English language proverbial statements and New Testament theological teachings relating to corporal punishment/smacking/spanking

Growing up, I think most of us who experienced corporal punishment/smacking/spanking mainly at the hand of our parents are familiar with the phrase:

"This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you."

(Note: The origins of this phrase needs further study as I have yet to determine where it comes from. No doubt it is not that old.)

I think that children who start to get a bit older and who start to be introduced to philosophical concepts of life hear this statement at least once in their youth normally told to them by their dads.

At least this was my experience. I was not a too regular recipient of the paddle, but I guess I got paddled when my parents felt that I had engaged in something which in their minds merited corporal punishment/smacking/spanking.

The Biblical roots of this idea

When we consider the potential roots for this phrase from Scripture (as it is used not only by Christian parents, but generally speaking Christian parents today remain the most ardent supporters of corporal punishment), I think we have one main text which is fairly obviously linked to this idea. Note it below:

Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying. (Proverbs 19:18 KJV)

This text teaches clearly that the "chastening" is going to hurt. Here is how a couple of the leading proponents of corporal punishment understand it.

For example, one pastor in his book on child rearing points out that: “The spanking should be administered firmly. It should be painful and it should last until the child’s will is broken. It should last until the child is crying, not tears of anger but tears of a broken will.[1] Another author follows the same line of thinking: “After correction, a parent needs to allow a child to cry for a reasonably short amount of time. Then a child should be told to stop crying and be brought under control.”[2]

I think we also have to look at the section of Hebrews 12 (verses 3-11) where Proverbs 3:11,12 is quoted saying:

“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,

nor be weary when reproved by him.

For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,

and chastises every son whom he receives.”

Now, it should be fairly clear that these texts mainly quoting the book of Proverbs are the main sources for this idea that says:

"This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you."

Now, if we are going remain oriented to a legalistic, theological approach which does not focus on the teachings of grace or move us hermeneutically towards redemption (as Prof. William Webb has so eloquently outlined in much of his work - www.redemptivechristianity.com) and the main theological points found in the New Testament, one might have some a strong impetus for retaining these ancient ideas which were linked to a culture where the Law of Moses was the theological point of reference and the overall law of the land in the culture which saw these texts from the book of Proverbs implemented in daily life.

Clark's commentary mentions the following concerning the teaching which we are here referencing found in Exodus 21:24: "Eye for eye - This is the earliest account we have of the lex talionis, or law of like for like, which afterwards prevailed among the Greeks and Romans. Among the latter, it constituted a part of the twelve tables, so famous in antiquity; but the punishment was afterwards changed to a pecuniary fine, to be levied at the discretion of the praetor. It prevails less or more in most civilized countries, and is fully acted upon in the canon law, in reference to all calumniators: Calumniator, si in accusatione defecerit, talionem recipiat. "If the calumniator fall in the proof of his accusation, let him suffer the same punishment which he wished to have inflicted upon the man whom he falsely accused." - http://bible.cc/exodus/21-24.htm

However, we have to admit that there are some new ways of looking at things found in the New Testament that directly challenge this orientation of the need to "hurt." Note what Jesus said in this regard:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ ³⁹ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. ⁴⁰ And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,^[h] let him have your cloak as well. ⁴¹ And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. ⁴² Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you." - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%205&version=ESV

In this article, we are going to look at a very fundamental text which I am going to assert precludes totally this approach for the need for anyone to hurt anyone else. It is one of the most powerful texts found in the whole of the New Testament, but in parenting circles it is almost wholly unknown, not applied and basically ignored.

For me, it is a very important text and one I try in my own life to constantly remember. In fact, it is so important to me that I put it in all of my books as a kind of reminder of how important it is to me personally and especially theologically. Here it is from the ESV from the very beginning of St. Paul's thought:

"Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:9-21, ESV)

This is said earlier by Jesus in much of the same language:

⁴³ “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ ⁴⁴ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵ so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. ⁴⁶ For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? ⁴⁷ And if you greet only your brothers,^[i] what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? ⁴⁸ You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%205&version=ESV

Now, when you review these texts, I think one has to admit that we can note a totally different tone and in fact an orientation which is quite different from the teachings found in the Proverbial texts.

I personally do not see how one could create a systematic theology which included these texts and say, for example, Hebrews 12. I really think one has to interpret Hebrews 12 in light of these texts and really try to understand the theological message of Hebrews 12 in a way which allows us to understand it, but to do so knowing whatever our understanding of it is, that understanding must be congruent with the clear teachings found in these texts.

Here you will find no inkling of hurting you while hurting me! No! It is just not here. What is here is: genuine love!

1. Out do one another in showing honor

2. Live in harmony with one another

3. Repay no one evil for evil

4. Overcome evil with good

What we see here is also a very strong illustration which parents could very well take as a clue in their parenting journeys. It is one which says that I am going to try to infuse goodness into something which is not good by my being good, which God can use to touch the consciousness of that being who is not good.

This to me seems like a very solid formula for engendering that righteousness that we are all seeking to plant and build in ourselves first and secondarily in our children.

I'd be very interested in your view.

---

[1] Jack Hyles, How to Rear Children (Hammond, Ind.: Hyles-Anderson Publishers, 1972), pp.99-100

[2] Roy Lessin, Smacking: Why When How? (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1979), pg.79

Who said, We said, You said, They said, He said, She said, God said, man said, I said, No one said

Who said, We said, You said, They said, He said, She said, God said, man said, I said, No one said

by Samuel Martin

One of the more unfortunate aspects of the whole corporal punishment/smacking/spanking debate is the diversity of opinions surrounding the same basic information found in the Bible.

Yes, the Biblical texts in fact have not changed in 2,000 or more years, but what people have been saying about them - now the changes there are significant and varied.

This is often because of the issue of what someone said about the Biblical texts, hence the title of this post.

Who said, We said, You said, They said, He said, She said, God said, man said, I said, No one said

Most people advocating corporal punishment are lightning quick to quote the book of Proverbs as the general authoritative source (even before the New Testament) and the Biblical authority for corporal punishment/spanking/smacking.

Yet, when it comes to how people interpret those verses, it often becomes a question of what someone else said about the texts themselves that animates the opinions many people hold concerning this issue.

MASSIVE CONFUSION EXISTS CONCERNING WHAT THESE TEXTS MEAN

It will come as no surprise to anyone who has studied this issue even superficially that such a wide range of opinions and views exists on this issue that it is in fact quite hard for anyone to come to any unanimity of belief.

Let's start with the most extreme example and one which, in fact, is so widespread and a part of Western culture of the English speaking world since it first appeared in the "raunchy satirical poem" 'Hudibras' by Samuel Butler in the late 17th century. Yes, that ubiquitous phrase:

"Spare the rod, spoil the child"

Anyone who has anything to do with my FB page (www.facebook.com/byblechyld) will note that numerous times people have quoted this as if it comes from the Holy Bible. Some confidently assert the same to their own major shock when they discover the Bible never mentions this phrase. But some people just continue to perpetuate error unknowingly.

This example really helps us understand how much work there is to do because people have just identified cultural ideas which exist in 17th century literature and now these phrases have been put in God's mouth as Holy Writ. How unfortunate, but true.

Pass the story and what do you get?

I think most of us recognize how things can get jumbled as they pass from person to person. I remember growing up in grade school how one time my class got in a circle and the teacher told one person a very specific group of sentences. Then that person is supposed to tell the person next to them and so on. And what comes out the other end? A jumbled hodgepodge of unintelligible mumbo-jumbo that has almost no relevance to the original story at all.

Let us not misunderstand the fact that this is happening not only concerning innocents stories told in grade school, but, in fact, we have things which are traditional teachings passed down from previous generations as if they came directly from Christ Himself!

We are all familiar with some fairy tales which we have inherited from our previous generations. Many of these stories represent in some cases a Bible for the unlearned. Access to Biblical texts for the laity has only in the last five hundred years been more the norm. For the first 1,500 years of the history of the Christian Church, generally speaking, the Bible and its message was left in the hands of religious leaders. The laity had very little access to the Biblical material.

It is for this reason that stories started to develop. A good example of this is Jack and the Beanstalk. When we review this story, we notice numerous parallels with the story of another 'Jack' but this time it is someone from the Holy Scriptures. The "Jack" in question here is Jacob.

Instead of Jacob seeing a vision of a ladder going up to heaven, the beanstalk enters the picture due to cultural differences. And God in heaven is replaced with the giant. And what does the giant say? 'Fe Fi Fo Fum.' This is a symbolic phrase that refers to the name of God 'Yahweh' (eiou).

Many of these fairy tales were previously biblical stories which have just been jumbled and mixed up because people did not have access to the Biblical texts.

Could this be at work in some of these texts dealing with corporal punishment/smacking/spanking?

This could very well be the case. Much more research is needed into this material from the Middle Ages and the Early Church in particular, but I have noted in other posts that we have evidence of early Christian texts from the third century which interpret the texts in Proverbs as the words used by a father to control a child rather than referring to a literal rod. See the following for more information in this regard. http://samuelmartin.blogspot.co.il/2011/10/i-was-wrong-and-how-i-intend-to-make-it.html

Finally, there are prevailing beliefs among many English speaking Christians that corporal punishment is a teaching which is just common sense and conventional wisdom which is timeless and goes right back to the time Jesus with no interruption, but those who hold this view often have not studied the matter carefully and hold this view often based on their own erroneous suppositions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, many who hold those views are often so steeped in traditional views and so inflexible when it comes to anything dealing with the Bible, the spirit of learning new things is often something that they are afraid of. These dear people often forget the following texts (quoting here KJV):

"But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (Il Peter 3:18).

"That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God." (Colossians 1:10).

"The path of the just is as a shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day" (Proverbs 4:18).

This is what I think Prof. William Webb is talking about in his work dealing with corporal punishment and how his approach moves us more towards the redemptive spirit of Scripture: To grow in grace and knowledge, but also to grow in love. (See www.redemptivechristianity.com)

Let us not fear the truth. Because "your Word is truth'. (John 17:17)

Jesus Christ--our true calling - A guest post by Heather Schopp

Dear friends,

I am really happy to have wonderful guest post here from Heather Schopp. Heather can often be found on Karen Campbell's wonderful page - www.thatmom.com - Heather has a number of lectures on Karen's page from some of the conferences that she has taken part in. My recommendation? Listen to everything from Heather and Karen that you can get your ears around!

Heather is one of the most powerful and elegant writers you will find anywhere on God's great blogosphere. Check out some of her work here below.   

Jesus Christ--our true calling

We tend to make rigid fences of our denominations. The denomination's list of doctrines become the acceptable "truth"--anyone outside that fence is at best not as Christian, at worst condemned. People within the fence sometimes throw the word "heretic" at anyone who doesn't interpret the Bible according to their code. So we stand behind our fences and feel safe as the "chosen" or the "one true church."

But who am I to think I have the corner on truth?

My friend said it well: "I'm a Christian first, and I happen to feel comfortable practicing my faith as a Lutheran." ....not because Luther had all the correct answers, not because non-Lutherans are all wrong -- but simply because she feels content there and is growing in her faith. I too attend a denominational church, and I think it's natural and appropriate to find a place where it feels comfortable to worship, where one shares a common belief system with other attenders.

We are called not to take on the identity of our pastor or priest or church or denomination -- but to take on the identity of Jesus Christ. We have been given minds that question and doubt and are capable of learning and growing and changing -- are we allowing those questions to spring forth, the doubts to arise, that learning and changing and growing to happen? If we sit in our churches as mindless vessels, letting the speaker pour in his/her thoughts, we have set aside the instincts, the beautiful minds God has given us. How can that be honoring to Him? He alone has the corner on truth, is Truth itself.

More and more I see knowing Jesus, understanding truth, as a process. There is not a certain magic prayer that flips a switch and makes one a Christian, not a code that when followed grants a heavenly entrance, not a list of doctrines that when accepted puts a person on the "right path."

Jesus will is to draw all men to Himself -- we can resist, we can misunderstand, but He will not stop drawing and revealing His light. Our churches and denominations should enhance that process, should help us to understand and love Jesus and love others more.

When we let churches/denominations define our faith, when we allow them to put a barrier between us and other Christians, between us and the world, we do a disservice to our faith, to others, to the truth, to Jesus Christ. We should not fear questions of faith and doctrine, differences of beliefs and convictions -- they are opportunities for us to grow and draw closer to Jesus, Who remains the unchanging truth.

Greet each other with a holy kiss

"Greet each other with a holy kiss"

When I still lived in America, I spent quite a bit of my time there living in Southern California. During that time, when I was in my mid-20's, I had a close friend who attended a very conservative Amish-type church.

This church was a part of a group of similar churches located in the SW part of America and the church had its roots if I remember correctly in the German tradition. 

On several occasions, I had the pleasure of visiting the church and worshipping with the community.

Upon arrival and before the service commenced, they gave you food to eat. You would sit down at a type of lunch counter they had in the church and have a sandwich before the service. 

These dear people were very conservative Biblically. The women kept their hair covered, wore very conservative plain clothing, no make-up or jewelry or the like. Men wore very simple conservative suits and simple clothes.

It was a community of believers really seeking to live out the Christian life as they understood it. 

When it came time to enter the service, we would go inside and then the men and women would be separated and sat on separate sides of the church. 

Then, the service would begin with the preaching elder standing up and he would then randomly open a King James Version of the Bible to any section of Scripture and start to give a message ad-hoc on whatever text he turned to.

Everything seemed fine, until ....

Everything about the church and the people seemed totally fine, but then something happened which absolutely caused me to do a double take.

We had arrived at the church early and had gone in to eat something before others, but when we were done and were moving to the sanctuary, I saw something that caused the eye brows to be raised, and not slightly. 

I was walking by two grown men who proceeded to kiss each other on the mouth!

Now, let's be clear. They did so in a very kind of dignified way and they sort of closed their lips and just kind of "kissed" each other very quickly and simply. It was did not involve any other body contact at all, just the simple "kiss," but it was two men kissing each other on the mouth!

"What did I just see?"

Upon seeing this, I sort of turned to my friend and said: "I just saw those two guys sort of kiss each other? What in the heck is going on with that?" Then he told me, "Oh yeah, it's no big deal, they are just following Paul command to "Greet each other with a holy kiss." (This is no small matter either because it is mentioned in the New Testament four times - Romans 16:16; I Corinthians 16:20; II Corinthians 13:12; I Thessalonians 5:26)

But I came back and said: "But, they are dudes and their sort of kissing each other in a very kind of creepy way?" He said, "Well, to them, that is how they have been taught to do it and it is perfectly fine and in fact, it is "holy." 

Now, note that only the men greeted each other in this fashion. No male/female kissing of any kind took place at all. 

But this example points to a very important issue of how culture shapes how we look at the Biblical text.

According to the tradition of this church, this is how their founding community interpreted these verses and the way in which the "kiss" was undertaken was on the lips between male members of the church. 

A more authentic approach according to what Paul was talking about 

Now, I think that most people will admit that people here in Israel are probably closer to the way that things were done in ancient times by sheer geography. It should not be unreasonable to think that after two thousand years, the people who live in Jerusalem today probably have a closer connection to the ancient traditions than do people living in Southern California, everything else being equal. A good example of this is as follows.

Recently, I was on my way to Jerusalem and as I waited for a bus to come, I saw a car stop in front of me and a young man about 18 got out and greeted another young man right in front of me. He did so using the traditional Arab “kiss”, a cheek to cheek approach. Generally speaking, you find men doing it to relatives or friends at special occasions or when they have not seen each other in some time. Normally, the parties will “kiss” the other persons cheek two or three times, but for relatives or very special events like weddings or the like, you will see them “kissing” each other more than two or three times. Such was the case of these two young men who looked as if they were not related, but that they had not seen each other in some time. I heard what they were talking about and one boy told the other that he was going to visit a nearby village and his friend insisted very vigorously that he allow him to take him to his destination. Then, they both got in the car and left. 

So, now how does all of this relate to the issue that serves as the heading for this short section: “Greet each other with a holy kiss?” The point is, we find this phrase used by Paul four times. These are: Romans 16:16; I Corinthians 16:20; II Corinthians 13:12 and I Thessalonians 5:26. Now isn’t it interesting that Paul encouraged these Gentile churches to greet each other in this fashion. Certainly, they did touch each other in the process and more importantly, Paul himself must have been “greeting people with a holy kiss”; that is, he was physically touching Gentile people! Note in I Corinthians 16:19, he even mentions “Aquila and Prisca (a woman) and then he urges them to greet each other in this fashion.

Now, we can get into long discussions about the issues of family purity and what may have been taking place, but what is clear is that people interpret Paul very differently based upon their own experience and what they think he means with the phrase "Greet each other with a holy kiss" and to some people, it means that in the 21st century, some Christian communities in America have men kissing each other on the mouth and here in the Middle East, referring to the same text, you have people "kissing" each other cheek to cheek.

In my view, I am more in favor of the Middle Eastern model, but can certainly appreciate the intent.

Now, let's ask ourselves to compare this issue to that of corporal punishment/spanking/smacking?

Here we have to ask ourselves? How do we understand the texts in Proverbs? Do we understand them according to the way St. Paul did (the Middle Eastern way)? Or are we off in a kind of late European way of understanding?

We have an example of what Paul thought of the rod in fact when he said:

"What do you wish? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?" (I Corinthians 4:21)

We really have to search our hearts and ask ourselves do we really know what the Bible means today and can we really be sure that we are just not like two dudes kissing each other on the lips? 

This is a reasonable question that all advocating corporal punishment/smacking/spanking need to ask themselves because the stakes are so much higher than some guy seeing something take place and feeling a bit odd.

 

Was Saint Paul really a “tentmaker” as we understand this idea today?

Was Saint Paul really a “tentmaker” as we understand this idea today?

I think that we are all fairly familiar with the general history of St. Paul and his life. We understand from the New Testament that St. Paul’s family, as far as the Jewish world was concerned, must have been considered quite well off. They were Roman citizens. In fact, he went to study Jewish law and jurisprudence in Jerusalem from an early age. He even mentions that he “studied at the feel of Gamliel.” (Acts 22:3) Note the following synopsis.

“In this article we aren’t so much interested in Paul’s biography as we are in relating his theological background to his role as apostle of grace. We know that Paul (then Saul) was born in Tarsus, the son of a Pharisee who was also a Roman citizen. Paul went to Jerusalem early in life to study with the great rabbi Gamaliel. In his first Jerusalem trial (Acts 22:2), Paul introduced himself to the Sanhedrin as he who learned "at the feet of Gamaliel." This phrase means more than we would take it for at first glance. It sounds like Paul is giving homage to his teacher, and that he hung on Gamaliel’s every word. Actually, Paul used this figure of speech to remind the Sanhedrin just how important a figure Saul of Tarsus was, even from his earliest years in Jerusalem. In the synagogues, students sat in an arrangement that reflected their academic position. We have a description of a typical academic synagogue setting in which Paul would have studied:

"The academy head presided, seated on a chair or on special mats. In the front rows opposite him sat the important scholars, including his colleagues or outstanding pupils, and behind them all the other scholars. When the academies grew larger, particularly in Palestine, the order of the seating was based on a precisely defined hierarchy. In the first row sat the great scholars, in the second row the less important sages, and so on" (Adin Steinsaltz, The Essential Talmud).

We can, therefore, picture the apostle as a young man, seated front and center, at the very feet of the renowned and revered Gamaliel. Already at the top of his class, he was on his way to becoming the leading Pharisee.

Paul also wrote to the Galatians (1:14) that he was extremely zealous for the law, and his academic accomplishments exceeded that of many of his peers. This may have been a humble way of saying that he really excelled above everyone when it came to legalistic knowledge. Along with other mentions of his "qualifications" (Phil. 3:4-6, Acts 22:3, 23:6) we can assume that Paul had no superiors in the world of Pharisaism. Had not God intervened in his life, he was destined to become the next great rabbinical leader. Just as men like Gamaliel, Hillel, Rabbi Akiba, and many others have become Talmudic legends, so also Saul of Tarsus would have doubtless joined the list. Perhaps he may have achieved the great title of Rabbi Saul of Tarsus.” (http://www.tidings.org/studies/legalism1199.htm)

No doubt, of the people who make up the writers of the Holy Bible, St. Paul was certainly the most educated. But did he make physical tents for a living? According to the book of Acts, Paul is termed as a “tentmaker.” (Greek: skenopoios) However, isn’t it interesting that find this word used only one time in the Bible? In addition, note that according to the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, in the article “Paul,” vol. VII, pg. 789, it says: “This trade is described by Luke as that of a skenopoios, a word regarding the meaning of which there has been no small difference of opinion.” Maybe this word does not actually mean “tentmaker?”

Yes, Paul may very well have been an actual tentmaker, but note what Ronald Hock of UCLA says: “That Paul was a tentmaker (skenopoios) we learn only from Luke (cf. Acts 18:3). Although there is no reason to doubt Luke at this point (cf. E. Haenchen; The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971] 538), the nature of Paul’s trade is still not clear. Of the two options – weaving tent clothe from goat’s hair (cilicium) or cutting and sewing leather to make tents – the latter is to be preferred.”[1]

We can see from these points that it is not exactly clear what Paul’s precise occupation was. However, it appears to have involved leather cutting, which may have been used in the fashioning of tents.

Let us be clear though on one thing. St. Paul, being that most educated of all of the Biblical writers, he no doubt was involved in the transmission of written records (including his own) to the Christian Church. Note the following discussion that my father made concerning Paul and his academic pursuits, which related in a practical way to the construction of codex form books. Those of you who have read the book Restoring the Original Bible will remember this important discussion:

“Timothy and John Mark were asked by Paul to fetch three important items and bring them to Rome. "When you come, bring the cloak [Greek: phelonen] I left with Carpus, and the scrolls, especially the parchments" (II Timothy 4:13). It is interesting that the phelonen, usually considered to be a heavy outer garment, would be mentioned alongside the paper scrolls (actually scrolls made from the papyrus plant) and the parchments (these were animal skins on which permanent documents were normally written). It seems odd that a heavy coat would be in the same context with literary documents. Most scholars, however, point out that Paul wanted Timothy and Mark to hurry to Rome before winter (verse 21) and that he probably wanted the phelonen which he left with Carpus in order to keep himself warm when the cold would set in.

This may be the case, but there are some difficulties with this interpretation. The truth is, the word phelonen had another meaning in the Greek world at the time, and it is one that is intimately connected with scrolls and parchments.

Vincent, in his Word Studies in the New Testament, has this to say about the word phelonen.  "Hesychius explains it as originally a case for keeping the mouthpieces of wind-instruments; thence, generally, a box. Phrynicus, a Greek sophist of the second half of the third century, defines it as ‘a receptacle for books, clothes, silver, or anything else.' Phelonen was a wrapper of parchments, and was translated figuratively in Latin by toga or paenula ‘a cloak,' sometimes of leather; also the wrapping which a shopkeeper put round fish or olives; also the parchment cover for papyrus rolls.

Accordingly it is claimed that Timothy in 4:13 is bidden to bring, not a cloak, but a roll-case. So the Syriac Version." (p.326)

The fact is, the word phelonen can mean either a cloak (and it is commonly used that way in Greek literature) or it could mean a receptacle for the placement of scrolls and parchments. It is the context which must determine what the apostle Paul meant by the use of phelonen in II Timothy 4:13. Since the word is found right next to scrolls and parchments, the immediate context would suggest a "book cover" a "book case" or "book slip" into which scrolls or pages of books were placed. As Vincent stated, the Syriac Version of the New Testament understood it in that manner.

Chrysostom, in the fourth century, commented on this very reference of Paul's and stated that some thought Paul meant a "book case" a receptacle for books (Hom. in loc. vol. XI, p.780, ed. Gaume). Even Jerome mentioned this point (Epist. 36, ad Damasum).

What is meant can only be determined by the context, because the word can signify either a heavy outer coat, a book case or some outer cover for books. Even in our modern times we have problems in interpreting similar words unless a proper context is provided. Let me give two illustrations to show the difficulty.

In these examples we will consider the modern words jacket, wrap and cover, Suppose a letter were found in which a woman college student wrote her mother. She said that she wanted her mother to "go to the closet and get out my heavy jacket and send it to me. It will provide the cover I need from the cold. I am now using the wrap you gave me for my birthday and it is not warm enough."

If such a letter were found, the context makes it clear that the girl is talking about outer garments in all instances. But what if the following letter were found, "Go to the bookstore and buy the latest fiction book you wrote me about. Take the jacket off, because dust wraps on the books annoy me. Make sure, however, that the book has a hard cover because I don't like paperbacks."

Though these two illustrations use exactly the same words, they signify opposite things. Obviously, no one would get confused over what was intended in either case, because the contexts are plain as to what was meant. But let us return to our word phelonen in II Timothy 4:13. It could mean either a book case, a book wrapper, a book jacket, a book cover, or it could mean a heavy outer garment. Vincent in his Word Studies had no objection to it being an ordinary cloak because, like many other modern translators, he noted that Paul asked Timothy and John Mark to come to Rome before winter (verse 21). To many scholars this provides the context in which to interpret phelonen, though admittedly the reference to winter is eight verses away from the use of the word. On the other hand, the word phelonen is found in the very verse (and context) which mentions the scrolls and parchments that Paul needed. Contextually, it would seem more logical to think of phelonen as being associated with literary documents. Indeed, it is even better to consider it that way because Luke was still with Paul in Rome and surely he could have secured for Paul any protective garment to keep away the cold during the approaching winter. Would it be necessary to fetch an outer garment all the way from Troas to keep Paul covered for the short time he was to remain alive? The fact is, Paul's reference to winter (verse 21) is by context too far away for the phelonen to mean an actual cloak. But with the word intimately connected (in a perfect context) with the literary documents which Paul was urgently requesting Timothy and John Mark to bring with them, it seems more probable that the interpretation of the Syriac Version, along with the suggestions found in Chrysostom and Jerome, happen to be correct. It appears that Paul wanted his important book case (his receptacle for carrying books) to be brought at once to Rome and the request was one of pressing necessity.” (E. L. Martin, Restoring the Original Bible, Chapter 24)

In this discussion, we can note the interesting point that here is Paul referring to something which could have been very well made of leather and it was used to cover books? Very interesting when we consider the whole “tentmaker” argument because my father endeavored clearly to show that St. Paul was involved in the construction of books and manuscripts and official documents related to the Christian Church. Perhaps his trade was one of a leather worker and he just transferred the knowledge that he had acquired in making leather items, like tents, to the trade of making books with leather covers and bindings utilizing leather in their construction? One thing for sure, St. Paul was certainly a highly educated man whose career path was going not into the private sector, but his destiny was to be a doctor of the law with the title of Rabbi Saul. He does not seem to have prepared himself specifically for a life of commercial enterprise. Let me know what you think on this interesting issue. 

---

[1] http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231%28197812%2997%3A4%3C555%3APTATPO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage