Hermeneutical Problem? Homiletical Opportunity!

By R. Larry Overstreet

[R. Larry Overstreet served as professor of New Testament at Corban University School of Ministry in Tacoma, Washington, and is now adjunct professor at Piedmont International University in Winston- Salem, North Carolina. larryandlindaover@hotmail.com]

Hermeneutical problems are part and parcel of biblical interpretation and exposition. Preachers from differing theological viewpoints (such as Dispensational or Covenant Theology), and from divergent denominational affiliations (such as Presbyterian or Baptist) face hermeneutical problems. Those who preach texts with hermeneutical problems must resolve them in such a manner that the biblical text is preached with both integrity and relevance to contemporary listeners. This article demonstrates that hermeneutical problems can become homiletical opportunities.

Various authors consider the subject of hermeneutics.[1] To these can be added scores of journal articles, commonly focusing on particular issues, or texts, of interpretation. These sources provide valuable assistance toward interpreting, and sometimes for applying, the Scriptures. A reoccurring omission in them, however, is how hermeneutical problem texts can be effectively preached to a contemporary audience.

This article will consider six representative types of hermeneutical problems preachers will encounter in their ministries: language issues, obscure texts, synonymous words, theological difficulties, textual difficulties, and difficult prophetic passages.[2] Guiding principles are presented to show how each of these types can be confidently preached so that God’s people are edified and brought into a closer walk with him. In this process pastors should remember that preaching to a church congregation is different than writing a scholarly article for a journal, or preaching to students in a college or seminary chapel. The first problem to consider is that of language issues.

Language Issues

Hermeneutical Problem

Hermeneutics books consider various types of language issues. Many church attenders will be familiar with some of these (even if they cannot identify the precise terms) and will understand them with little difficulty. For examples, a preacher will pay attention to such items as:

(a) Simile, which is an explicit comparison using “like” or “as.” For example, Jesus said, “I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves” (Luke 10:3).[3] 

(b) Metaphor, which is a direct assertion describing one thing in terms of another. David asserted, “The LORD is my shepherd” (Ps 23:1). 

(c) Metonymy, which is referring to one thing with the name of another thing. Luke declared, “Then beginning with Moses [Pentateuch] and with all the prophets [their writings], He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures” (Luke 24:27). 

(d) Personification, which is when a thing is spoken of as a person. The Psalmist affirmed, “Let the rivers clap their hands, Let the mountains sing together for joy” (Ps 98:8).[4]

One type of language issue appears more problematic in preaching to church audiences. That is the issue of hyperbole. Hyperbole is a conscious exaggeration for added emphasis and effect. People may struggle with this figure of speech because of commonly heard statements. For example, preachers and Bible teachers have said, “all means all and that is all all means.” Without doubt, in many contexts the word “all” does encompass the entirety of the subject or object involved. At the feeding of the 5,000, “they all ate and were satisfied” (Matt 14:20), involves the full totality of those present at the miracle. Romans 3:23 really means “all” when it says, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

On other occasions, however, such is not the case. How does a preacher explain that Matthew 1:17, “So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations,” does not mean “all” when it clearly says “all”?[5] In Matthew 1:8 the names of Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah are omitted (cf. 1 Chron 3:10–12). The name of Jehoiakim is omitted in Matthew 1:11 (cf. 1 Chron 3:15–16). In addition, Jechoniah is counted twice, once to conclude the second group of fourteen, and again to start the third group of fourteen (Matt 1:11–12).

Homiletical Opportunity

To assist congregations in understanding how “all” does not consistently mean “all,” an appeal to Jeremiah 44:27–28 provides clear information. Reading these verses to a congregation periodically will remind them of this principle. In verse 27 God asserts: “Behold, I am watching over them for harm and not for good, and all the men of Judah who are in the land of Egypt will meet their end by the sword and by famine until they are completely gone.” That looks direct and clear. Reading that verse in isolation leads to the conclusion that “all the men of Judah” in Egypt will die. However, God continues in verse 28: “Those who escape the sword will return out of the land of Egypt to the land of Judah few in number. Then all the remnant of Judah who have gone to the land of Egypt to reside there will know whose word will stand, Mine or theirs.” In this verse God specifically stated that some will “escape” and “return out of the land of Egypt.” The “all” of verse 27 does not mean “all” in its most comprehensive sense. This is spoken in hyperbole, for emphasis.

Likewise, Matthew uses “all,” hyperbole, for emphasis. He asserted that his list is arranged purposefully. In a technical sense, Matthew’s “all” refers back to “all” the names he chose (out of others that he did not choose) to include. Those he included were emphatically listed and arranged. Matthew also stated that “all” Judea came to be baptized by John (Matt. 3:5), when clearly many who came to see John did not receive his message nor his baptism (John 1:19–28).

In a similar manner, when lamenting the fall of Jerusalem, Jeremiah wrote:

You called as in the day of an appointed feast
My terrors on every side;
And there was no one who escaped or survived
In the day of the Lord’s anger. (Lam 2:22)

In view of those who were taken alive and transported to Babylon, obviously some did survive the destruction of the city. Once again, hyperbole appears for emphasis. Other obvious examples of hyperbole include such examples as the “log” in a person’s eye (Matt 7:3), and straining out a “gnat” and swallowing a “camel” (Matt 23:24).

In preaching such language problems, pastors can carefully show their congregations how language is used in similar ways even today. People commonly say things like, “Everyonewas at the game” (when clearly not “everyone” was actually there). It casts no aspersions on Scripture to realize that biblical authors used language in the same way contemporary people use it.

Obscure Texts

Some biblical texts are difficult to preach because of their obscurity. Two examples will be considered.

Goat In Its Mother’s Milk

Hermeneutical Problem

Three times the command is given: “You are not to boil a young goat in the milk of its mother” (Exod 23:19; 34:26; Deut 14:21). While Robinson confidently asserts that “we now know the pagans did that when they worshiped their idolatrous gods,” the reality is that is not certain at all.[6] For example, “Many scholars, medieval and modern, follow the suggestion of Maimonides [1135–1204] that this law prohibits some pagan rite—although no such rite is presently known.”[7] Keil and Delitzsch object to this view even more strongly: “. . . there is no intention to prevent the introduction of a superstitious usage customary at the sacrificial meals of other nations, which Spencer and Knobel have sought to establish as at all events probably, though without any definite historical proofs, and for the most part on the strength of far-fetched analogies.”[8] Hegg explains this lack of historical verification in detail.[9]

Geisler identifies seven possible meanings of this command:[10]

1. this was an idolatrous practice;[11]
2. it was a magical practice to make the land more productive;[12]
3. it was cruel to destroy an offspring in the very means (milk) which sustained it.[13]
4. it showed contempt for the parent-child relation;[14]
5. it would profane (symbolically) the Feast of Ingathering;[15]
6. God wanted them to use olive oil, not butter, for cooking;
7. it was too luxurious or epicurean.[16]

Homiletical Opportunity

Geisler concludes his discussion by stating, “The truth of the matter is that we do not know for sure the purpose of the text. . . . [However, the] meaning is clear, and this is all that matters. . . . One can know what is meant (and what to do) without knowing why God gave this command.”17 And, this is the crux of the matter for the preacher. Pastors can explain to congregations the overarching principle that when God issues a command, his people still have the responsibility to obey God. This text illustrates that principle.

“Sons Of God” In Genesis 6

Hermeneutical Problem

Another example of an obscure text is found in Genesis 6. Who are those “sons of God”? Many church attenders carry study Bibles with them, and they will perhaps observe a footnote which gives various interpretations as to who these “sons of God” were. Some advocate they were fallen angels. Some argue for demon possessed men. Others support tyrannical human judges or kings. Still others promote godly descendants of Seth. I advance the view that they were godly men in general, and not limited to the line of Seth.[18]

Homiletical Opportunity

The important question is: what is the emphasis of the passage? If the “sons of God” were fallen angels, the point of the passage is: God judges sin. If they were demon possessed men, the point remains: God judges sin. Regardless of the view held, the stress of the passage remains unchanged: God judges sin. In preaching the passage, therefore, pastors can quickly submit what the various views are (without necessarily defending any of them), realizing that probably most church members are not that concerned with the question, and then put the emphasis where the text puts the emphasis: God judges sin. That principle continues today.

Synonymous Words

Hermeneutical Opportunity

A variety of synonymous words are found in Scripture. In addition to standard lexicons and theological dictionaries, Old Testament synonyms have been studied by Girdlestone and White,[19] and Baker.[20] Those in the NT are explicated by Trench,[21] and Custer.[22] Both Testaments are included in Vine, Unger, and White.[23] To these can be added numerous helps in electronic databases.

One particular text serves as an example. Two Greek verbs for “love” are found in John 21:15–17, phileō and agapaō. What is the distinction between them? Some writers advocate that agapaō refers to a higher, divine type of love (cf. John 3:16) and that phileō refers to a lower, human type of love.[24] The NIV seems to follow this with its translation of “truly love” for agapaō and “love” for phileō. On the third interchange, in this view, Jesus came down to Peter’s level. In contrast, some commentators reverse the significance. They suggest that agapaō is a cooler type of love, while phileō is more passionate.[25] Still others believe that the words are complete synonyms and merely reflect “John’s love of variation in triple repetitions.”[26] Another possibility modifies Trench to say that agapaō refers to a love of decision and phileō refers to a love of emotions. No verse commands people to phileō one another; that is reserved for agapaō, since it is a love of the will, of the decision. People can usually control decisions, but emotions are much more difficult to manage.

Homiletical Opportunity

The continuing principle that applies, regardless of the interpretation, is one that all believers need. Morris observes that Peter’s “actions showed that Peter had not wanted a crucified Lord. But Jesus was crucified. How did Peter’s devotion stand in the light of this? Was he ready to love Christ as he was, and not as Peter wished him to be? That was the question and it was an important one. Peter must face it and answer it.”[27] This is the abiding principle which believers need to accept and apply. Are believers willing to accept Christ, to love him, to obey him as his follower—as he is, revealed in God’s Word? That is the how God’s people demonstrate their love for the risen Lord.

Theological Difficulties

Romans 5:12–21

Hermeneutical Problem

Study of this text readily reveals theological differences in its understanding.[28] How does Adam’s sin relate to, and affect, humanity? Arminian theology proposes that people get a corrupted nature from Adam, which affects them physically and mentally but does not affect their wills. In addition, God’s universal prevenient grace through Christ’s atonement removes sin guilt. People, therefore, have a corrupted nature, but have no sin guilt, and continue to have the will to choose God.

Calvinistic theology holds that God imputes both a corrupt sin nature and sin guilt to all people through Adam. Some hold that this is due to Adam’s position of “federal headship” over the human race, that is, as humanity’s representative. This is commonly held by those who also advocate that God creates each individual soul, which is joined (at conception, or at birth) with the body received through human parents.

Others believe this is due to Adam’s “natural (seminal) headship,” that is, that the human race was seminally present in Adam. All people receive the totality of life, material and immaterial, from their parents.[29]

Homiletical Opportunity

How will pastors approach this problem text? Obviously, their theological presuppositions affect their understanding. The question is: do the church members have vital interest in the theological debate? Do they have even a passing interest? Whether Arminian or Calvinistic, whether federal or natural headship, two critical truths are explicated in this passage: (1) people are sinners; (2) Christ gave himself to solve the sin problem. The pastor, preaching through Romans, can focus on those two issues in 5:12–21, bringing people either to faith in Christ or to confidence in the work of Christ.

Hebrews 6:1–8

Hermeneutical Problem

Anyone who preaches through Hebrews knows that this text is challenging. Study Bibles have footnotes presenting various explanations for the text. The various views on this text may be summarized in four basic categories. (1) The Jewish interpretation believes that this text was for Jewish believers in the first century only, and is not directly related to believers today.[30] (2) The unregenerate person interpretation is that the people referred to in this text were not truly born again, but were only outwardly professing Christianity.[31] (3) The hypothetical interpretation is that the text is only suppositional, and is written so as to constitute a strong warning.[32] (4) The regenerate person interpretation advocates that the text considers true believers in Christ, who may either fail to go on to maturity as they should (either backslide or become carnal),[33] or apostatize and lose their salvation.[34]

Homiletical Opportunity

Because many church attenders bring study Bibles to worship services (to say nothing of their iPads, Kindles, and Bibles on their smartphones), and because this is such a well-known “problem text,” pastors must demonstrate familiarity with the views on this text. Rather than seeking to provide detailed explanations, and refutations, of each of them, however, another approach may be more beneficial. Once pastors identify the various views, they may then say something like this: Having summarized the basic views on this text, let us now turn our attention to the text itself. The best way to understand this passage is simply to examine it, and let it speak for itself. The sermon can then seek to answer three basic questions: (a) Who are the persons addressed (6:4–5)? (b) What is the danger involved (6:4–6)? (c) Why give this warning (6:7–8)? The answers to those questions, of course, will reflect the theological position of the preacher. The answers should also challenge listeners to respond positively, in faith, to the warning of the text.

Textual Difficulties

Ezekiel 21:8–17

Hermeneutical Problem

This Ezekiel text is difficult to translate. For example, the ESV text of verse 10 reads, “You have despised the rod, my son, with everything of wood,” while the footnote says, “Probable reading; Hebrew The rod of my son despises everything of wood.” The ESV text of verse 13 reads, “For it will not be a testing—what could it do if you despise the rod?” The footnote says, “Or For it is a testing; and what if even the rod despises? It shall not be!” The ESV text of verse 15c reads, “Ah, it is made like lightning; it is taken up for slaughter.” The footnote reads, “The meaning of the Hebrew word rendered taken up is uncertain.” Comparing other translations, such as the KJV, NASB, and NIV reveals the same difficulties in translation.

Concerning 21:10, Feinberg asserted that it “is admittedly difficult, and neither the Septuagint nor the Vulgate helps here.”[35] At verse 13 Feinberg observed that it “has received various treatments by interpreters . . . and some leave the problem unsolved. . . . Difficulty in interpretation arises from the conciseness and brevity of the statement.”[36]

Homiletical Opportunity

Most likely those preaching through Ezekiel will be taking larger sections of the book and doing more of a synthetic approach than a detailed verse-by-verse exposition (except in a few particular texts). For example, the entire section 4:1–24:27 deals with God’s glory revealed through judgment of his people. This is subdivided into four sections, each of which could be a sermon: (a) signs of coming judgment (4:1–5:4); (b) visions of coming judgment (8:1–11:25); (c) certainty of coming judgment (12:1–19:14); and (d) warning of coming judgment (20:1–24:27). If this type of approach is followed, then no reason exists to confuse a congregation with various Hebrew translation problems in 21:8–17, and the attendant difficulty of precise exegesis. Instead, take the suggestion from the ESV Study Bible footnote: “Even if the details are obscure, the gist is clear enough. Verses 8–13 focus on the nature of the sword itself, honed to razor sharpness; vv. 14–17 describe its lethal effect.”[37]

John 7:53–8:11

Hermeneutical Problem

While numerous textual variants occur in Scripture, some are more critical in preaching. Indeed, some textual issues can simply be bypassed in preaching since they do not affect the flow of the text, or its meaning. This pericope of the adulterous woman, however, is well-known, often referred to, and not easily dismissed.

This text presents a significant problem in textual criticism. These verses are found in the KJV, and the NKJV has a marginal note, where “NU” stands for the Nestle-UBS critical text: “NU brackets 7:53–8:11 as not in the original text. They are present in over 900 mss. of John.” Hodges and Farstad include the passage in their Greek text of the NT,[38] having defended its authenticity. If the pastor accepts the Majority Text as the most accurate, then no direct problem is encountered in this passage. Likewise, even if pastors doubt the Johannine authorship of the passage, they may still agree with Metzger’s statement that “the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity.”[39] In this case, they may preach it because they believe it to be a true account of an event in Christ’s ministry, even if not part of John’s Gospel.[40] People in the congregation, however, will still have Bibles with those marginal notes. How will those be handled?

Most modern translations put the section in brackets with either a marginal note or a footnote asserting something like “Later mss add the story of the adulterous woman” (NASU), or “The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53–8:11” (NIV). If you are preaching through John’s Gospel, and believe that this text is not part of the biblical text, what then?

Homiletical Opportunity

Several suggestions can help when confronted with this type of problem.[41] First, it is a matter of wisdom not to begin preaching through John (or Mark, since a similar problem occurs at 16:9–20) as the first book after you become the pastor of a church. It takes a few years for your church people to get to know you, to know that you completely believe in the integrity of God’s Word, and to develop a trust in you. Second, be conscious and sensitive becuase your listeners may not understand textual criticism and may have a negative emotional reaction to what they perceive is an attack on Scripture. Third, since textual problems exist in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, it may be good to teach on the problems of the text in a venue distinct from the morning worship service. A Sunday school class or home Bible study groups could provide good interactive opportunities.[42] Fourth, confidently affirm that a textual variant “does not affect the integrity of the original and that no doctrine would be left unsupported if a favorite reading must be abandoned because of a more valid variant.”[43] Finally, when you explain a textual variant, be as simple and direct as possible, assuring your listeners that the goal is to understand and apply God’s Word accurately.

Difficult Prophetic Passages

When dealing with prophetic texts, a person’s theological perspective obviously plays a role in interpretation. Whether one is amillennial or premillennial, pretribulational or posttribulational, influences the specific approach to prophetic texts. Beyond those parameters, however, certain texts pose significant challenges regardless of a person’s prophetic bent.

Ezekiel 26:1–14 And 29:17–20; 40:1–48:35

Hermeneutical Problem Of 26:1–14 And 29:17–20

The interpretive problem in these texts relates to the historical accuracy of the prophecy. Some critical commentators assert that in 26:1–14, Ezekiel predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre, and as a result of that would “make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise” (26:12). They assert that this did not occur, and that it was actually Alexander the Great who finally defeated Tyre and got its spoils. Ezekiel finally realized his error about Nebuchadnezzar, and explained that Nebuchadnezzar’s defeat of Egypt (29:17–20) was God’s way of making up for the erroneous prophecy of chapter 26.[44] Various explanations have been given concerning this so-called difficulty.[45] The simplest, and most connected with the actual text, however, is observed in the change from the singular pronoun “he,” referring to Nebuchadnezzar, found in 26:8–11, to the plural pronoun “they” in 26:12. “It is rightly understood that Ezekiel was carrying the picture beyond Nebuchadnezzar to other invaders as well who would complete what he began. Especially this would be true of Alexander.”[46] A detailed historical accounting of the defeat of Tyre and its relationship to Ezekiel 26 can be found in Ferguson.[47]

Hermeneutical Problem Of 40:1–48:35

The interpretive problem of this extended text relates to how literal, metaphorical, or symbolic the passage is. Several major views on the passage are common.[48] First, it may be interpreted to refer to Solomon’s temple. Second, it presents the pattern the remnant should have followed after the Babylonian Exile. Third, it may be interpreted literally, and a rebuilt temple will exist with Israel fully restored to its land in a future Messianic (millennial) kingdom.[49] Fourth, it may be interpreted metaphorically as a prediction of God’s presence in the church. Fifth, some interpret it as a metaphor of all the redeemed, of every age, who are seen in heaven in the worship of God. Sixth, others interpret the passage as a metaphor of God’s presence with believers in the new heavens and the new earth. Many would agree with the conclusion of the footnote in the ESV Study Bible, “Almost all interpreters agree that Ezekiel 40–48 is one of the most difficult passages in the entire Bible.”[50]

Homiletical Opportunity

When dealing with prophetic passages such as Ezekiel 26, it is important to clarify to your congregation that God’s Word is true. They can depend on it. In those places where critics allege errors in the text, the pastor will want to demonstrate that the allegations do not stand up under closer scrutiny. Even after this is done, however, the pastor must still preach the text to make it relevant to the congregation.

With prophetic passages such as Ezekiel 40–48, pastors may find it helpful to summarize what their hermeneutical approach to the text is. A dispensationalist, for example, will interpret the text literally (or “normally”), while an amillennialist will obviously explain a different position. Whichever view is taken, the pastor must, again, preach the text to make it relevant to the congregation.

Scripture asserts that God gave prophetic passages for particular and practical reasons, and these are not primarily to satisfy curiosity, to set a timeline, or make it possible to write best-selling books. Rather, God desires to accomplish specific purposes in the lives of believers through his prophetic Word. First, God wants to challenge a believer’s character. This includes the challenge to purity of life (1 John 3:2–3), and the challenge to godliness in life (2 Pet 3:10–12). Second, God wants to stimulate his child’s living. This includes the stimulus to steadfast work (1 Cor 15:58), and to zealous work (Tit 2:13–14). Third, God wants to encourage witness. Believers should witness to Jesus (Rev 19:10), and evangelize for Jesus (2 Cor 5:10–11). Finally, God wants to comfort believers’ hearts (1 Thess 4:13–18). His children find comfort in the face of death, and comfort in the promise of the Lord’s return. One, or more, of these purposes can be drawn from both Old and New Testament prophetic texts. As preachers proclaim God’s prophetic Word, they can make these applications relevant to their congregations.

Conclusion

Problems of interpretation can arise whether preaching from the Old Testament or the New Testament. When they do, the conscientious pastor will want to deal with them both fairly and adequately. Pastors who are seminary graduates may be tempted to include every seemingly relevant piece of data in their sermons, like they did for research papers, regardless of whether it overwhelms their congregations. When so tempted, Walter Liefeld’s experience and advice is relevant. After listening to a well-known conference speaker give only one interpretation (and maybe not the best one) of a passage to his audience, Liefeld came to realize that “conference audiences, and probably most congregations, want to hear a clear, uncomplicated exposition that leaves them confident that they understand the passage and its application.”[51] He continues with the caveat that this approach may not succeed in seminary chapels, but his point concerning congregations is valid.

Preachers must present Scripture clearly and professors or preaching must teach students to present it clearly. Do not ignore hermeneutical problems, but treat them as homiletical opportunities for the direct exposition and teaching of Scripture. In the process of preaching on passages with hermeneutical problems, the ultimate goal of preaching must be the constant focus: changed lives for the glory of God.[52]

Notes

1. For examples: D. A. Carson, Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005); J. Edwin Hartill, Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007); Tremper Longman III, Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987); A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 1977); Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2010); Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999); Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1974).
2. A preacher may also face other types of difficult texts. Some of these can be interpreting and preaching parables, miracles, narratives, proverbs, or discrepancies in parallel texts. Walter L. Liefeld, New Testament Exposition: From Text to Sermon (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984, 135–54), summarizes many of these. Each must be studied diligently and preached with care and accuracy. The general principles identified in this article can also apply to these other types of difficult texts.
3. All Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible-Updated Edition (LaHabra, CA: Lockman Foundation, 1995).
4. Other types of figures of speech can be found in the standard hermeneutics books.
5. For a full discussion of the New Testament genealogies, see R. Larry Overstreet, “Difficulties of New Testament Genealogies,” Grace Theological Journal 2.2 (Fall 1981): 303–26.
6. Haddon W. Robinson, “The Heresy of Application,” Leadership 18 (Fall 1997): 23.
7. Nahum M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 147.
8. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, “Exodus,” Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch (reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1951), 2:151–52.
9. Hegg precisely observes: “In recent times, an Ugaritic text (KTU 1.23, line 14) was heralded as providing the proof which Rambam lacked. In this text commonly referred to by the title ‘Birth of the Gracious and Beautiful Gods,’ line 14 was translated as: ‘Cook a kid in milk, a lamb in butter.’ Many thought that at last a parallel to the biblical phrase had been found in a context of pagan sacrificial rituals. Many older commentators, based upon the information published from the Ras Shamra tablets, settled on the view that the prohibitions in the three texts we have studied was, as Rambam surmised, an injunction to Israel against adopting pagan sacrificial practices. However, in more recent times, the misgivings of some scholars regarding the reconstructed text has been confirmed. Ratner and Zuckerman, with new photographs of the tablet in question, have given ample evidence to the fact that whatever the line read originally, the reconstructed text does not refer to cooking a kid in milk and therefore cannot be used as a parallel to the biblical prohibition against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk [see Robert Ratner and Bruce Zuckerman, “‘A Kid in Milk?’ New Photographs of KTU 1.23, line 14,” HUCA (1986), 15–60]. Hegg then concludes: “Therefore, the interpretation of our texts prohibiting a pagan cultic practice remains without support, whether biblical or extra-biblical” [Tim Hegg, “You Shall Not Boil a Kid in its Mother’s Milk” (unpublished paper, delivered at Evangelical Theological Society, Baltimore, MD, November 20, 2013), 27].
10. Norman L. Geisler, “The Relation of Purpose and Meaning in Interpreting Scripture,” Grace Theological Journal 5.2 (1984): 229–45. Jewish midrash took interpretations even further: “In the Mekhilta (Kaspa 5, Lauterbach III, 187–90), the earliest collection of midrashim on the book of Exodus, nine interpretations are offered to explain why the verse is repeated, and seven more simply to explain the full significance of the Exodus verse alone,” quoted by David Stern, “Midrash and Midrashic Interpretation,” Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 1867.
11. For example, this is the view of Haddon Robinson, identified above.
12. See John D. Hannah, “Exodus,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985), 144; and Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976), 232–33.
13. As an example of this view, Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, 147, suggests that the text adduces “a humanitarian motivation akin to that cited in the comment to [Exodus] 22:29” (p. 147), and that the text reflects “the desire to avoid cruelty to animals and, more broadly, to foster humane feelings in human beings” (p. 141). See also Philo. On the Virtues, http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book31.html, accessed September 21, 2016.
14. See Keil and Delitzsch, “Exodus,” 151.
15. See Tim Hegg, “You Shall Not Boil a Kid in its Mother’s Milk.”
16. The Jewish scholar Rashbam (Samuel ben Meir, 1083–1174) wrote: “It is disgraceful, voracious and gluttonous to consume a mother’s milk together with her offspring,” quoted by Barry D. Walfish, “Medieval Jewish Interpretation,” The Jewish Study Bible, 1889.
17. Geisler, “The Relation of Purpose and Meaning,” 232.
18. R. Larry Overstreet, “The Identity of the ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6” (unpublished research paper, San Francisco Baptist Theological Seminary, 1968).
19. Robert Baker Girdlestone and Donald R. White, Synonyms of the Old Testament: Their Bearing on ChristianDoctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983).
20. Warren Patrick Baker, The Complete Word Study Old Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG, 1994).
21. Richard Chenevix Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament (London: James Clark, 1876; reprint, 1961).
22. Stewart Custer, A Treasury of New Testament Synonyms (Greenville, SC: BJU, 1975).
23. W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1996).
24. Brooke Foss Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John: The Authorized Version with Introduction and Notes (London: John Murray, 1903), 302–3; and, R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1961), 1418–19.
25. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, 38–40.
26. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), 873; see also D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 676–77.
27. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 871.
28. For discussion, see: Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1985), 631–36; and, Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 492–98.
29. For an exhaustive study of this text, see David L. Turner, “Adam, Christ, and Us: The Pauline Teaching of Solidarity in Romans 5:12–21” (Th.D. dissertation, Winona Lake: Grace Theological Seminary, 1982).
30. David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft, 2006).
31. Gleason L. Archer Jr., The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1957), 40.
32. Homer A. Kent Jr., The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1974), 113–14.
33. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1959). 257.
34. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Columbus, OH: Wartburg, 1937), 185–87. For a detailed overview of the major interpretations of this text, consult Herbert W. Bateman IV, ed. Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2007).
35. Charles Lee Feinberg, The Prophecy of Ezekiel: The Glory of the Lord (Chicago: Moody, 1969), 119.
36. Ibid, 120.
37. David J. Reimer, “Ezekiel” footnotes, ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001), 1529.
38. Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, ed. The Greek New Testament According to theMajority Text, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 319–20; they defend its authenticity on pp. xxiii–xxxii.
39. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2005), 188.
40. This is precisely the case with Nancy Hardin, “A Woman Who Came a Stone’s Throw from Death, John 8:1–12, ” in Biblical Sermons: How Twelve Preachers Apply the Principles of Biblical Preaching, ed. Haddon W. Robinson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), 179–99. In similar manner, Carson, The Gospel According to John, 333, asserts, “there is little reason for doubting that the event here described occurred, even if in its written form it did not in the beginning belong to the canonical books.” Adopting this perspective allows pastors to preach the text as a true account of an event in the Lord’s life, even if the text is not considered part of John’s Gospel.
41. See Stephen D. Patton, “Why Does Your Bible Read Differently from Mine? The Preacher and Text Criticism,” Preaching 30.1 (July–August 2014): 27–29.
42. An excellent book which could be used as a study guide in a Sunday school class or home Bible study group is David Alan Black, New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994). Its 79 pages concisely set forth the basics of textual criticism in a user-friendly manner for both preacher and congregational members. For detailed study of textual criticism on the New Testament, see Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), along with Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005); for the Old Testament, see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2011), or Ellis R. Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993.
43. Liefeld, New Testament Exposition, 143.
44. Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1970), 407–11.
45. The ESV Study Bible has an extended note on this passage: “Ezekiel announces the devastation of Tyre at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar (26:7–13). Tyre eventually capitulated but was not destroyed, as Ezekiel eventually knew (29:17–20). How is this so-called ‘failure’ of the prophetic word to be explained? Some recent interpreters have preferred to identify Alexander the Great’s victory over Tyre in 332 BC with Ezekiel’s prophecy. This interpretation is unsatisfactory, however, because it does not do justice to the expectation that Babylon would destroy Tyre (cf. 26:7). Others appeal to God’s sovereign freedom, claiming he is able not only to carry out a threat but also to relent, as with Nineveh in Jonah 3. However, there is no suggestion that Tyre repented as did Nineveh, and this approach renders the interpretation of prophecy quite arbitrary. A third strategy lays emphasis on the element of promise rather than prediction: no matter the actual outcome, the real intent was to subject Tyre to God’s sovereignty by prophetic word. However, this reading is unsatisfactory in that it seems to render insignificant the details of Ezekiel’s language. A further possibility is to read Ezekiel 26 along the lines suggested in ch. 16, that is, that metaphorical language should not be confused with literal. Since much of this prophecy is metaphorical, one should not look for literal fulfillment. Finally, it is also clear that biblical prophecy is not necessarily exhausted in a single historical location (cf. Jeremiah’s 70 years [Jer. 25:12; Dan. 9:2, 20–27]). So too here, Tyre’s initial reduction in Ezekiel’s day . . . was but the firstfruits of the unfolding of God’s judgment on Tyre” (Reimer, “Ezekiel” footnotes, ESV Study Bible, 1537).
46. Feinberg, Ezekiel, 149.
47. Paul Ferguson, “Ezekiel 26:1–14: A Proof Text for Inerrancy or Fallibility of the Old Testament?” Bible and Spade 19.2 (2006): 48–58. Feinberg also explains Ezekiel 29:18, “Ezekiel’s statement in verse 18 has been taken to mean that Nebuchadnezzar was unsuccessful in his campaign against Tyre, but this is not the significance of the prophet’s words. He is rather stating that the thirteen-year siege had not been materially successful. . . . The Tyrians were able to send off their wealth, according to the statement of Jerome, out of the reach of the Babylonian army. Without booty the Babylonian commander could not pay his army, so he turned to Egypt to take its wealth” (Feinberg, Ezekiel [Chicago: Moody, 1969], 171).
48. See ESV Study Bible footnote, 1564, and Feinberg, 233–39.
49. Some Jewish commentators (Jewish Study Bible, 1118) and dispensationalists (Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1959]; and Feinberg, Ezekiel) are representatives of this kingdom view.
50. ESV Study Bible, 1564.
51. Liefeld, New Testament Exposition, 136.
52. This is the emphasis of my book, Persuasive Preaching: A Biblical and Practical Guide to the Use of Persuasion (Wooster, OH: Weaver, 2014).