, the importance of sound exegesis is clearly demonstrated. 

J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays place much emphasis on “context” in their Grasping God’s Word textbook, yet they curiously cite John 16:12-14 and 1 Cor. 2:14 as proof-texts for present-day Holy Spirit “illumination” (226-28) with no regard for the original context of either passage. While they offer a lot of their own opinions without any real basis in scripture, they do concede that since the Spirit has inspired scripture, “we should not expect him to contradict himself when he illuminates it…. The Spirit does not add new meaning to the biblical text…” (225). Irrespective of how one understands the Holy Spirit’s role, no passage of scripture means today what it has never meant.

In John 16:13a Jesus is reported as saying, “but when that one, the Spirit of truth, shall come, he will guide you into all truth…”¹ Contextually, to whom is Jesus speaking and issuing this promise? Chaps. 13–16 of John’s Gospel comprise one and the same context, where the Lord is speaking directly to his chosen apostles who were to carry on his work after his departure. This is not a universal pronouncement for all believers of all time (note 17:6, 20), and the specific promise to these particular individuals was in fact fulfilled (Acts 1:1-8; 2:1-14; 4:33; etc.). Subjectively and arbitrarily attributing things to God’s Spirit for which he is not responsible (e.g. “The Spirit told to me …”) is presumptuous and dangerous. “But I say to you, every careless word that people will speak, they will give an account of it in the day of judgment” (Matt. 12:36).

The 1 Cor. 2:6-16 passage is also part of a broader context that determines its meaning and application. By reading the first four chapters of the epistle as a contextual unit, a clear distinction and contrast is seen between “you”—the spiritually immature, carnally-minded Corinthian audience— and “us”—the spiritually mature spokesmen of God who received the divine message through the revelation of God’s Spirit in the early development of the church. To stretch the applicability of this passage to all believers (including the misguided Corinthians!) is to ignore the context and the entirety of Paul’s argument, thereby twisting and misapplying it. 

The Understandability of the Spirit’s Message

The Holy Spirit, as the agency of divine revelation and inspiration,² is responsible for the collection of sacred writings we call the Bible, whose message is living, powerful, and intelligible.³ Paul acknowledges the understandability of God’s written revelation, expressing confidence in his readers in examining and thereby comprehending what the Spirit has conveyed through inspired penmen (Eph. 3:1-5; 5:17). 

Since God wants everyone to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:3-4), surely he has ensured this knowledge is attainable. Jesus promised that those genuinely wanting to follow him can and will know the truth (John 8:31-32). Not only has the Lord provided a revelation of his will that can be understood, he has given a revelation of his will that all can understand alike (see 1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 1:27). That there are currently so many conflicting interpretations of the Bible and so much religious division is not God’s fault. The problem is the many ways in which the word of God has been misused, misinterpreted, and misapplied. 

In rebuking the Sadducees, Jesus said: “Are you not in error because of this, not knowing the scriptures or the power of God?” (Mark 12:24). Peter warns his readers, “our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom having been given to him, wrote to you, as also in all [his] letters, speaking in them concerning these things, among which some things are difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable distort, as also the rest of scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Pet. 3:15b-16).

Divine Help

While we should intentionally avoid mishandling the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15), at the same time we do not want to dismiss any divine assistance that is available. To help maintain the necessary commitment and mental focus that leads to understanding God’s word, it is important to couple Bible study with prayer, asking and searching for wisdom from above (Prov. 2:2-5; Matt. 7:7-8; 13:14-15; Jas. 1:5). By studying the scriptures with a humble, prayerful spirit, it is much harder to be misled by improper thoughts and personal biases. However God chooses to answer our prayers, we can be assured it is according to his perfect will (Matt. 6:10; 1 John 3:22; 5:14-15).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² Acts 1:16; 1 Cor. 2:10-13; Eph. 3:5; 6:17; Heb. 3:7; 10:15-16; 2 Pet. 1:16-21; Rev. 2:1, 7, 8, 11, etc. Biblical revelation is the means through which God has imparted facts and truths previously unknown, while biblical inspiration is the means through which God has ensured this information has been conveyed (orally and in writing) without error.

     ³ See, e.g., 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet. 1:23. 

Works Cited:

D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996).

J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible. 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012).

Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Rev. ed. (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006).

Related Posts: Are You Listening to the Holy Spirit?, God's Indwelling Spirit

Related articles: Wayne Jackson, Holy Spirit "Illumination"

Image credit: http://www.pottypadre.com/when-god-shared-a-secret-2/