II JOHN 10 -- HOW HOSPITABLE SHOULD CHRISTIANS BE TOWARD OUTSIDERS?

Peter Davids brings up the apparent contradiction between two New Testament teachings regarding the welcoming of strangers. Whereas the general tenor of the NT teaches the principle of Christian hospitality toward others (cf. Hebrews 13:2), it seems to actually be prohibited in II John 10. To address this issue, there are several points that need to be clarified.

The first, and most important, considerations is to look at the context of this command by John. It is addressed to “the elect lady and her children.” That is almost universally understood by commentators to refer to the hostess of a home church and those who meet in her home. In other words, it has nothing to say regarding whom you wish to entertain privately at your own house.

Secondly, verse 10 is preceded in verses 7-9 by a description of those who should be excluded from your home church gatherings. These include (1) those who teach that Jesus the man and Christ, the second person of the Trinity, are not the same person as well as (2) those who do not hold to the teachings of Christ in general. Note that these criteria are a bit loose and subject to much interpretation depending upon the exact circumstances.

Lastly, the reason for such exclusion is given in verse 11: If you welcome such people into your group, you are aiding and abetting Satan. Once we understand this underlying reason for the teaching, it does give us more guidelines by which to judge individual situations. And we get some additional help from passages such as Romans 14:1 in which Paul advises the church in Rome: “As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions.” To understand this one, we must keep in mind that just because a person is “weak” in the faith, that does not at all correlate with how strongly he may express his own opinions on any spiritual topic. As a biblical example, Apollos was a powerful Christian speaker who, however, needed to be taken aside by two itinerant tent makers to correct him on his incomplete theology.

Let me share a few examples from my own life which may illustrate how these various teachings were or were not well followed:

At the first church I attended after leaving for graduate school, we had a small evening college fellowship. Once we decided to have a short series on the subject of science and the Bible, and invited a select, and quite diverse, group of outside speakers. One was a very belligerent fundamentalist pastor in town who had a weekly radio show. He came in with an obvious chip on his shoulder and assumed without any evidence that we were a group of flaming liberals or atheists masquerading as Christians. We listened to him rant and rave for an hour without comment from us and thanked him for coming as he walked out in a huff. The young woman in our church who had suggested him as a visiting speaker later reported a little bemusedly that we were the subject of his following weekly tirade even though we hadn't said a single word to offend him.

Another speaker for this same series was a professor who taught an introductory class in the Bible at the University of Oregon. We began as usual with the singing of a few hymns and an opening prayer. The prof began his talk by saying, “I can tell that you people are not what I would call very theologically sophisticated, and so I will try to talk down to a level you might be able to comprehend.” Again, I was very proud of our group because they did not take any obvious offense in what he said, but listened politely without comment.

It might be said that we had totally ignored John's advice in inviting these two speakers, but fortunately all of us in the group were rather experienced and dedicated Christians, and thus there was not the slightest chance of us being misled in either direction with what they said. Instead, it only served to strengthen our faith even more after seeing such rude examples from both extremes of the theological spectrum.

While at the U of O, I roomed with four Catholics. At one of the houses we rented, a very polite Jehovah Witness came to the door, and one of my roommates thought it might be interesting to invite him back in the evening. Since none of them possessed a Bible, I loaned them a couple of mine to share between them. The man returned, accompanied by his small son (By the way, this was a wise move on his part and probably one of the things they are taught since they know that no one is likely to get highly argumentative with a person while his impressionable son is looking on).

He started in on one of the main points of contention Christians have with the Witnesses, the deity of Christ. He would ask us to turn to a passage, at which point I had to help my roommates find where the New Testament was and how to find that particular book and chapter in it. He would then read the verse, eliminating all surrounding context, and in each case it was fortunate that I could easily point to a verse nearby which clarified the passage and totally invalidated his point. He went through a number of passages in that manner, and we thanked him for his time as he left. I am not sure that I managed to convince him of any of the points I had made, but it did have a salutary effect on my roommates.

At least with a Jehovah Witness, there is a basis of commonality in a belief in the Bible. I can't say the same for the Mormons. I am afraid that the few times I went with Gwen to the local Mormon church library for her genealogy research, I got the creeps just looking at some of the pictures they had hanging on their walls. But I would have brief encounters at my front door with the young pairs of men who liked to canvass our neighborhood. Just the fact that they were no more than 20 years old and called themselves “elders” was enough to turn me off. I did do them the courtesy of reading the Book of Mormon cover to cover and making notes in the margin on all the mistakes and ridiculous events in it, as well as the large sections cobbled together from miscellaneous Bible passages, but presented as if they were spoken by pre-Colonial Jewish settlers in America.

At one point, the Mormons gave me one of their monthly publications and told me that there was an article in it proving that the Book of Mormon had all the characteristics noted in the Bible. I actually purchased a book that was the basis of that claim. It was by a Brigham Young professor of law who claimed he had detected in the Book of Mormon the same literary symmetry found throughout the Old and New Testament. Since that just happened to be the subject of a 20+ year study I had been conducting myself, I was easily able to debunk all those claims and show that the only traces of real symmetry were found in those long passages that had been lifted verbatim from the Bible.

Getting back to the specific subject of entertaining those of dubious theological pretensions in your home church, Gwen and I belonged to two such home groups for a number of years while in Georgetown. At one of these, we were between subjects to study when one of our members said that there was a Bible teacher in town who had given a 4-6 week study on the Bible to another home group and they thoroughly enjoyed it. We invited him to present his series to us, and I for one soon regretted that decision. I would have to agree that it was indeed interesting to listen to, but when I asked the speaker at a break to provide me with the original sources of some of the enlightening “facts” he had been presenting [including the exact number of Christians Saul killed before his conversion and the discovery of Noah's ark], the best he could come up with were an article from a defunct Australian newspaper and a publication put out by a group of Christian businessmen in Singapore – hardly definitive sources.

At another point I privately warned him that equating the creation of light in Genesis 1 with the fact that Jesus is called “light” in the New Testament is the same as proclaiming that Jesus is a created being, a blatant heresy by any standard. He admitted that “perhaps” it could be taken that way and said he would eliminate that from his future presentations. As to the array of quite dubious “facts” he had been regaling us with, I pointed out to him that they were all speculative at best and out-and-out lies at worst. He admitted that I was probably right but responded, “I put them in because they are new and exciting for my audience and grab their attention before presenting the important theological points that I make in my last lessons. I interpreted that to mean he was willing to peddle untruths in the service of truth.

The end of the story is that we were very polite during his presentations, no one (including myself) confronted him openly, and in the weeks after he had left I was able to sort out the wheat from the chaff in a subsequent talks to our group to make sure that no one was misled by what he had said. This is not exactly the same situation that the apostle John was taking about since our invited speaker was not an actual heretic by any means, and again our group consisted of those who had been Christians for years and were unlikely to be led astray too badly by any false teachings. And at the same time, I think it is sometimes very helpful in such situations to be exposed to aberrant ideas to help develop discernment in believers.

Finally, the same general principle taught by John in II John 10 can be applied to Sunday school groups since putting an untested teacher in charge of one is a risky business. So I understood, and actually appreciated, it whenever I joined a new church and volunteered to teach a class, when the leadership took the pains to first carefully monitor what I was saying to make sure that I was not misleading anyone. This was done at one church by first having me team-teach with one of their more experienced teachers. And at a subsequent congregation, the pastor himself sat in on all the special evening classes I taught – at first, I am sure, to keep me on the straight and narrow and later because, as he admitted later, he found he was learning something new himself.

Twice after that point, that pastor asked me to be the one to talk to men in the church who had proposed starting new Sunday school classes and possibly to team-teach with them. One of these men was obviously only interested in utilizing a class as the basis of a multi-generational sociological study he wanted to do. In the other case, the would-be teacher turned out to be a rather obnoxious and totally heretical son of one of the influential deacons in the church. I gained both of those insights in the first and only meeting I had with him at a coffee shop where he was much more interested in what was on his laptop computer than taking the time to talk to me. I think our pastor was also very dubious about letting his teach, but wanted some added ammunition before confronting the father with that news. Fortunately, it turned out the man's father was even more adamant that his son not be allowed to teach and even brought pressure to bear to get him removed from the church rolls.

At that same church, I learned that before I had begun attending, a man started teaching a Sunday school class downstairs on the Jewish customs in the Bible. With time, he began teaching them rudimentary Hebrew and Jewish chants, which morphed into a two-hour session in which they had their own worship service in place of the one held upstairs. Actually, it was an exact replay of what Paul encountered in churches such as at Galatia when “Judaizers” infiltrated the church and began demanding that every Gentile there be circumcised and that all the Jewish ceremonies be observed. After letting the situation get out of control in our church, at last the leadership disbanded the splinter group which had in effect set up their own independent church under our roof.

The same sort of thing happened at that church when I was serving on the Personnel Committee during a time when we were between senior pastors. One of the members of the church was a young man whose full-time job was as a motivational speaker for businesses. He attracted many of the young married men in the congregation to his class where he taught them that they were not only the future of the church, but they should take their rightful spot right now as leaders. And the hiatus between church leadership at the time provided the ideal opportunity for them to do so. As a result, they practically led a revolt against the deacons and church committees, championing our youth pastor at the time as the obvious successor to power. This led to some really ugly confrontations, all of which would probably not have happened if some better screening and monitoring of the Sunday school teacher had been done from the very beginning.

The upshot of all of it was that we had to discipline the youth pastor, warn the remaining associate pastors, and fire one of the church secretaries. The disgruntled youth pastor, along with all of those men in the class and wives, left to start their own church. That fledgling congregation lasted only about six months since the rather self-centered men in the group didn't want to put in the necessary money, time or effort to make a go of it. Instead, I learned that a number of them decided that what they really wanted to do was buy expensive motorcycles instead and ride them around during the weekends rather than attending church.

 

DOES THE BIBLE TALK OF THE "EVIL EYE"?

What does the Bible have to teach about the common belief in the power of the so-called evil eye? We might expect it to say something due to the pervasive feeling about magic in the Mediterranean area during that time period. For example, J.S. Wright says, “Magic abounds in Gk. mythology. Among those accredited with supernatural powers were the Telchines, smiths who lived on the island of Rhodes who had the evil eye and who bear a resemblance to the dwarfs and gnomes of north European mythology...The most renowned enchantress of antiquity was Medea who also had the evil eye...”

One of the anonymous scholars writing in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery states, “Nowhere is [the] view of the magical power inherent in the observer's eye more evident than in the almost universal belief in the power of the evil eye. Some people, it was thought, could bring about calamity by casting a spell with 'an evil eye.' The expression of jealous sentiments or even compliments were viewed as harboring vengeful spirits that would subsequently destroy what had been admired. In accordance with this outlook, the phrase 'evil eye' in Scripture is usually rendered conceptually as 'jealousy.' The literal phrase 'Is thine eye evil because I am good?' (Mt 20:15 AV) becomes 'Do you begrudge my generosity?' (RSV).” In that manner, “Some magical phrases almost escape detection.”

Deuteronomy 15:9-10

Baker: “The [later] rabbis did not add significantly to the wide range of usage of the nom. forms of this root [ra'a = evil] already evident in the OT; in fact, they seemed to use it in all of its riches. Instead of the heart being grudging (Deut 15:10), a later idiom spoke of the illiberal eye. There also developed the idea of the evil eye, defined as bewitchment.”

“A potential creditor might be unwilling to make a loan to a poor man because of the proximity of the year of release [when all debts were forgiven]...The only way in which to avoid such a situation was to inculcate a generous attitude toward the man...” (Craigie)

Deuteronomy 28:54, 56

The King James Version renders these verses as, “His eye shall be evil toward his brother” and “her eye shall be evil toward the husband...” The context of these words involves a prophecy of a coming time of siege against the people of Israel in which food shall be so scarce that people will horde what little they have and not even share it with their closest relatives.

Isaiah 29:20

“Eyes picture the presence or absence of evil in a person...Isaiah refers to evil people as those with 'an eye for evil' (Isa 29:20).” (DBI) Obviously, this does not refer to some sort of magical curse, but just the evil tendencies of some people.

Proverbs 23:6

NRSV translates the meaning of this verse as, “Do not eat the bread of the stingy; do not desire their delicacies.”

Waltke: “A begrudging host (lit. 'evil eye' > 'stingy') is the opposite of the generous person (lit. 'good eye'; see 22:9; cf. Deut. 15:9; Sir. 14:10).”

Proverbs 28:22

“He that hasteth to be rich hath an evil eye and considereth not that poverty shall come upon him.” (KJV)

“The miser is in a hurry to get rich and does not know that loss is sure to come.” (NRSV)

This is another example of the difference between reading a literal rendering which is highly misleading and one in which the underlying idiom is translated so that its underlying meaning can be properly understood.

Matthew 5:29

Banwell states, “Mt. v. 29 preserves the Hebraic notion of the almost self-contained function of the organ [e.g. 'eyes'].” That verse reads, “And if your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out.” He notes that the phrase “an evil eye” occurs in Proverbs 27:6 and Matthew 6:23.

Matthew 6:23 // Luke 11:34

“In view of the recognized meaning of the 'bad eye' to denote selfish greed or meanness, it seems likely that this saying is meant to indicate that one indication of a person's spiritual health is their generosity or lack of it in the use of their material possessions.” (France)

Matthew 20:15

This verse occurs at the end of the Parable of the Vineyard Laborers. Again, compare the literal translation of the Greek words (“Or is the eye of you evil because I am good?”) with a modern rendering such as the Jerusalem Bible (“Why be envious because I am generous?”)

Acts 13:9

“Only in Acts 13:9 is the look directly incorporated in a context of cursing. It is not stated or implied, however, that anything like an evil eye is employed in the curse.” (Liefeld) The context of this verse involves Paul looking “intently” at the magician Elymas before bringing a curse of blindness upon him.

Galatians 3:1

Despite the above event, “The notion of the 'evil eye' that is common throughout most religious traditions is notably absent from the Bible (though Gal 3:1 may be a veiled reference).” [That verse reads “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?”] Belief in the 'evil eye' was criticized by preachers in the early church.” (DBI)

I searched commentators on Galatians to see if anyone else related this verse to the “evil eye,” with the following results:

Stott feels that the primary meaning has to do with satanic activity. However, he adds, “It is possible that Paul is is making a further allusion to their having been bewitched. He seems to be asking how some sorcerer could have put them under the spell of the evil eye, when before their very eyes Christ has been portrayed as crucified.”

Guthrie says that “while we cannot suppose that the apostle had any acquaintance with contemporary magic, the word [i.e. bewitched] is vividly appropriate...He can only suggest somewhat ironically that they must be under some adverse magic.”

“One would think they had been charmed or bewitched. Naturally the apostle does not mean this in the literal sense.” (Ribberous)

“Baskaino (here only in the NT) means 'fascinate' (from the cognate Lat. fascino) or 'bewitch' (originally by means of the evil eye). The other meaning, 'envy' (cf. Deut. 28:56), is not relevant here. Translate: 'who has hypnotized you.' Their new behavior was so strange, so completely at odds with the liberating message which they had previously accepted, that it appeared as if someone had put a spell on them.” (Bruce)

Martyn states: “Paul believes that in order fully to identify the Teachers' seductive wiles he must reach into the vocabulary of magic, for these people are not only frightening the Galatians, they are also leading them astray by casting a spell over them. This is the only place in his letters at which Paul uses the verb baskaino, 'to bewitch,' 'to put the evil eye upon,' ...indicating that they are damaging the minds of the Galatians.”

Thus, we see that there is really not one of the above references which unambiguously states that there is such a magical thing as the “evil eye.”

Early Christian History

Bringing this quick review up to the post-biblical period, there is some interesting information found in a recent article in Biblical Archaeology Today by Megan Nutzman.“The church historian Eusebius wrote around 315 CE [i.e. AD] that Christians would 'not allow their sick even to do what is exceedingly common with non-Christians, to make use of charms written on leaves or amulets. Later in the fourth century John Chrysostom regularly admonished his congregation in Antioch against the use of amulets.” Such magical devices were hung around the neck and inscribed in various ways or contained appropriate OT passages to guard against harmful forces such as the evil eye. It is felt that these may have been worn in analogy to the phylacteries worn by practicing Jews, but in any case they were certainly frowned upon by early church leaders as smacking of superstitious beliefs.

 

SPENDOMAI ("POUR OUT") IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

This rare Greek word only appears twice in the Bible, Philippians 2:17 and II Timothy 4:6, both times in almost identical settings.

Before going any further, it is best to consider the word definition, as explained by some linguistic experts:

France points out that “the technical term for offering libations (of wine) is spendo (translating Heb. nasak)...Paul takes up the pouring of libations as a metaphor for his approaching martyrdom, in his use of spendo in Phil. 2:17 and 2 Tim. 4:6. The libation is not like the blood sacrifices, an atoning offering, but an expression of dedication to God.”

Moving backwards to the original Hebrew parallel term in the OT, Averbeck discusses the word nasak as follows: “Within the sanctuary system libations constituted a significant part of the ritual procedures even on a regular daily basis (Exod 29:40-41; Num 28:5-8), and it was specifically legislated that libations along with grain offerings should normally accompany any burnt or peace offering (Num 15:1-15; cf. Lev 23:13, 18, 37). The idea behind this combination of food offerings seems to be that a good meal would not be complete without meat and bread as well as a drink combined.”

When we consider the two places Paul utilizes this imagery, there are two issues I would like to zero in on: (1) What kind of sacrifice does Paul have in mind with his metaphor? and (2) What does it say about the disputed authorship of II Timothy?

Philippians 2:17

“In his letters Paul took over the Jewish-Christian interpretation of the death of Jesus which saw its saving efficacy in terms of OT sacrificial language...And in Phil. 2:17 he sees his own impending martyrdom in similar terms: 'Even if I am to be poured [spendomai] as a libation upon the sacrificial offering [epi te thysia kai leitourgia] of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all' (cf. Phil. 19-26). It has been argued that the use of the vb. spendomi ('pour out') is never used of the pouring out of blood sacrifice, and that Paul has in mind not his death but his apostolic labors (cf. R.P. Martin...). However, the use of the word thysia and the fact that Paul was in prison expecting the possibility of execution suggest that Paul was thinking of his death, not as a propitiatory sacrifice but as a freewill offering for the sake of the church.” (C. Brown)

Melick feels that 'poured out' definitely referred to the procedure of pouring a drink offering either before or after the offering itself....Some interpret this to mean his impending martyrdom, of which Paul was certain. Others think of it in terms of his apostolic ministry, which often included suffering. While Paul may have entertained the idea of martyrdom, he was not unduly pessimistic at this point. His language is reflective. It seems to be a verbalization of thoughts about his life and its meaning ...While many think of Paul's life as the offering, that blurs the metaphor.”

“Thysia and leitourgia, sacrificial service, the Philippians' faith, are what Paul rejoices over...” Reumann notes that in the Greco-Roman world, blood was rarely used as a libation. “Paul has no intention to commit suicide. He is already pouring himself out as a libation in his missionary career and current situation. Therefore not of death, let alone martyrdom, but apostolic labors and sufferings, including now prison [are what he is speaking about].”

Martin: “The verb means 'to pour out as a drink offering' and denotes, in sacrificial terms, a violent, even a bloody, death...The essential part of the sacrificial ritual, however, is not to be discovered in the libation described by the verb. The real sacrifice is that of the Philippians' faith...They are offering their faith in the closeness of their fellowship with the apostle and by their active support of his needs.” Melick agrees with this interpretation, as do the following three commentators.

“Paul wants them to see his death as an act of worship...The Philippians are portrayed as priests at an altar offering up the sacrificial gift of their faith. Paul's life blood is being poured out as a libation.., the completion or crowning touch to their offering of faith.” (Craddock)

Hughes says, “Paul saw the Philippians as priests offering a sacrificial offering of faith, followed by his pouring his own libation over it...he viewed his service as a complement or contribution to their service.”

Hendricksen: “The pouring out of Paul's blood is a reason for joy to him as long as it can be considered a drink offering which crowns the sacrificial offering brought by the Philippians...their “Christian life and conduct, springing from faith.”

II Timothy 4:6

Let us first deal with two comments from those who feel that II Timothy was written by an author other than Paul:

“Harrison finds it inconceivable that such a metaphor [as found in Philippians] could have been stored in Paul's mind during the four or five intervening years, but the idea of a Christian martyr's life-blood being a libation or drink-offering was sufficiently striking when it had once caught the imagination of a man like Paul, to recur to his mind on many occasions.” (Guthrie) I would add to Guthrie's objection to Harrison's ridiculous notion the fact that even I, with my much more limited mind than Paul's, can still vividly remember special quips and comebacks I came up with almost 70 years ago and quote them verbatim.

Then there is Hanson, who states that “the author has modelled much of the language of 4:4-22 on Phil. 2:12-30. The two passages have in common the figure of a libation; instructions about the sending and arrival of assistants; a complaint of being deserted; a reference to Timothy working for the gospel; a reference to the race that Paul has run (Phil. 1:16 and 2 Tim. 4:7); and a reference to a coming judicial decision about Paul. We could say of 2 Tim. 4:5-18 that it is Phil. 2:12-13 rewritten in the light of Paul's death as a martyr.”

Addressing that theory, Towner responds, “The language of this section is thought to echo (or depend on) Phil 2:12-18...However, theories of literary dependence generally presume the author of 2 Timothy could not be Paul, and an excessive tone of self-exaltation is often detected in this depiction of Pauline faithfulness. Whatever the difficulties involved in the argument for authenticity, this kind of criticism is entirely subjective and without weight.”

You may have picked up on the fact that both Harrison and Hanson basically criticize II Timothy 4:6 for being too close in language and thought to Paul's genuine writing in Philippians. That is interesting since liberal scholars commenting on other passages in the “inauthentic” or “pseudo-Pauline” letters in the NT often take the exactly opposite tack of claiming that the language utilized in those pious forgeries differs too much from Paul's genuine letters to be seriously considered as Pauline. In other words, with these critics you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Next are some closing comments on this libation from scholars who do believe in Paul as the author of II Timothy 4:6.

Ward: “If we think of the libation as coming after the sacrifice, then death is the climax of earthly worship. Philippians 2:17 points in this direction, but it should not be pressed. A preacher's illustration repeated after a matter of years need not be an exact repetition.”

Lea says that Paul “compared the pouring out of his energy in ministry to the pouring out of the wine of an Old Testament drink offering...They were totally expended [The English word 'spent'' comes from spendomai] or poured out as an accompaniment to the burnt offering in the sanctuary (Num 28:7). ...Paul was aware that he was slowly dying in God's service, and he felt that the shedding of his blood in martyrdom would complete the drink offering to God...The priests received none of the drink offering. These facts make Paul's use of the image all the more significant.”

 

GENESIS 25:22

This verse occurs in the middle of the story of the birth of Jacob and Esau. Van Dam and Swart summarize the action thusly:

“It was noteworthy that Esau and Jacob 'jostled each other' (rss) in the womb before their birth (Gen 25:22). Alarmed, Rebekah inquired of Yahweh for an explanation. He said, 'Two nations are within your womb, and two peoples within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger' (v. 23). Thus, the prebirth friction would carry over into later conflict.”

Kline and Knauth both comment on the fact that Rebekah was the one to receive the oracle:

    “It is highly interesting...that it was to Rebekah, rather than to Isaac himself, that God had revealed his plans for succession of the promise, as it been Rebekah who had taken the initiative to inquire of God in the first place (Gen 25:22). (Knauth)

    “Rebekah, as perhaps Isaac too, had recourse to a sanctified place, probably one of the patriarchal altars, in her distressed calling on God. Why, she wondered, had God healed her barrenness, if the issue of her conception would be unhappy, as the inner struggle made her fear it would.” (Kline)

The distress suffered by Rebekah at this point is addressed below:

    Wenham: “The pregnancy is so painful that she wonders if there is any point going on living. After they had grown up, Rebekah had similar thoughts (27:46).”

    Fokkelman: “How cruelly the sweet expectations of children, the greater after twenty years of hope and despair, are dashed for Isaac and Rebekah! As early as the pregnancy their parental happiness is threatened. 'What shall I do' Rebekah wonders in despair.”

This brings us to one of the two key points I would like to stress in this verse – Exactly what were the words spoken by Rebekah in response to her discomfort? Below is a brief survey of the renderings of several translations and paraphrases of her words.

The first five translations below treat the Hebrew wording here as too obscure or uncertain to render into English, and so they fall back on the early Syriac version instead as a guide:

    RSV – “If it is thus, why do I live?”

    NRSV – “If it is to be this way, why do I live?”

    JB – If this is the way of it, why go on living.”

    The Message – “If this is the way it's going to be, why go on living?”

    Living Bible – “I can't endure this.”

Then there are those translations who do not rely on the Syriac, but attempt to make sense out of the Hebrew directly:

    KJV – “If it be so, why am I thus?”

    TEV – “Why should something like this happen to me?”

    NIV – “Why is this happening to me?”

NEB – “If this is how it is with me, what does it mean?”

Wenham translates it as “If it is like this, why am I here?” His opinion is that resorting to the Syriac version is “unnecessary.”

Then there is Hamilton, who starts with the literal Hebrew words – “If thus, why this, I?” and renders it as, “If this is so, why ever I...?” His explanation of this truncated saying is that “Rebekah suddenly breaks off her thought.” And that may just be the best way to treat this difficult subject.

There was one other issue regarding this annunciation and birth story that struck me. I seemed to see several parallels between the birth of Jacob and the nativity story as told by Luke.

Luke 1:25 – Elizabeth conceives and says, “This is what the Lord has done for me when he looked favorably on me and took away the disgrace I have endured among my people.” Compare that miraculous answer to prayer with Rebekah's sudden ability to have children after many years of barrenness (Genesis 25:21). Of course, even more miraculous is the fact that Mary the virgin will be having a son at all.

Luke 1:33 – The angel Gabriel tells Mary that her Son “will reign over the house of Jacob forever...” That oracle foretells a favorable a glorious future for her son and can also be taken as the ultimate fulfillment of God's prediction in Genesis 25:23 that Jacob would be the founder of a nation which would surpass that of Esau.

Luke 1:41-44 – Interestingly, Mary's cousin Elizabeth feels the baby in her womb move as soon as pregnant Mary enters the room. And she exclaims, “And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me?” This is a clear echo of Genesis 25:22 (See especially the NIV translation above) in which Rebekah feels movement within her womb. But whereas Rebekah predicts only foreboding events from her sons' movements, Elizabeth reads only glad tidings from her son's actions.

Van Dam and Swart also pick up on this correspondence with the life of Jacob in these verses. They note that the Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew word rss (jostle or wrestle) in Genesis 25:22 is translated into the Greek word skirtao. “This vb. also occurs in Luke 1:41,44, where it is used of the baby (John the Baptist) in Elizabeth's womb. Here the action carries a positive message.”

Luke 2:34f – There are many predictions of the future greatness of Jesus given to Mary which are found in the first two chapters of Luke, but among them is that of Simeon in 2:34-35 which also states, “And a sword will pierce your own soul too.” This is the same sort of mixed blessing that Rebekah received earlier in Genesis 25:23 when she was told by God that the two people arising from her sons would be divided and not united.

Luke 3:23-38 – Luke traces Jesus' line by way of his presumed father Joseph all the way back to Jacob.

Luke 6:28 – Jesus says, “Bless them that curse you and pray for those who abuse you.” This is a noted reversal of Isaac's blessing on Jacob in Genesis 27:29: “Cursed be everyone who curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you.” And Isaac's words certainly fit the tenor of the whole New Testament (especially Luke 2:34), which teaches that everyone in the world will be judged ultimately by their relationship to Jesus Christ. In addition, the preceding words of blessing to Jacob in Genesis 27:29 state, “Be lord over your brothers and may your mother's sons bow down to you.”  And, of course, we know that even though Jesus' half-brothers mocked Jesus' pretentions to greatness at first, they (James and Jude) became his loyal followers after the post-resurrection appearances.

 

ARE WE TO REMEMBER OR OBSERVE THE SABBATH? (EXODUS 20:8; DEUTERONOMY 5:12)

 

Are we to remember or to observe the Sabbath? (Exodus 20:8; Deuteronomy 5:12)

The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, appears in two slightly different forms within the Old Testament, and that is especially true of one particular commandment.

As Durham puts it: “The fourth commandment is the longest in the Decalogue, because it is the most expanded of all the commandments. No other commandment has received as much reapplication and as many defining and justifying clauses as this one.”

And Childs says, “In the history of the critical study of the Decalogue over the last hundred years certainly more attention has been devoted to this commandment than most of the others.”

The Anchor Bible translation is typical in demonstrating the differences found in just the opening words of each:

    Exodus 20:8 – “Remember (zkr) the Sabbath day and keep it holy.”

    Deuteronomy 5:12 – “Observe (smr) the Sabbath day to keep it holy, as YHWH your God has commanded you.”

The respective opening verbs in other English versions of these parallel passages include the following variations:

    remember, keep – KJV, RSV, NIV, NEB

    remember, observe – JB, NRSV

    observe, observe – TEV

    observe, keep – Living Bible

    observe, “no working on” – The Message

As you can see, the two Hebrew words are used practically interchangeably with one another in these renderings. And this understanding is found in most of the commentaries on these passages, as seen below:

Meyes on Deuteronomy 5 says, “Observe: Exod. 20:8 has 'remember'. The latter is probably original, and the change should be seen along with the verb 'aseh [keep] at the end of the commandment (v. 15, 'to keep'; this does not appear in the Exodus version), for the two verbs together form a fixed idiomatic expression in Deuteronomy in the context of the proclamation of the law; cf. 5:23; 6:3, 17f., 25, etc...”

Durham states that the Hebrew word in Exodus “means 'remember,' as always in contexts of covenantal obligation, in the sense of 'observe without lapse' or 'hold as a present and continuing priority.' SamPent [the Samaritan Penteteuch] reads 'aseh 'keep,' as does the parallel version of the commandment in Deut 5:12.” He cites scholars who argue as to which verb is the original but concludes with the words: “Noth and Andreasen argue that both verbs, in this usage, come to mean about the same thing.”

“The positive formulation of the commandment [in Deuteronomy] has some small differences which distinguish it from the form of the commandment in Exod. 20:8-11, and which are further evidence of its horatory [i.e. aiming to exhort] style in which the commandment is presented in Deuteronomy. The The Hebrew word used in v. 12 is shamor, 'take care'; in Exod. 20:8; it is rather zakor, 'remember' or 'remembering in.'” (Craigie)

Cousins says, “The slight differences in vv. 12-14 [of Deuteronomy 5] between this and the form in Exodus are not important.”

“The first version of the Ten Commandments, in the fourth commandment, grounds this rest in God's own creation Sabbath (Exod. 20:8-11)...The second version of the fourth commandment (Deut 5:12-15), however, grounds Sabbath observance in a different motive – namely, the Israelite remembers his experience of slavery and deliverance...Theologians will describe the difference by saying that Exodus 20:11 appeals to creation, while Deuteronomy 5:15 appeals to redemption. It would be a mistake to contrast these, however...Exodus itself brings the two together (31:12-17).” (C.J. Collins)

Weinfeld: “In the Exodus version the verb for observing is zkr: 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.' In fact, there is no significant difference between the two, for both verbs, zkr and smr, connote 'keep' as well as 'remember.' Thus we find in Gen 37:11 that Jacob 'kept (smr) the matter' (i.e., Joseph's dream), which means remembered it or kept it in mind.' smr and zkr parallel each other in Ps 103:18.” He also cites Esther 9:28 as another example.

H.R. Jones sees a possible added significance to the use of “remember” in Exodus 20 when he states that “this is no new command. It goes back to Gen. 2:103 This could have been forgotten by the Israelites while in Egypt, and there are no references to it in patriarchal times.”

Lastly, we have some comments on the basic meanings of smr and zkr from linguistic experts:

smr – “Among the most frequent uses of the vb. is the admonition to be careful and diligent in respect to religious and spiritual responsibilities.” (Schoville)

zkr – “The root and its derivatives have crucial roles in the OT. On the human level, the words embrace reflection, especially on what is in the past. Such reflection may lead to regret or relief, or more actively appreciation and commitment. God's remembering has to do with his attention and intervention, whether in grace or in judgment. Religious worship is the context where human and divine usage come together, in the fellowship of praise and blessing...Rather than denoting simply a mental process, remembering frequently induces present action...The Israelites' historical experience of being slaves in Egypt is urged as a reason to include their slaves in the Sabbath rest and in the Feast of Weeks (Deut 5:15; 16:12)...To remember the Sabbath day (Exod 20:8; cf. 'observe,' Deut 5:12) is to observe it by abstaining from work.” (Allen)

PARALLELS BETWEEN JACOB AND SATAN

At a recent sermon I heard, the pastor noted in passing that there were several parallels between the patriarch Jacob and Satan. I decided to ferret out some of these, with the following results:

Genesis 3:1a

We first run into Satan in Genesis 3, where he is described as being “more subtle than any other creature.” Other translations call him “more crafty.” We could also call him “devious.” And this is really the hallmark of Jacob throughout his life in his dealings with Esau, his father, and Laban. Interestingly, Foulkes uses the same adjective above to characterize Jacob: “weak, crafty, scheming.”

Genesis 3:1b-7

This is perhaps the closest parallel to the life of Jacob. Satan, in the form of the serpent, lies and tells half-truths to Adam and Eve in order to tempt them to eat of the Tree the Knowledge of Good and Evil against God's express command. In a similar manner, Jacob tempts Esau to trade his birthright for a bowl of red lentil stew (Genesis 25:29-34). And if ancient traditions which state that the fruit in the garden was a pomegranate are correct, then there is even a similarity in the reddish-brown color of both foods.

In addition, the major sin of both Satan and Jacob here is to disrupt or co-opt God's preordained plan by taking things into their own hands instead of recognizing His omniscience and omnipotence and relying on Him.

And a third similarity is the fact that in each story it is a woman who helps to orchestrate the scheming.

Genesis 3:15

As part of the curse on the serpent (i.e. Satan) in this verse, God uses the key word “heel.” It is in the context of Satan bruising the heel of the seed of the woman (primarily referring to Jesus). That rare Hebrew word (aqeb) only appears seven times in the Old Testament, one of which incidentally also appears in the birth story of Jacob and Esau (Genesis 25:26) in which Jacob attempts to supplant his brother by grasping at his heel to try to prevent him from being born first. So both Satan and Jacob will attempt to attack a heel but be wounded in the effort.

The other part of the curse involves God putting enmity between Satan and “the woman.” In its context that refers to Eve and her female descendants, but it also applies in another sense to Jacob's dishonest actions driving a wedge between himself and his beloved mother Rebekah so that he will be forced to flee from his home and not see her alive again.

Genesis 3:21

Before God casts Adam and Eve from the Garden, He demonstrates His grace by dressing both of them in animal skins. In a perversion of that action, you may recall that Jacob tricked his blind father into giving him the preferred blessing by putting animal skins on his arms so that he would feel like his hairier brother (Genesis 27:15-17).

Job 1-2

In this prelude to the book, we see Satan up to his usual tricks thinking that he can disgrace God's model human being, Job, and God Himself in the process. God allows him to try to get Job to curse God by visiting one catastrophe after another on him. But amazingly, Satan's ploy backfires and Job's faith brings him through the crisis. In the same manner, Jacob schemes his way through life feeling that only by his own actions can he get what he wants. But in the final analysis, it is Jacob's own actions which get him into much more trouble than if he had merely trusted in God's promise in the begnning.

I Chronicles 21:1

Satan incites, or tempts, David into conducting a census of all the people of Israel. That plays into David's lust for more earthly power just as Jacob's actions were driven by his visions of future greatness. In both cases, nothing good came from giving in to such desires since neither seemed to take God's own will into consideration.

Zechariah 3:1-2

This strange story takes place in heaven where Satan acts as a prosecuting attorney hoping to get the high priest Joshua excluded from heaven. Instead, Satan is rebuked for his actions, and God trades in Joshua's soiled clothing for a brand new outfit. We see again Satan's hatred for the human race, especially for those chosen by God. In addition, the important theme of changing garments earlier seen in Adam and Eve's fall as well as Jacob's deceit of Jacob recurs here also.

Matthew 4:10

This is practically a replay of Jacob's temptation of Esau with food when the latter comes in from hunting and announces that he is famished. The same is said of Jesus after he had been fasting in the wilderness. In both cases, the tempter (Jacob and Satan) invites the other party to partake of food. Only whereas Esau gives in, the same cannot be said of Jesus.

Luke 10:18

When the apostles come back from a missionary journey, they note that they did not run into any major opposition. Jesus explains to them that he had seen Satan fall from heaven. If you recall, up to this point in history Satan is pictured as having free access to God's presence. In a similar manner, Jacob fell from his former position in the bosom of his family to the point where he was forced to a situation of servitude under Laban. We could even see here a parallel between Jesus “seeing” the angel Satan fall from heaven and Jacob “seeing” angels descending a ladder that reached from heaven to earth.

II Corinthians 11:14

Paul describes Satan as one who disguises himself as an angel of light. But the word “disguise” should also remind us powerfully of another personage in the Bible who disguised himself in order to deceive – Jacob with his faked hairy skin.

I John 3:8

In this verse, John characterizes Satan as a sinner from the beginning, which is ceratainly true in his first appearance on the scene in the Garden. But the same could be equally said of Jacob, who began his checkered career of grasping and deceit while still in the womb.

Revelation 20:1-3

Toward the end of time, Satan will be cast into a pit where he will be kept until he is later released for a short time. This did not happen to Jacob himself, but to his beloved son Joseph instead as a sort of proxy for Jacob (Genesis 37:24).

And continuing the pattern of deceit in that family, Jacob is himself fooled as to the circumstances of Joseph's absence by the use of clothing. This may be another echo of Genesis 3 in which clothing first makes its appearance on the scene. These verses also contain the last mention of Satan's “deceit” of mankind.

Conclusion

I don't know if others find interesting these sort of thematic threads running throughout Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, but I certainly do. Besides being a curiosity, they help establish the unity of the whole Bible and show the hidden hand of God behind everything that happens on earth.

WHO PREDICTED JESUS' BETRAYAL FOR 30 PIECES OF SILVER? (MATTHEW 27:9-10)

Only Matthew records the details regarding the blood money Judas received for betraying Jesus. And that is no surprise since (1) Matthew was a tax collector by profession and (2) of the four Gospel accounts, his is the one who most stresses the fact that that events in the life of Jesus were fulfillments of Old Testament prophecies. “Perhaps the strangest fulfillment quotation in all of Matthew is this last one.” (Beale and Carson)

The main question is, to which specific prophecy was Matthew referring? Matthew himself says that it comes from Jeremiah. Regarding this point, Freed turns to both Zechariah 11:12-13 and Jeremiah 18:2-3; 32:6-15 as the probable precursors. By contrast, Overman feels that Matthew is alluding to either Leviticus 27:1-8, with its mention of “the price of redeeming a person from a religious obligation” or to “Zechariah's action indicting the Temple authorities for corruption by depositing tainted money in the treasury (Zech 11:12-13).” 

The pay given to the prophet when he resigns his office is 30 pieces of silver.  Zechariah sarcastically calls this “a lordly price.” In fact, it is the same price required to recompense a slave owner if someone's ox injures a slave (Exodus 21:32) and approximately the price Hosea paid to get back his adulterous wife (Hosea 3:2). Finally, Beale and Carson even suggest that the final clause in Matthew's verses borrows language from the Greek form of Exodus 9:12.

    1. There have been several approaches suggested to resolve this whole complicated issue. One possibility suggested by Comfort, Barbieri and others is that Matthew really had several prophetic passages in mind as he was writing, but only alluded to the most famous of the two seers – Jeremiah. France offers as evidence for this theory the fact that, with the exception of 24:15, Matthew's attributed quotations only come from Isaiah and Jeremiah while any quotations from the minor prophets are cited anonymously (see 2:5, 15; 11:10; 21:4; 26:31).

 But even this does not narrow down the possibilities since both Nixon and Beale/Carson are divided between Jeremiah 19 and Jeremiah 32 as being the primary passage in mind here. And that does not count in the opinion of Freed above, who cites Jeremiah 18:2-3.

    2. Albright and Mann note that the quote is actually a loose paraphrase from Zechariah and “the confusion may have been introduced by the recollection that Jeremiah purchased a field and also visited a potter (Jer xviii 2ff. and xxxii 6-15).” Ellison offers the same theory, only to reject it, that Matthew's words “may be a free citing from memory...therefore, that Jeremiah is a slip.” But his personal opinion on this matter matches #3 below.

    3. Unger's theory was that “Jeremiah” was really the title for the scroll containing all the prophecy books from Jeremiah to Malachi, thus including Zechariah as well. As evidence for this possibility, Barbieri notes “that Jeremiah, in the Babylonian Talmud...was placed first among the prophets, and his book represented all the other prophetic books.”Hendricksen rejects this explanation as coming from a source which “cannot be regarded reliable.”

    4. Carr suggests that the original only read “the prophet,” without naming him. But a later scribe mistakenly added “Jeremiah” in an abortive attempt to clarify the prophet's identity. Comfort points out that the manuscript evidence for such a reading is extremely weak.

    5. Nixon offers yet another possibility: Only Jeremiah was named since a reference to Zechariah would have already been obvious to his audience. Beale and Carson elaborate on this same idea: “Rabbis at times would create a composite quotation of more than one Scripture but refer to only one of their sources by name, often the more obscure one...to ensure that others would pick up the reference. So there is no problem by the standards of the day for Matthew to refer to two texts like this and name only the more obscure prophetic source.” As another example, he cites what Mark does in Mark 1:2.
A very slight variation on this scenario is that Matthew “follows a standard literary convention of his day by referring only to one source (in this case, the more obscure, through probably also the more important one).” (Blomberg)

    6. Another theory offered by McNeile is that some apocryphal version of Jeremiah no longer in existence contained the information to which Matthew alludes. But this remains purely speculative in lieu of any hard evidence to prove it. 

Lastly, a secondary detail needing some explanation regards what the prophet did with the money he was given. The Hebrew text says he gave it to the yaser, generally translated as potter, but also used to denote a craftsman or metalworker (Boda). The Septuagint translates it with the Greek word meaning smelter or foundry. The Aramaic version translates it as “treasury.” A rough consensus combining these translations arrives at the idea that the temple employed a metalworker who received all offerings made out of precious metals. He would melt them down and fill them in earthen pots until a later time when the pots were broken and the metal remelted for fashioning into temple vessels.

MALACHI 2:10-16

This is the passage which contains the famous statement by God in v. 16: “For I hate divorce, says the LORD the God of Israel.” Jacobs enumerates a number of issues which arise in attempting to interpret these verses. These along with questions mentioned by other scholars are given below with attached comments:

Who is the speaker in 2:10 – the prophet, the community, or whose who were involved in such relationships?

“In accordance with his characteristic style (cf. vv. 1:2,6; etc.), the prophet addresses himself mainly to the people ...” (Verhoef)

And Jacobs says, “Regarding the prophet as speaker, one can argue that he speaks representing the sentiment of the people in much the same way as in Mal 1:6-14. Regarding the people as speaker, some argue that the people are questioning the nature of the malpractice. Finally, the speaker might be a group of men who, having married foreign wives, seek to justify these marriages on the basis of having a common human heritage...however, I interpret the speaker as the prophet addressing the community.”

To whom does “father” in 2:10 refer – God or Abraham?

Redditt states, “While some scholars suggest that the word 'father' refers to Abraham or Jacob, the use of the word in reference to God in 1:6 and the parallel term 'creator' in the next question make it clear that the father in question was God. Even so, the 'we' in the verse was the nation Israel; there was no reference here to humanity as a whole.”

Verhoef mentions several opinions on this subject before concluding, “But we share the opinion of Van der Woude that the one father is indeed a reference to God. This interpretation is determined by the synthetic parallelism of the first two sentences, and by the antithetical reference to the daughter of a foreign god (v. 11).”

Are the marriage and divorce mentioned here literal or symbolic?

This is perhaps the key question to consider. As Mobley says, “On a literal level, this section concerns exogamous marriage (i.e., with outsiders) and divorce. It has been read figuratively, that Judah has been faithless in its covenant with the LORD.”

Redditt combines both of these concepts in his explanation: “It would seem...that divorce was really the issue here...The divorce in question was for the purpose of marrying a foreign woman. Such women would have worshiped foreign gods, so marriage to her would have amounted to rejecting God's exclusive claim on Judah....Bossman argues that God is conceived here as 'a particular extended family deity whose household is with the family of Israel.'”

Torrey firmly denies a literal meaning to the words, “The rebuke is rather directed against the encroachment of some foreign cult in Israel. The unfaithfulness of a part of the people threatens to forfeit for all the covenant of the fathers (v 10). Judah has dealt falsely with the wife of his youth, the covenant religion, in wedding a strange cult....There is one, and only one, admissible interpretation of the passage; namely that which recognizes the fact that the prophet is using figurative language. Judah, the faithless husband, has betrayed the wife of his youth, the covenant religion, by espousing the daughter of a strange god.”

But despite R.L. Smith quoting the above, and similar comments from scholars, he nevertheless concludes, “The literal view has a preponderance of evidence on its side. Malachi is speaking about the disastrous effects of mixed marriages and divorce.”
As another argument in favor of the literal view, Adamson explains the difficult phrase “covering one's garment with violence” as reference to the custom during a divorce for the man to cast his garment over his wife (see Ruth 3:9).

How do we deal with the translation issues involved in vv. 15-16?

Mobley notes that “the text of 15a is difficult and the translation uncertain.” Thus, while the NRSV translates it as “Did not one God make her? Both flesh and spirit are his,” it also offers the alternative rendering of “Has he not made one? And a remnant of spirit was his.”

“The MT [Hebrew wording] reads literally at the beginning 'and not one he has made and a remainder of spirit to him'. This conveys no sense. The 'one' might mean God as the RSV concludes in its rendering 'the one God'. On the other hand, since the negation 'not' seems to be closely linked with the word 'one', the translation could be 'nobody.' A question surrounds the meaning of ruah here which might signify 'Spirit' or 'life' or 'passion.'..The meaning is not clear. Word for word rendering here is probably the best policy in order to avoid expressing in translation a biased exegesis. In the final clause the MT has 'woman of your youth'. The suff[ix] does not fit into this context and can easily be explained as influenced by v. 14 'wife of your covenant'. Thus, in v. 15 read 'wife of his youth.” (Hulst)

In a similar vein, R.L. Smith states, “It is generally admitted that this passage contains many textual problems. R.C. Dentan wrote about v 15, 'In Hebrew this is one of the most obscure verses in the entire Old Testament. Almost every word raises a question.'”

What is the relationship between verses 10-12 and 13-16?

The first issue to address in this category is whether there really is any close relationship between these adjacent verses since most modern English translations delineate them as separate paragraphs. In favor of seeing a unity between the two are the following factors:

The word Yahweh, generally rendered as “the LORD,” appears exactly seven times (the symbolic number for perfection) in the overall passage.

“Covenant” appears in both halves of the passage (vv. 10,14).

Both halves end with the phrase “LORD of hosts.”

In addition, R.L. Smith points out that the same Hebrew word translated variously as “faithless,” “deceitful,” or “treacherous” appears as a verb in Malachi 2:10, 11, 14, 15, and 16.

Verhoef notes, “Since the time of Jerome interpreters have conceded that this pericope, in its present form, is concerned with two interrelated malpractices: mixed marriages (vv. 10-12) and divorce (vv. 13-16). It is important to note that the typical dialogue style of Malachi presupposes the unity of this pericope: the initial question in v. 10 is not repeated in v. 13, but it has a bearing on the whole passage.”

But it should be pointed out that even if the two passages are interrelated, that does not necessarily indicate that both deal with the exact same subject. Thus, for example, one could easily refer to literal marriage and divorce, and the other with the relationship between Israel and God.

In conclusion, this is a passage which will probably continue to exercise the creativity of generations of Bible scholars to come

 

FAT (BARI) IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

To understand this word as the Hebrews would have understood it, we need to adopt a whole new mindset from our Western way of thinking. As Way explains it, “Words of the br' group appear to refer to the realization of full physical, or sometimes moral, potential.” Below is a brief survey of how related words in that group function in the few places where they appear in the OT.

Genesis 41:1-5

We will start out with the very well-known narrative involving the Egyptian pharaoh's nightmare in which he sees seven fat, i.e. well-fed, cows being eaten up by seven lean ones. As Hamilton says, “The seven years represented by the healthy ['fat'] cows and ears [of corn] forecast seven years of fertility and abundance for Egypt. The seven years represented by the emaciated cows and ears forecast seven years of famine for Egypt.” Wenham describes the healthy cows as being “shapely and well fattened.”

Judges 3:12-30

In this interesting story, “The Israelites are oppressed by the Moabites, whose king Eglon ('young calf') is fat, foreshadowing his sacrificial end.” (Younger) Glenn even points to the “pregnant combination” (no pun intended) of Eglon ('egel, 'calf') and the rare word bari (v. 17) meaning “fat.”

Webb: “His [Eglon's] obesity is presented in the most grotesque terms (his belly fat swallows up Ehud's dagger, handle and all, v. 22). By fattening himself on the tribute (minha) he has extorted from Israel (it was probably agricultural produce), Eglon has turned himself into a large, slow-moving target and a helpless sacrificial animal. His obesity symbolizes his greed and his vulnerability to Ehud's sharp blade.”

Cundall feels that “Such incidental details as the length of the murder weapon and the fact of Eglon's corpulence (mentioned only because the dagger was completely buried in his body) attest to the historicity of the story.” But others feel that these details are actually quite necessary to convey the bitter sarcasm of the story.

For example, Gros Louis asks, “What dies it matter that Ehud is left-handed or that the king is very fat or that his belly can swallow up a sword?...Eglon, we are told, is a very fat man, a detail which characterizes the plight of the Israelites, who presumably have been forced back into the wilderness...The one small detail opens up for us the vast differences between the lives of the Moabites and the conquered Israelites.”

Way points to this story along with that in Ezekiel 34:20 as examples of cases in which “The attainment of potential is not always something that is praised.”

I Kings 4:23

This verse comes in the middle of a passage in which the extreme wealth of Solomon's kingdom is described. Here we are told of the daily provision for the palace, which includes “ten fat oxen and twenty pasture-fed cattle.” Way prefers this translation over 'stall-fed' for a description of the oxen, feeling that description to be “too closely defined.”

G.H. Jones: “Although the translation distinguishes between fat oxen and pasture-fed cattle, it cannot be established that an intentional distinction was made between stall-fed oxen reserved for palace personnel and those straight from the pasture for the use of feudal retainers.”

“It has always been a challenge to try to crack the numbers given in this verse and to come up with a calculation of just how many enjoyed the king's largess. Abarbanel figured that 60,000 persons received their support from the royal coffers, not all of them necessarily residents of the capital.” It has even been suggested that this included soldiers garrisoned around the palace. (Cogan) And contra Jones above, Cogan does feel that a difference in the two groups of cattle was intended by the author.

Psalm 73:4

Tanner titles this psalm “Why Do the Wicked Prosper?” and notes that it opens the third major part of the Psalter “on a note of confusion and doubt.” The Psalmist's quandary is how to reconcile the fact that while his own feet slip, the wicked have “no struggles in death and their bodies are fat.” Tanner concludes: “This perspective is alive and well in many Christian communities despite prayers such as this one that demonstrate the growth and change that can happen in times of doubt and questioning. We, like our ancient sisters and brothers, see a world that does not seem to reflect God's values and God's kingdom, and this leads us to wonder about God and about God's ways in the world.”

In clarification, Anderson states, “In the OT 'being fat' is usually associated with prosperity, which often tends to lead the person concerned to disobedience to God.”

Ezekiel 34

God, through the prophet, lambasts the political leaders over Israel, whom he characterizes as shepherds who, instead of caring for their sheep, slaughtered and ate the fat of them. Greenberg notes that the fat was considered a delicacy and thus reserved for God alone (Leviticus 3:17; 7:23).

“In Ezek 34:20 birya, fat (connected with bari'), sums up the two words sleek (semena) and strong in 34:16.” (Way)

Block: “Shepherds do not raise sheep for their mutton, but in this metaphorical context, such slaughter represents the most blatant violation of the shepherd's role, presumably judicial murder (cf. 7:23; 9:9; etc.).”

Daniel 1:15

As a test as to whether a kosher diet will be superior to eating the rich foods the Babylonian rulers and their retinue were used to, the four Hebrew captives are allowed to follow it for ten days. The result was that “they looked healthier and better fed [“fatter”] than any of the young men who partook of the king's menu.” (AB)

Hartman and DiLella attribute this result to God's miraculous power, adding “Since Daniel and his companions believed that with good conscience they could eat only vegetables (literally, 'seed-bearing plants'), it seems that they feared that any meat or fish they received as royal rations might include forbidden species or might have been prepared in an 'unclean' way.”

Goldingay finds a parallel between this story and that of Ezekiel 4:9-17 where the prophet refuses to eat food in a ritually unclean manner. In both cases, God “provides a way of maintaining purity for those who seek one rather than giving in to the pressures that come.” He interprets v. 15 as saying that the bodies of the four youth “look better-built” and points out, “The language itself corresponds closely and uniquely to that used to describe the cattle in Gen 41:2,18!” He concludes: “Perhaps vegetarian food is better for you, perhaps God intervenes to prove that people flourish at his word and not merely because of what they eat; the story does not tell us why or how this remarkable event takes place. It only declares that it does.”

Habakkuk 1:16

The prophet says of the Babylonian enemy that they are like fisherman catching people in their nets and who actually worship the instruments of torture they use to subjugate others.

Robertson outlines the last half of this verse as follows:

        “He has made fat

                his portion;

                and his food

        is luscious.”

He goes on to say, “Certainly God's wrath must be upon them [the prophet asks]. He had carefully taught his people to count the Lord himself as their portion above all other material possessions (cf. Num. 18:20; Deut. 10:9; Ps. 16:5; 73:26). But these barbarians make a god of sensual pleasure.”

R.L. Smith translates Hab. 1:16 as “Therefore he sacrifices to his net and burns incense to his fish net, because by these his portion is luxurious and his food plentiful.” Smith notes that the Hebrew words for 'luxurious' and 'plentiful' both have the same basic meaning of “fat.” As he says, “he worships those things that make him rich and successful. How prone are people today to worship whatever makes them rich and successful!”

Zechariah 11:16

This verse has clear parallels with Ezekiel 34, as seen in the following words: “To eat the flesh of 'the fatted,' in view of the similar language in Ezekiel, indicates that the reprehensible prophet or leader is like the shepherds who prey on the fat sheep of the flock, leaving nothing for the poor, having no time to heal the sick, etc. (Ezek 34:3-6). As a result the flocks were scattered over the face of the earth (Ezek (34:6), only to be replaced by God the true shepherd (Ezek 34:11). In the context of Second Zechariah's condemnation of false prophecy here and in chapter 13, this metaphor may attack a continuing problem of prophecy – the fact that false prophets took advantage of their flock, i.e., the people, taking fees and getting rich for speaking what pleased their clients rather than what was God's word...” (Meyers and Meyers) I see clear parallels here with those preachers in megachurches who espouse the prosperity gospel

TWO EERIE BIBLE PASSAGES (GENESIS 15:7-19 AND MATTHEW 27:45-50)

Two Eerie Passages in the Bible (Genesis 15:7-19 and Matthew 27:45-50)

When I think about rather spooky episodes in the Bible, these two come to mind immediately. And although one is from the Old Testament and the other from the Gospels, I am beginning to wonder if there might be some sort of deeper connection between the two. You might want to read both these passages first so that the comments below will make better sense.

Genesis 15:7-19

An article in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery explains that “in the ritual 'cutting of the covenant' between God and Abraham, Abraham sleeps; and God alone, in the form of a smoking pot and flaming torch, passes between the animal carcasses, symbolic of the fact that the covenant belongs to God alone (Gen 15:7-21).” Thus, it is a covenant of grace.

In another anonymous entry in DBI, the author says, “In a covenant-making rite similar to those attested among their neighbors, the Israelites passed between the parts of a slaughtered calf to ratify a covenant (Jer 34:18; cf. Gen 15:9-10). The implication here is that whoever breaks the covenant will be butchered and torn apart like the slaughtered calf.”

Similarly, Carr says, “The ceremony (9-11,17) reflects the ancient practice in which the participants in a covenant oath passed through the dismembered parts of a animal and proclaimed a similar fate on themselves if they disobeyed the terms of the agreement.”

“While the symbolic meaning of the strange ritual associated with the establishment of this particular covenant has not been determined to any degree of certainty, the fact that Yahweh alone (as represented by the flaming torch and smoking furnace) passes between the dismembered animals seems to highlight its unilateral nature.” (Williamson)

Koopmans: “The torch signified God's presence, frightening but at the same time reassuring, just as the covenant itself contained promise of blessings and threat of curses.”

“There are eight occurrences of the nom. 'asan in the theophanic contexts. Twice it is used figuratively of Yahweh's anger...In other cases, the term is used to describe the smoke that attends actual theophanies: God appears to Abram as a smoking furnace (Gen 15:7) and a similar comparison is used of Mount Sinai when God descends upon it (Exod 19:18 [2x])...” (Niehaus)

“God's power over darkness is evident in the fact that he uses it to achieve his purposes. He uses darkness to cover himself from human view, for example. In OT theophanies the concealing or covering quality of darkness makes it part of the means of God's appearances. When God performs the ritual of 'cutting the covenant' with Abraham, for example, 'when the sun had gone down and it was dark, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch' (images of God's appearance) pass between the divided carcasses (Gen 15:17). In other words God himself is cloaked from human view by the veil of darkness.” (DBI)

Ross states, “In the darkness the Lord symbolically ratified the covenant promises with the firepot and the blazing torch, assuring Abram of the ultimate fulfillment of the promises (17-21)...The horror of darkness that came upon Abram may have been prompted by the coming deity or by the thought of the birds of prey coming down on the animals for the offering (an ominous thought, since the birds were unclean and were attacking the sacrifice for God.)...These images [i.e. fire pot and torch] are part of the fire, or burning, motif to describe the related ideas of God's zeal and his unapproachable holiness... Skinner says that 'Yahwe[h] alone passes [symbolically] between the pieces, because He alone contracts obligation.'”

As to the meaning of this obligation, Wenham explains, “The 'deep sleep,' 'fear' and 'darkness' all suggest awe-inspiring divine activity (cf. Gen 2:21; Isa 29:10; Exod 10:21,22; 14:20; 15:16; 23:27; Deut 4:11; Josh 2:9)...The interpretation of this mysterious rite is much discussed...This act is... interpreted as an enacted curse...It is God himself who walks between the pieces, and it is suggested that here God is invoking the curse on himself if he fails to fulfill the promise...While this interpretation could explain the phrase 'to cut a covenant,' it leaves many features of this rite unexplained...Is it compatible with OT theology for God to say 'May I die, if I do not keep my word?'” My response to this is that it may not have been revealed in OT times, but it certainly is compatible with NT theology, as I hope to show below.

In a similar manner to that of Wenham, Hamilton points to the controversy regarding the idea of God actually placing a curse on himself and mentions several attempts by others to blunt this interpretation. For example, Hasel states, “It is not a dramatized curse that would come into play should the covenant be broken, but a solemn and visual affirmation of the covenant that is essentially a promise.” And Hamilton himself concludes, “It is not necessary to read into Gen. 15:17 any sanctions of self-curses to which Yahweh exposes himself. Rather it is a confirmation of Yahweh's promise of land to Abram's descendants.” Not all scholars agree with these contentions.

Matthew 27:45-50

This is the most complete of the three Synoptic accounts of Jesus' final minutes (see Mark 15:33-37 and Luke 23:44-46 for the others). Thus, Matthew records the supernatural darkness which descended on the scene of the crucifixion, the ripping of the temple curtain from top to bottom, and dead believers roaming the streets of Jerusalem for a short period of time. Here are some random quotations relating to these events:

Geldenhuys: “It was a time of utter spiritual darkness that the Son of God had to pass through, as the Substitute for the guilty world. Therefore it was also inevitable that the world of nature, the creation of God through the Son (John 1:3), should on that day be radically affected.”

“The darkness could be a symbol of the powers of evil at work. Jesus had said at the time of his arrest, 'This is your hour, and the power of darkness ([Lk] 22:53). His death and resurrection will scatter this darkness. Or one might consider the darkening of the whole land as a prophecy or portent of the tragic days ahead for a land that had rejected God's Christ...Or again, the darkness could be nature's participation in the event taking place.” (Craddock)

Marshall feels that the “darkness over the whole land...can be seen as a symbol of divine displeasure at the rejection of Jesus by men.”

“The darkness meant judgment, the judgment of God upon our sins, his wrath as it were burning itself out in the very heart of Jesus, so that he, as our substitute suffered the most intense agony, indescribable woe, terrible isolation or forsakenness. Hell came to Calvary that day, and the Savior descended into it and bore its horrors in our stead.” (Hendricksen)

R.E. Brown references a number of OT passages in the context of the darkness which accompanied Christ's crucifixion, but not Genesis 15. And Hill only cross-references Exodus 10:22 and Amos 8:9.

Lane talks about the “ominous aspect to the darkening. In the plague of darkness which preceded the first Passover, darkness over the land was the token that the curse of God rested upon it (Exod. 10:21f).”

Fitzmyer says, “The darkness should be understood as one of the cosmic phenomena often associated with the Day of Yahweh in the OT (Zech 1:15; Joel 2:10; 3:3-4)...”

Mann states: “We suggest that what we have here is biblical imagery used to describe an event which for all the human tragedy involved was yet the act of God in the redemption of Israel and humanity.” He also compared it to the deliverance of the Jews from Egypt following a time of darkness.

“The evangelist and his readers would have envisaged a supernatural darkness symbolizing the advent of the divine judgment (cf. Isa. 13:9ff; 50:2f.; Jer. 15:6ff.) with the death of Christ on the cross, which the Church also significantly enough believed to be the supreme act of God's mercy and love.” (Anderson)

Correlation Between the Two Events (Galatians 3)

As you can see from the above, none of the scholars cited appear to draw any parallels between the covenant of God with Abraham and the atoning death of Christ on the cross although they had no trouble finding other OT parallels with the latter event. So I was beginning to have second thoughts regarding my concept that they might be somehow related to one another. But then I came upon the following opinions in relation to Galatians 3 which tended to tie these chronologically remote occurrences to one another.

When Wenham turns to the NT application of Abraham's covenant with God, he notes that in Romans 4, “Paul stresses that faith for Abram meant believing in God's promise of a child. While Genesis implies that the sons of Abram must be men of faith, Paul turns to the words around and explains, 'it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham' (Gal 3:7)...In exercising faith, the people of the new covenant both imitate Christ and also walk in the footsteps of our forefather Abram.”

Kline also cites Romans 4 when he states, “The land belongs to Abram's seed only within the terms of the covenant and this only in the seed of Abram, Christ, in whom the land-promise is transfigured into its cosmic antitype (cf. Rom. 4:13) and the heirs of Abraham become the universal covenant community of the NT, there being neither Jew nor Greek in Christ.” And of course that New Testament covenant came into being with the death of Christ on the cross.

But it is only in Galatians 3 that these to key passages are firmly brought together through the writing of the master theologian Paul, as the following comments attest:

Galatians 3:13 reads, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us...” Note that this verse comes right before a reminder of the promise made to Abraham's offspring (singular), namely Christ. Briggs notes that the Septuagint versIon of the OT utilizes the same Greek word for “offspring” as found in the covenants of God with Abraham in passages such as Genesis 15:5.

Guthrie specifically notes that Paul's referral to the 400+ years of predicted exile ties in Galatians 3:17 with Genesis 15:13.

And Ribberbos in his discussion of Galatians 3:15 says that “in the making of the covenant with Abraham.., the fulfillment of the law is in symbolical form made to depend wholly upon the divine deed. Abraham is deliberately excluded – he is the astonished spectator (cf. Gen. 15:12,17).”

Bruce adds, “The curse of Dt. 27:26 was pronounced at the end of a covenant-renewal ceremony and had special reference therefore to the covenant-breaker. Christ accordingly underwent the penalty for the covenant-breaker...the curse which Christ 'became' [in Galatians 3:13] was his people's curse, as the death which he died was their death...The 'blessing of Abraham' [in Galatians 3:14]...which is granted to faith replaces the 'curse' incurred under the law; this reinforces the effectiveness of Gn. 15:6 (quoted in v 6) as a solvent to the apparent contradiction between Hab. 3:4b and Lv. 18:5.”

But it remains to J.L. Martyn in his masterful commentary on Galatians to given the most complete understanding of the relationship between God's covenant with Abraham and Christ's sacrifice:

“For Paul, as for the ancient author of Genesis 15, faith has its genesis...neither in the threatening situation nor in the threatened human being but rather in the God who promises...Paul indicates [in Gal. 3:7] that he is now functioning as an exegete, drawing out the meaning of Gen 15:6.”

On Galatians 3:8, he explains, “the minor premise is Paul's certainty that the God who is doing this new deed is the same God who dealt with Abraham. Conclusion: Read in light of this new deed, the promise spoken to Abraham by scripture (in God's behalf) was the word of this same God, indeed the gospel of Christ.”

“In this sentence [i.e. Gal. 3:9] Paul gives a conclusion to his interpretation of both Gen 15:6 and Gen 12:3, drawing from the former the expression 'those whose identity is derived from faith' and from the latter the verb 'are blessed.'”

“...in 3:13-15 Paul paints a picture of the only juncture at which God's blessing and the Law's curse met one another, the crucifixion of Christ.”

In conclusion, and in support of my earlier contention, here are some parallels between God's covenant with Abraham and Christ's atoning death on the cross:

Both are stories taking place in an ominous darkness.

In both, the disembodied and invisible hands of God are revealed through their actions – carrying a torch and a fire pot compared with the supernatural tearing of the temple's curtain.

Adding to the eeriness of both scenes are the flapping of scavenger birds, explicitly mentioned in Genesis and certainly present at the crucifixion. In addition would have been the stink of decaying flesh at the respective happenings.

There is a balance of life and death present on both occasions. In Genesis, it is the combination of the sacrificed animals and the promise of new life. In the Gospel accounts, it is the atoning death of Christ so that we could have eternal life as well as the strange appearance of dead saints in Jerusalem.

One instituted an important OT covenant between God and man, while the next made possible the New Covenant for all who believe. In addition, the theme of belief is foundational to both events.

Just as God positioned himself between the two rows of sacrificed animals, Christ was positioned right between two dying sinners.

And most importantly, the similarity of the two events explains the fact which Wenham and Hamilton had trouble understanding – the strange notion of God pronouncing a death curse on himself to guarantee the covenant between Himself and man. That was, in fact, what God went ahead and did when mankind could not keep the obligations of the various OT covenants unaided. He, as the God-man Jesus Christ, took the curse on Himself.

 

FEAR AND TREMBLING IN THE BIBLE

 Some of you who are far more knowledgeable in philosophical matters than myself may recognize this expression as the title of a book by Soren Kierkegaard published in 1843. This philosophical treatise deals with the situation of Abraham when he was commanded to kill his only son. But you may not be aware that the expression comes from the Bible, where it appears no less than four times.

Louw states, “Throughout the Bible, references to fear occur in nonreligious as well as in religious contexts, with two distinct meanings. The first involves emotional distress and alarm with intense concern for impending danger or evil...The other area of meaning relates to allegiance to and regard for deity...The phrase 'fear and trembling' expresses the same two areas of meaning denoted by fear. In Psalm 55.5 and Mark 5.33, the phrase expresses great emotional distress, while in Psalm 2.11 and Philippians 2.12 the phrase signifies religious devotion.”

Hear are some comments from scholars on the exact meaning of this recurring phrase as it appears in those four contexts:

Psalm 2:11-12

Jacobson translates these verses as “Serve the LORD in fear! In trembling kiss his feet! Lest he be angry and you perish in the way, for his anger burns quickly.” He comments: “This entire [last] colon is problematic. Literally, the phrase might read: 'Rejoice in trembling! Kiss the son.” Not only is 'rejoice with trembling' incoherent, but the phrase nassequ bar is odd. If bar means 'son,' then why does the Aramaic word appear here when the normal Hebrew word for son, ben, has already occurred?...Many commentators emend the text to read bir'ada nassequ beraglayu, 'in trembling kiss his feet.” The solution is not pleasing, since it requires significant revisions to MT [the Hebrew text] without support from the versions.”

Hulst similarly discusses the translation problems with this text, noting “The word bar has various meanings.” In Aramaic it can mean 'son', which would lead to the rendering 'Kiss the son.' But in Hebrew it connotes 'ground,' with the corresponding meaning of 'Kiss the ground' – “a sign of complete subjection and homage. “This translation deserves careful consideration,” in Hulst's opinion. Lastly, bar in Hebrew may also mean 'pure.' Apparently this was how the Latin Vulgate read these verses.

Jacobson translates 2:11-12 as “Serve the LORD in fear! In trembling kiss his feet! Lest he be angry and you perish in the way, for his anger burns quickly.” He further states: “Many commentators have, in fact, puzzled over the strange occurrence of the verb kiss (nassequ), especially because the Hebrew text is problematic at this point...But when understood in terms of the poetic motif of speech, the verb fits well in this context. In the ancient world, to kiss the feet of a king (or the ground in front of the king's feet) was a symbol of humility and political obedience (see Ps. 72:9; Isa. 49:23; Mic. 7:17).”

Psalm 55:5

“The next section turns from the acts of the enemies to the way the one praying is feeling. His torment is not only emotional; it is physical. My heart twists in my chest in v. 4 begins a physical description to which anyone suffering emotional hurt can relate: the feeling in the chest, the terror and trembling that feel overwhelming.” (Tanner)

Anderson defines 'fear' in this verse as “a fright or state of anxiety, and not an 'awareness of the holy God'. 'Fear and trembling' probably means 'great fear'...the physical effects of fear, such as shuddering, have taken control of me; lit. 'shuddering covers me (completely)' (cf. Job 21:6; Ezek. 7:18).”

“The nom. pallasut, shuddering, shaking, trembling occurs 4x [in the OT]. In each instance it depicts the internal response to a terrible external reality. This strong emotional reaction, resulting in physical shaking, is described as something that falls upon (Isa 21:4), overwhelms (Ps 55:5; Ezek 7:18) and even seizes (Job 21:6) a person.” (Van Pelt and Kaiser)

Mark 5:33

This verse appears toward the end of the story of the woman with incurable bleeding secretly touching Jesus' clothing and becoming instantly well. The beginning question here revolves around which of the two basic types of fear is being displayed by the woman when Jesus asks, “Who touched me?” Is she in awe of the divine nature of the man who has just healed her, or is she just afraid that she will get into trouble by having broken the Jewish purity laws forbidding menstruating women from making physical contact with others? Below are some comments from scholars regarding this issue.

Swift: “Her malady was one which made her ceremonially unclean and would convey the uncleanness to all who came in touch with her (Lv. 15:25). For this reason, probably, she approached Jesus from behind, in order not to be seen.”

Short says, “The embarrassment she felt on account of the nature of her malady, made her anxious to secure the healing which she believed Jesus could impart to her without the publicity which was normally inevitable in the event of such healings...Though fearful of Jesus' anger, and dreading now being exposed, the woman presented herself before His face...whereupon Jesus commended her for her faith, and assured her of the completeness of her cure.”

Marcus: “As Lohmeyer points out, this reaction is natural in the situation, but fear is also the standard biblical response to a theophany (an appearance of God) from Genesis onward (e.g. Gen 15:12; 28:17; Judg 6:22-23). The combination 'fear and trembling' occurs in a theophanic context in 4 Macc 4:10 and in Phil 2:12, which implies the presence of God in the Christian community. The phrase is linked with salvation, as in our passage.”

“With fear and trembling the woman acknowledged all that had happened. Her action in making herself known indicates both courage and gratitude, and it is here that the accent should fall rather than upon her fear.” (Lane)

Mann says, “Coming secretly, because of ritual impurity, the woman's action indicates her belief that mere contact will effect a cure...Luke attributes the woman's fear to the fact of her being discovered, an interpretation disavowed by the subsequent clause in Mark. It is possible that the woman's fear may have been increased by her knowledge that she had rendered Jesus ritually unclean.”

“Moved by awe (in fear and trembling) in regard to Jesus' authoritative power, the woman openly and honestly ascribes everything to him and claims nothing for herself.” (Anderson)

In conclusion, there doesn't appear to be any need to choose between fear of Jesus' anger, embarrassment, or godly awe as the reason for her fear and trembling. They probably all played a part.

Philippians 2:12

This is by far the most theologically loaded appearance of “fear and trembling” of the four. In its context, Paul tells that church, “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (RSV)

This, at first, appears to be a blatant contradiction in that we are first told to work out our own salvation, but then informed that God is working it out for us. But is it really a contradiction, or perhaps a tension which must be maintained? It almost sounds like a combination of salvation by works and salvation by faith. Below is how various scholars attempt to deal with this passage.

Knox simply states that we should work it out “humbly, and with constant dependence on God's help” while the translation in the Roman Catholic translation, The Jerusalem Bible, reads that we are to work for our salvation, in place of most Protestant Bibles, which infer instead that it is the consequences of the salvation we already possess that we are to work out.

For example, William Hendriksen wisely explains, “Yes, they must work it out, that is, carry it to its conclusion, thoroughly digest it, and apply it to day-by-day living. They must strive to produce in their lives all the fruits of the Spirit...They must aim at nothing less than spiritual and moral perfection ...Believers are not saved at one stroke. Their salvation is a process (Luke 13:23; Acts 2:47; II Cor. 2:15). It is a process in which they themselves, far from remaining passive or dormant, take a very active part. It is a pursuit, a following after, a pressing on, a contest, fight, race (see Phil. 3:12; also Rom. 14:19; I Cor. 9:24-27; I Tim. 6:12). Putting forth such a constant and sustained effort is not easy. It is a battle...It will mean making full use of every God-appointed means to defeat the evil and bring out the good with them ('within them' because God placed it there!).”

I know that for the sake of completeness and fairness I should quote differing opinions from those who believe quite strongly in “once saved, always saved” and totally deny the concept of apostasy. However, I honestly think that Hendriksen, who is, by the way, a Calvinist, does a more than adequate job of expressing that theological outlook while at the same time incorporating ideas which the Arminians would also applaud. As I have said in a previous post, sometimes we need to realize that the only way to do complete justice to all the teachings in the Bible, we need to maintain a healthy tension and not feel that we need to totally let go of one biblical teaching in order to embrace another one.