The self-anointed prophet.

This last weekend I heard someone talk about God’s “anointed prophets,” as if that’s actually a thing from the bible. In fact it’s not.

How God makes prophets is ridiculously simple: He starts talking to someone. Might be Samuel ben Elkanah.

1 Samuel 3.6-11 NLT

6Then the LORD called out again, “Samuel!”

Again Samuel got up and went to Eli. “Here I am. Did you call me?”

“I didn’t call you, my son,” Eli said. “Go back to bed.”

7Samuel did not yet know the LORD because he had never had a message from the LORD before. 8So the LORD called a third time, and once more Samuel got up and went to Eli. “Here I am. Did you call me?”

Then Eli realized it was the LORD who was calling the boy. 9 So he said to Samuel, “Go and lie down again, and if someone calls again, say, ‘Speak, LORD, your servant is listening.’” So Samuel went back to bed.

10And the LORD came and called as before, “Samuel! Samuel!”

And Samuel replied, “Speak, your servant is listening.”

11Then the LORD said to Samuel, “I am about to do a shocking thing in Israel.”

Might be Jeremiah ben Hilkiah.

Jeremiah 1.4-10 NLT

4The LORD gave me this message:

5“I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb.

Before you were born I set you apart

and appointed you as my prophet to the nations.”

6“O Sovereign LORD,” I said, “I can’t speak for you! I’m too young!”

7 The LORD replied, “Don’t say, ‘I’m too young,’ for you must go wherever I send you and say whatever I tell you. 8And don’t be afraid of the people, for I will be with you and will protect you. I, the LORD, have spoken!” 9Then the LORD reached out and touched my mouth and said,

“Look, I have put my words in your mouth!

10Today I appoint you to stand up

against nations and kingdoms.

Some you must uproot and tear down,

destroy and overthrow.

Others you must build up

and plant.”

Might be Ezekiel ben Buzi.

Ezekiel 1.28 - 2.5 NLT

28All around him was a glowing halo, like a rainbow shining in the clouds on a rainy day. This is what the glory of the LORD looked like to me. When I saw it, I fell face down on the ground, and I heard someone’s voice speaking to me.

1“Stand up, son of man,” said the voice. “I want to speak with you.” 2The Spirit came into me as he spoke, and he set me on my feet. I listened carefully to his words. 3“Son of man,” he said, “I am sending you to the nation of Israel, a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me. They and their ancestors have been rebelling against me to this very day. 4They are a stubborn and hard-hearted people. But I am sending you to say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says!’ 5And whether they listen or refuse to listen—for remember, they are rebels—at least they will know they have had a prophet among them.”

But in none of these instances do we see God anoint his prophets. He commissions them to speak in his name, tells them what he wants people to hear, and off they go.

Now yeah, you’re gonna hear Christians, and prophets who want people to consider them authority figures, talk about how God’s prophets have “the anointing.” And they’re gonna try to define lots things as anointing. So let’s first get that definition right, shall we? Anointing is when you literally pour oil over someone’s head. Ancient Israelis did that to people to indicate God chose ’em to lead. Not prophesy; lead. Anyone can prophesy. Not everyone can lead.

You’re also gonna see Christians point to Elisha, ’cause the LORD instructed his prophet Elijah to anoint him—

1 Kings 19.16 NLT

“Then anoint Jehu grandson of Nimshi to be king of Israel, and anoint Elisha son of Shaphat from the town of Abel-meholah to replace you as my prophet.”

—and claim, “There! Right there! There’s an anointed prophet!” But Elisha’s the only anointed prophet in bible. (Unless you count King David ben Jesse, who was indeed a prophet Ac 2.30 —he did hear from God! But David was anointed to be king, not prophet.) And here’s the thing about Elisha: Elijah, his predecessor, wasn’t only a prophet, but was also the leader of the בְנֵֽי־הַנְּבִיאִ֥ים/vnéi haneviím, the “sons of the prophets,” 2Ki 2.15 a prophecy guild. He anointed Elisha to lead that guild. Not to become a prophet—for Elisha was already a prophet.

Go ahead. Poke around the bible for the prophets’ first God-experiences. Some will be dramatic, like Ezekiel’s vision. Some won’t be. Christians like to point to when Isaiah saw the LORD in temple, with the seraphs and burning coal and “Holy holy holy!” and all that, Is 6.1-13 and claim the burning coal is Isaiah’s “anointing.” But that vision is in the sixth chapter of the book of Isaiah. There are five chapters before it! Five chapters of prophecies before it. And in none of them does Isaiah get anointed to become a prophet. He just starts prophesying. Because God talked to him, and he shared what he heard.

I’m not knocking profound experiences. They’re awesome. But God doesn’t need to start with them, and usually doesn’t. More often it’s like when he first talked to Samuel. Nobody gets “anointed.” Commissioned, yes. That’s all.

Anointing, like I said, is for leadership. God still picks leaders, and has us recognize his choices; and when we do that, typically we lay hands on them and pray for them, and somebody puts oil on ’em. Sometimes it’s a dab on their forehead; sometimes we dump a whole bottle or horn of it all over ’em, like the ancient Israelis did with their kings. But again, that’s leaders. Not prophets.

And if a leader prophesies—and they can; God can talk to them same as he talks to everyone—okay then we’re actually talking about an anointed prophet. But their anointing for leadership, and their ability as prophet, are actually two different things. Two separate things. The anointing doesn’t make ’em a greater prophet, and the prophecy doesn’t make ’em a better leader. And same as every prophet, we gotta confirm these prophecies, and not foolishly assume their anointing has made ’em an infallible prophet.

So when someone starts calling themselves one of God’s anointed prophets, what we’ve got here is someone who’s either honestly unaware of how God selects prophets… or is trying to pull a fast one, and claim leadership, or demand our obedience, solely because they claim they heard God. But if they’re not already in leadership, that’s an illegitimate claim. That’s like Samuel telling Eli, “I heard God, so you should make me co-head priest.” Or Jeremiah telling King Josiah ben Amon, “I hear God, so you should make me co-king.” It’s rubbish, and if these prophets seriously expect us to believe this and catapult them into leadership, beware.

The International Critical Commentary.

My bible software of choice is Accordance. I have a lot of their modules, and of course they wouldn’t mind at all if I bought more. So most days a week, they send me an email informing me of their sales. They have individual books, and of course full sets of bible commentaries.

Yes, I’ve bought a few, and they’re pricey. And sometimes when I tell people I’ve bought ’em, they’re stunned. “You spent that on a bible commentary? You know you can get Matthew Henry’s commentary for $3.”

Pfff, $10? I could get it for free.

I mean, I already have it. Decades ago (yes, it’s been multiple decades now) I bought a CD full of public-domain bibles and Christian literature, and of course Henry’s commentary is in there too. Plus a few other multi-volume bible commentaries.

I don’t look at ’em much, because those commentaries—like Henry’s, and many of the other free commentaries on the internet—are devotional in nature. That is, the commentator read some bible, wrote down his thoughts about ’em, and that’s what you have. Some of them are clever and insightful. Some are most definitely not clever and insightful; they’re the sort of regurgitated pop-culture junk you can find in Facebook posts. They’re not worth any money you might spend on ’em, so hopefully you’ve spent none!

What I actually want in a bible commentary—which is why, over the years, I’ve paid a bunch of money for such commentaries—is ancient history. Study of the ancient languages. Archeological evidence, if you have any. Maybe a thoughtful discussion on the multiple ways Christians have viewed this particular scripture over the years, just so I can see where the points of debate are… and maybe hear a view I’ve not heard before in dozens of sermons.

Free commentaries like that are mighty hard to come by, but here’s one: The International Critical Commentary. “International” in that it was written by Americans, Brits, and Canadians, and “critical” in that the authors compare different ancient manuscripts of the bible in order to get the best reading of the text.

The ICC is still being published by T&T Clark, but the older editions of the commentary are out of copyright, so they’ve been scanned and posted on the internet by the good folks at Google Books and Internet Archive. I’ve listed below what I can find. Internet Archive has multiple scans of these books, so if you don’t like the one I’ve linked to, find another! Google Books, on the other hand, will remove books if a publisher pushes ’em hard enough—even if books are in the public domain. (Just goes to show you the difference between a non-profit which stands up for something, and a for-profit which sometimes really doesn’t.)

Anywho, in some of the books you’ll find a list of all the books of the bible, and wonder why on earth I don’t have that volume (it’s the one you wanted to look at most, right?) and it’s because the guys who were supposed to write that book, ultimately didn’t. Optimistic advertising, I guess.

God knows the plans he has for you.

Jeremiah 29.11.

Jeremiah 29.11 NIV

“For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

Whenever English-speaking Christians quote this verse, I tend to hear the New International Version translation most often. Oddly, not the been-around-way-longer King James:

Jeremiah 29.11 KJV

For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.

I suspect it’s ’cause the words “prosper” and “hope” and “future” are in the NIV, so it comes across as way more optimistic and inspiring. It’s why Christians quote it like crazy. Like the evangelists tell us, “God has a wonderful plan for your life,” and this verse brilliantly affirms it: God thinks warm, wonderful things about us. He has a good, fine plan, with a good future.

Some of us figure this future is heaven, and some of us figure it’s all the worldly success the American Dream can offer. But, y’know, Christianized. This way we’re comfortably wealthy, but our comfort and wealth somehow hasn’t turned us into out-of-touch, self-entitled jerks. Instead we’re “good stewards” of that wealth… but I gotta tell ya, in practice stewardship tends to look a little out-of-touch, and tends to hoard wealth on the basis of “God gave these riches to me, not the needy, so I must deserve it more than they.” But I digress.

Like many out-of-context scriptures, neither the NIV nor KJV variants are a mistranslation. I translated it myself, and my own results aren’t far different from the NIV and KJV. (Nor should it be.)

Jeremiah 29.11 KWL

“Because I know the intentions I plan over you,” the LORD states.

“Intentions of peace, not evil.

To give you a proper ending, and hope.”

The verse is about what God has in store for his people. He plans good, not evil. (Especially not secret, behind-the-scenes evil stuff, like natural disasters and wars; whereas in public he maintains moral superiority. I know certain Christians claim otherwise, but God’s no hypocrite.) God wants his people to have good lives. Not bad.

Thing is: The people God addressed in this prophecy are the Hebrews of southern Israel, the tribes which the writers of the Old Testament collectively call “Judah,” and the writers of the New Testament call “Judea.” These’d be the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon; plus Levites and various members of other tribes who lived in the cities. Collectively, “Jews.”

Jeremiah prophesied it between the years 586 and 581BCE, after King Jeconiah, his family and court, and Jerusalem’s officials had been dragged to Babylon as captives of Nebuchadnezzar’s troops. Jr 29.2 In fact this prophecy was a message to these very captives. Not necessarily to all the Jews in the sixth century before the Christian Era. And certainly not 21st-century gentiles. Nor even all us Christians.

But we’d sure like it to be us, wouldn’t we? And that’s why we claim it for ourselves. We justify it by saying, “God doesn’t change Ml 3.6 —his attitude towards all people, whether ancient Hebrews or present-day Christians, oughta be this very same gracious-sounding offer of peace and safety. So let’s take him up on it!

Oh, and let’s post this verse on our walls someplace. Underneath some nice Thomas Kinkade paintings of a house lit up as if by a kitchen fire. Or something otherwise inspirational. Let’s recite it to ourselves whenever we’re feeling down, or overwhelmed, or like we’ve lost one of the many minor battles in life. God’s working all things together for our good, right? Ro 8.28 His plans for us are prosperity, peace, and hope, right?

Last words to Titus.

Titus 3.12-15.

Paul wraps up his letter to Titus with the usual stuff you might find in any personal correspondence; plans to meet, people you oughta bring along, friends who say hi, and salutations. Goes like this.

Titus 3.12-15 KWL

12I might send either Artemas or Tychicus to you;

when I do, be quick to come to me in Nikópolis,

for I decided to winter there.

13Quickly bring Zenas the lawyer, and Apollos, with you,

so they might not be left behind.

14Our people must also learn to maintain good works;

they’re necessary business

so they might not be fruitless.

15Everyone with me greets you.

Greet our friends in faith.

Grace to all of you. {Amen.}

Verse 12 is why some people, including the editors of the Textus Receptus, figured Paul wrote this from Nikópolis, Macedon. But since he calls it “there” when he wrote this, instead of “here,” kinda looks to me like he’s not there yet! We shouldn’t be surprised if he wrote it on his way somewhere.

Travel back then was particularly difficult in winter, ’cause weather, and no reliable way to forecast it. So Paul had to hunker down somewhere, and Nikópolis had decent resources and decent temperatures.

Artemas and Tychicus were members of Paul’s ministry team. They’re both Greek names, but don’t presume that automatically makes ’em Greek; plenty of Jews back then had gentile names, same as today. Like Apollos, who had the same name as the Greek sun god; and “Artemas” is the masculine version of Artemis, the moon god. Artemas is never referenced in the bible again, but Tychicus comes up in Acts 20.4 as being from the province of Asia Minor, and Paul refers to him in four different letters. Ep 6.21, Cl 4.7, 2Ti 4.12, Tt 3.12 He had him deliver letters a lot!

Paul tells Titus to bring two guys with him: Zenas “the lawyer,” and Apollos. Zenas, short for the Greek name Zenodoros (meaning “gift of Zeus”) isn’t ever mentioned again. We’ve no idea what sort of lawyer Zenas was—whether he was a Jew, and an expert in the Law of Moses; or a gentile, and an expert in Roman law. Paul calls him “the lawyer” likely because both he and Titus knew another guy named Zenas, and wanted to indicate the right Zenas. As for Apollos, he’s the apostle—the Alexandrian Jew who was full of the Spirit, eloquent, knew his bible, taught Christians, and most tellingly, was receptive to correction. Ac 18.24-28 Paul refers to him a bunch of times too. 1Co 3.4-6, 22, 4.6, 16.12, Tt 3.13

Then, kind of as an afterthought, there’s an important verse about good works.

Put a stop to argumentative Christians.

Titus 3.8-11.

Paul’s letter to Titus is full of advice on how to deal with Christians behaving badly, although recently I’ve heard a preacher using the pastoral epistles to attack pagans behaving badly. That’s not why it was written. My guess is he really wanted to criticize pagans, and wrongly thought these scriptures might help him do it. Problem is, these letters were written to correct us, to keep us on the straight and narrow… and now the people of his church—if they never double-check their pastor to make sure he was right, and let’s be honest; many don’t!—are gonna ignore the apostles’ corrections, think these verses are about pagans not them, and continue being jerks.

Because that’s precisely why Paul wrote the letters! The people of Titus and Timothy’s churches, same as the people of many Christian churches, were being self-righteous jerks, and their pastors needed to shut that bad behavior down. Still do! Too many pastors either lack the spine to do it, or the wisdom to know how to steer people lovingly—they try to discipline their churches with threats and bluntness, and that just drives people away, to attend other churches where the pastors never, ever correct ’em.

And one of the most common pestilences we see in Christian churches, is what we see in today’s passage. It’s about argumentative Christians. Argumentativeness is a work of the flesh, but so many of us justify our fighting and debating and “apologetics” by claiming, “I’m standing up for the truth. I’m doing it for Jesus!” Yeah, no we’re not. We’re indulging our lust for battle, which you can see by all the other carnal, bad fruit which emerges from these fights: Anger, harsh words, hurt feelings, unforgiveness, grudges, vengeance. Even full church splits.

That’s why Paul instructed Titus to nip ’em in the bud.

Titus 3.8-11 KWL

8A true teaching—

and I’d like you to regularly insist on these things

so those who trusted God

might thoughtfully practice good works.

These things are good and helpful for people.

9Moronic lessons and good heritage,

friction, and fights over the Law:

Step away, for they’re wasteful and meaningless.

10After the first and second rebukes,

shut down a heretic person,

11knowing such a person was uprooted

and sins, condemning one’s self.

I have several Greek New Testaments, which I look at when I’m translating bible; including ancient copies of the NT like the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus. (The Codex Vaticanus doesn’t include Titus.) The ancient copies don’t have punctuation, but some of ’em do have paragraphs, and verse 8 is the beginning of a new paragraph in the Alexandrinus. But Desiderius Erasmus and Robert Estienne, editors of the Textus Receptus (which did use the Alexandrinus text as a reference, and was later used to translate the King James) came up with their own paragraphs. Which is why some bibles either make verse 8 part of the previous paragraph, or make verses 1–11 into one big paragraph. Grammatically, verse 8 can be its very own paragraph. But I’ll just go with the ancient Christians on this one: The previous passages were “a true teaching” (KJV “faithful saying”), but heads up: There are also false teachings.

Apocrypha: The “extra books” your bible may lack.

APOCRYPHON ə'pɑk.rə.fɔn noun. A writing or book not considered part of the accepted canon of scripture.

2. Story of doubtful authenticity.

3. Story that’s obscure or little-known.

[Apocrypha ə'pɑk.rə.fə plural, apocryphal əˈpɑkrəfəl adjective.]

One of my favorite stunts with new Christians used to be, “Turn in your bibles to the book of Wisdom, chapter 4.” And they’d try—they’d flip around their bibles, then give up and look at the table of contents… then realize the book wasn’t there.

“Well it’s in my bible,” I’d tell ’em. And hold it up to show them, confusing them all the more.

My bible included apocrypha. Actually a few of my bibles include apocrypha. And I know; you’re thinking, “Oh, those are Catholic bibles.” Nope; I do own a Catholic bible, but it’s only a New Testament, which has no apocrypha. All my bibles with the apocrypha included are Protestant. Yep, some Protestant bibles have them!

Unfortunately I can’t pull this stunt anymore, ’cause nowadays people look up the bible on their phones. And a lot of bible apps include apocrypha, so they can actually find Wisdom in there. Bible Gateway has apocrypha too. Spoils my little joke. Oh well.

But I had a reason for this joke: I wanted to introduce newbies to the fact not every bible includes all the same books. Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican bibles are gonna have books in them which your average Evangelical bible will not. Evangelicals call these books apocrypha. Catholics call ’em deuterocanon, and Orthodox anagignoskómena.

Contrary to popular belief, they’re not merely “extra books.” For four centuries before Jesus, Greek-speaking Jews had these books in their bibles. For 17 centuries thereafter, Greek-speaking, Latin-speaking, and English-speaking Christians had ’em in their bibles. Some of these books got quoted in the New Testament. Got quoted by the early church fathers. Got translated and included in the Geneva Bible and King James Version. Seriously.

So when people ask me “Why do Catholics have extra books?” I gotta point out the proper question is why we Evangelicals don’t include these books. ’Cause the majority of Christians in the world do have ’em. And Evangelical Protestants used to have no problem with including ’em in our bibles… well, for about two centuries. Wasn’t till the Puritans began purging apocrypha from bibles that they even became an issue.

Today we have some Protestants who insist not only should apocrypha not be in bibles, but claim they’re devilish. Doesn’t matter that Martin Luther called ’em nützliche, aber nicht heilige Schriften/“useful, but not holy writings.” To these dark Christians, not only are apocrypha not useful, but they (and Roman Catholics) are part of Satan’s evil conspiracy to corrupt the bible.

Here’s what conspiracy theorist Jack Chick had to say on the topic. [The Attack, 8]

According to these cranks, if you read any of the apocrypha, they’ll corrupt you too. Flee the scary books!

Well, let’s put aside the loopy paranoia and get to what apocrypha actually are.

Submission. It’s not domination.

SUBMIT səb'mɪt verb. Yield to or accept a superior force, authority, or will. Consent to their conditions.

2. Present one’s will to another for their consideration or judgment.

[Submission səb'mɪs.ʃən noun.]

Notice there are two popular definitions of submit in use. The more popular of the two has to do with acceptance, obedience, and blind capitulation. To turn off our brains, to do as we’re told. And most sermons instruct Christians to do precisely that. Submit to one another, as Paul ordered.

Ephesians 5.21 ESV

…submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

’Cause we kinda have to. If we can’t submit to God—if we insist on our own way, our own standards, our own values, our own lifestyles—it’s a pretty good bet we’re outside his kingdom.

Romans 8.5-8 ESV

5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

So we especially submit to God. Jm 4.7 And to Christian leaders; 1Pe 5.5 we follow the doctrines they proclaim from the pulpit. And wives, submit to your husbands. Ep 5.22 When he says “Jump,” you ask “How high?”

Then there’s the other definition of submit: The one where it’s not typical of a relationship between a benevolent (or not-so-benevolent) despot and their subjects, but between partners, friends, or coworkers. One where we instead bounce ideas off one another. Find out whether these ideas help or inconvenience one another—and of course try to get ’em to help as best we can.

One which sounds appropriate for a παράκλητος/paráklitos, “helper” Jn 14.16, 14.26, 15.26, 16.7 and the people he’s trying to help. For a teacher and his pupils. For a loving God and his kids.

So… which definition d’you think fits what the authors of the scriptures were talking about?

Oh, the benevolent despot thingy? Well it does work for cult leaders and wannabe patriarchs. But in God’s kingdom, where the king calls us his friends, Jn 15.15 where love doesn’t demand its own way, 1Co 13.5 it’s pretty obvious the despotic definition is entirely incorrect. In many ways it’s kinda the opposite of God’s intent. Almost as if the devil got Christians to flip it 180 degrees, n’est-ce pas?