The Six Strangest New Testament Verses

When we think of strange verses in the New Testament, the fantastic visions of Revelation immediately leap to mind. But Revelation isn’t the only place. From weird words used by St. Paul to the trance of St. Peter, here are six of the strangest verses in the New Testament.

‘And he saw the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great linen sheet let down by the four corners from heaven to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air.’— Douay-Rheims translation (Unless otherwise noted, as here, Scripture quotations will be taken from The New American Bible, Revised Edition)

This reads like something lifted right out of Revelation, but there it is in Acts. In this trance, which Peter experiences, a voice tells him to kill and eat the beasts. Peter refuses because they are unclean—but he is urged to do so three more times, then the mysterious vessel vanishes. This vision has traditionally been understood to be a turning point in the history of the early Church—when St. Peter understood that the temporal laws of the Old Testament, like the ones on circumcision or unclean animals, were no longer binding. In other words, the gospel was for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. (This interpretation is certainly supported by the next chapter, where St. Peter defends himself against charges of having a meal with uncircumcised men.)

Put simply, this verse doesn’t make much sense and the context only makes it stranger. St. Paul is recalling what Christ said to him on the road to Damascus. Immediately before the above sentence is the famous chastisement we all know: Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? The mystery deepens further when we learn that the kicking the goad phrase comes from a secular Greek poet named Pindar. (Click here to read it.) It is in the context of the original poem that the phrase starts to make sense—Pindar writes that it is futile to resist a god. Kicking the goad is an apt metaphor for this, as a goad is a rod used by a herder to guide cattle. (In fact, the Greek word for goad, kentron, has another meaning—the sting of a bee, or other creature, which certainly is another richly provocative metaphor for how Christ wounds our souls with heavenly love!) Now, it may seem scandalous that Paul quotes Christ as using a phrase from a secular poet—one that, moreover, is in the context of ancient Greek pantheism—but this comes hand in hand with the fact that the entire New Testament was originally written in Greek. It should come as no surprise that phrase and sayings from the ancient tongue would make it into the text as well.

Galatians 5:12 – ‘Would that those who are upsetting you might also castrate themselves!’

Well, this is a bit disturbing. Some translations put it more politely as mutilate. Others speak of a wish that the ones who persecute the faithful readers of this letter would simply cut themselves off. Either way, this verse poses an interpretative dilemma for us: aren’t we supposed to love our enemies, not wish self-harm on them? The Haydock Bible Commentary sees this as figurative language for excommunicating persecutors from the Church. But there’s a deeper meaning here, which St. John Chrysostom peels away for us in his commentary on the epistle. He notes that the chapter begins with a discussion about why circumcision—a requirement of the old law—is no longer necessary because of the Cross. (This makes sense after reading Acts above.) He suggests that there are some Galatians who believe circumcision still necessary, having fallen under the influence of the Manichean heresy, which held the body to be evil. So, according to Chrysostom, Paul is speaking in sarcasm, urging them to not stop at circumcision, but mutilate themselves completely.

This is the famous chapter which describes all the spiritual armor we need in our battle with Satan and sin. We are told righteousness is our breastplate, which seems fitting since that covers our hearts. Faith is our shield, salvation our helmet, and the Spirit our sword—again these all make sense. But why are our ‘loins girded with truth.’ This is not an area of the body we normally associate with truth—perhaps the head, heart, or even the eyes, but not the loins. The first clue, according to Chrysostom, is the verb ‘gird.’ This tells us, he says in a homily, that we sinners have been loose in life and ‘dissolved in … lusts.’ Girding our loins ensures we aren’t tripped up by the ‘garments entangling our legs’ but can move freely in Christ. As for the loins, perhaps we don’t give them as much credit as they are due. Chrysostom explains: “They are, as it were, a foundation, and upon them as the schools of the physicians tell you, the whole frame is built. … the foundation alike of the parts both above and below.” If we are founded in the truth, Chrysostom concludes, we cannot fall spiritually, because truth comes from above, not the earth.

No, St. Paul did not have a traumatic childhood experience with a dog. So what is he talking about here? We can surmise there must be a spiritual meaning to this, since the next phrase in the verse warns against evildoers. So, who are the ‘dogs’? This, according to commentators, is a colloquialism for the Gentiles. The Haydock Bible Commentary explains further: “The Jews called so the Gentiles; and St. Paul now applies it to those among the Jews who spread false doctrine, who privately snarled and publicly barked against the true apostles.”

Philemon 1:7 – ‘The bowels of the saints have been refreshed by thee, brother’ (Douay-Rheims)

Some translations render bowels as hearts, so where did the other translators get ‘bowels’?—a word repeated two other times in this one-chapter epistle. Well, for one thing, it’s a faithful translation of the original Greek word, splangkhnon, which does have the primary meaning of ‘bowels’ or ‘intestines.’ This can include the heart but it just as easily refers to other internal organs, like the kidneys. Here a dictionary helps us sort things out (this is from the lexical resources on GreekBible.com): “[T]he bowels were regarded as the seat of the more violent passions, such as anger and love; but by the Hebrews as the seat of the tenderer affections, esp. kindness, benevolence, compassion.”

re: “It wasn’t AGAINST scripture for Jews to keep company with gentiles. It was against their man made rules. So what did God tell Peter? He told Peter that what God cleansed, he should not call “common”. But akathartos is there still. Even IF you believe this was about animals, then akathartos is still here. The vision is what the vision was. It had nothing to do with food.”

Ok, I agree with you that the primary purpose of the vision was about people, not food. I stated that to you in my last post. However, a secondary meaning of the vision is that the principle of what God calls “clean is clean” still relates to the Levitical dietary laws and Jewish “kosher” traditions. As I said before, if we only had this passage that spoke to clean, unclean, common foods, then I would say that, “yes, this passage in and of itself does not prove that we are not to observe Levitical dietary laws”. But, the passage does adhere to the principle that what we eat may be better or worse from a health perspective, but it doesn’t make us any more right with God.

Jesus spoke of this principle: “Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart, but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods? (Mark 7:19).”

Paul also taught, “I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself (Romans 14:14). Therefore he could conclude, Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. . . Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.(Colossians 2:16-23).

So, while the Acts 10 vision story does not by itself prove that dietary laws are irrelevant, taken in context with other New Testament teaching, we do see the principle implied in the Acts 10 passages.

And, you still have not spoken to the decision by the Apostles in Jerusalem in Acts 15 to not require the Gentiles follow all the Levitical laws regarding circumcision and dietary laws.

But, beyond all of this, as I mentioned, arguing over the dietary stuff is small potatoes in contrast with WHO the person of Jesus is. It is what one believes about HIM that determines whether one is saved or not.

Look, I don't mean this to be insulting or derogatory, but what you're doing is repeating an old justification. There a a few scriptures, lifted out of context, that purport to show that Christ did away with the very same food laws he created. This is a prime example and when looked at in context you can see that:

Mar 7:19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?"

Before getting to this what is it about? Clean and unclean foods or something else?

Mar 7:2 Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault.
Mar 7:3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders.
Mar 7:4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.
Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?"

The context, the argument, the discussion isn't about clean and unclean meats which are a biblical command by the Lord Jesus Christ. It's about NOT WASHING HANDS IN A TRADITIONAL MANNER BEFORE EATING.

In other words, they're angry because Jesus and his disciples did not WASH according to tradition of men.

Mar 7:15 There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man.

Remember "koinos" and "akathartos"..ritually unclean versus inherently unclean? The Pharisees were hyper sensitive about making themselves "koinos". The figured if they didn't do these washings EXACTLY right that a little piece of dirt or something "akathartos" (inherently unclean) would get on the clean food they were eating and thus make them "koinos"...or ceremonially unclean which would require an elaborate ceremony and timeframe to remedy.

Mar 7:19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?"

Christ was saying that the Pharisees were super sensitive about being contaminated by whatever. He was saying that these little specks of whatever they were worried about would be pooped out anyways.

The MAIN lesson was that the Pharisees were SO wrapped up IN TRADITION and that they had elevated these HUMAN TRADITIONS over GODLY THINGS. They had so focused on the HUMAN TRADITIONS that they had ignored their spiritual condition.

Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Mar 7:22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit,
lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man."

re: “Look, I don’t mean this to be insulting or derogatory, but what you’re doing is repeating an old justification. There a a few scriptures, lifted out of context, that purport to show that Christ did away with the very same food laws he created.”

DouglasKc, you are correct that context of any passage is important, and you are also correct that the question at hand was the one the Pharisees put to Jesus about them not washing their hands ritualistically. However, it is possible that Jesus went beyond the scope of their orginial question. I have found that there is tremendous disagreement among Biblical scholars (Christian and non-Christian) about the meaning of that final phrase “thus purifying all foods”. Some say that Jesus did not speak that phrase, that it was an insertion by Mark. Others say Jesus Himself said it. Those that say Jesus said it take the passage to mean that He was only referring to the body eliminating waste material from the body and that, thus, washing or not washing according to the “traditions” was of no consequence to one’s spiritual condition.

Those that say Mark inserted the comment, that he was saying that Jesus not only was referring to the washing/not washing question from the Pharisees, but that Jesus was also saying that all foods had no spiritual effect on the person - that it was what was it was what proceeded from a man’s heart that made him “clean or unclean” - therefore, Mark said that Jesus was declaring all foods are clean.

This “Markian” view is emphasized for clarity in several translations of that text. For example:

New International Version (©2011)
For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

New Living Translation (©2007)
Food doesn’t go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer.” (By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God’s eyes.)

English Standard Version (©2001)
since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
For it doesn’t go into his heart but into the stomach and is eliminated.” (As a result, He made all foods clean.)

NET Bible (©2006)
For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.)

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
It doesn’t go into his thoughts but into his stomach and then into a toilet.” (By saying this, Jesus declared all foods acceptable.)

American Standard Version
because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said , making all meats clean.

English Revised Version
because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean.

Weymouth New Testament
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and passes away ejected from him?” By these words Jesus pronounced all kinds of food clean.

So, depending on how one sided with the question of whether Jesus was speaking or Mark’s insertion of a comment, determines how one interprets that verse. So, for the sake of argument. I will withdraw the Mark 7:19 passage in favor of more clear passages that support my contention that Gentile Christians were NOT required to follow Levitical dietary laws, nor Jewish traditions. That would leave Acts 15 and Paul’s remarks in several of his letters.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.