JUDGMENTS IN THE BOOK OF HOSEA

 Marks introduces this subject with the following words: “Religious abuses, ranging from violation of covenant laws (4:2...) to idolatry (8:5) and participation in the Canaanite fertility rites (4:13-14) have led YHWH to reject his people: they shall be 'swallowed up' among the nations (8:8), 'smitten' and dried up' (9:16), their king 'utterly...cut off' (10:15); in short, 'they shall return to Egypt' (8:13; 9:3,6). The latter sayings especially are dense with allusions to Israel's history, presented both to accuse and to remind the audience of the special legacy they are in danger of forgetting.”

But that is not all that this book is about. As Andersen says, “Hosea is a book of conflicting passions. Extremes of rage alternate with the most moving expressions of tenderness and compassion. Its themes are the goodness and the severity of God.” For the purposes of this post we will concentrate only on the threatened judgments in Hosea, at least those which Marks mentions above.

Hosea 8:8

“Even if the nation's efforts did yield some 'grain' (prosperity), foreign nations would swallow it up. This would be appropriate and ironic, for Israel was seeking security through alliances with these nations (v. 8). She willingly submitted herself to Assyria and Egypt, but her efforts would backfire (vv. 9-10).” (Chisholm)

Davies says, “The image seems to be of a dish or a bowl of food which has been eaten clean...Israel no longer has any attraction or use for anyone among the nations.”

Hosea 8:13; 9:3,6

“All too often, the little countries in the buffer zone between two imperial nations tried to play one off against the other, with...disastrous results. Such moves were roundly condemned by the prophets as apostasy from Yahweh, their true and only Lord. Their new protectors became their captors (9:3).” (Andersen)

Chisholm states: “She gave herself to Baal for the 'wages of a prostitute,' namely the agricultural prosperity she erroneously thought Baal could provide (see 2:5). But the threshing floors and winepresses would be empty, and Israel would be sent into exile (v. 9:3). Symbol and reality are mixed, as both Egypt (the place where Israel had once been enslaved) and Assyria (the destination of the future exiles) are mentioned.”

Davies comments on Hosea 8:13 that “the mention of Egypt as a place of exile is also found in 7:6, 9:6 and 11:11. Since Egypt was the land of bondage from which Yahweh had once called Israel to be his people...to return there was equivalent to a reversal of Yahweh's guidance of their history...Some see this as a purely figurative expression for the imminent dissolution of Israel's relationship with Yahweh, and argue that Hosea envisaged only Assyria as a place of exile..., but at least 7:16 and 9:6 require a literal interpretation...”

“It is significant to note that thorns are in some cases associated with the judgment of Israel's exile. Thus in Isaiah we read that Israel, God's vineyard, will be overgrown with 'briers and thorns' (Is 7:23-25; cf. Is 32:13; Ezek 28:24; Hos 9:6; 10:8).” (DBI)

Regarding the historical context of this prophecy, Bullock cites Harrison as suggesting that “the relations of Israel to Egypt mentioned in 7:11; 9:6; and 12:2 would push the date [of composition] down into the reign of Hoshea, the last king of Israel.” But in view of the opinions above, that may not necessarily be the case if Egypt is only mentioned in a figurative manner.

Hosea 9:16

“The controlling image changes back in this verse to that of a fruit tree (cf. v. 10), which is stricken, perhaps by disease (cf. Jon. 4:7-8; Ps. 105:33)...The word stricken is also often used of the defeat of a nation, and Hosea may have chosen it deliberately with the double meaning in view.” (Davies)

Although this verse starts out with “Ephraim is smitten,” Andersen and Freedan note: “A distinction between Israel and Ephraim is not clearly maintained throughout the unit [i.e. vv. 10-17].”

The first half of the verse is presented as an agricultural reference, but its more chilling underlying import is seen in the parallel last half, rendered in the AB translation as “Yet even if they do have children, I will murder the darlings of their womb.”

Hosea 10:15

Stuart demonstrates how this verse fits into its immediate context. I have adapted his scheme somewhat to demonstrate the literary symmetry in this passage.

                                               Literary Structure of Hosea 10:9-15

        A. Prose announcement of war (9-10)

                B. Poetic indictment of Israel (11-14)

                        1. Israel's calling (11)

                                2. Israel's challenge (12)

                        1'. Israel's misuse of its calling (13)

        A'. Prose announcement of war (14-15)

Scholars argue over the historical background to this threatened event, but Stuart concludes: “The point of the statement is at any rate clear: in the matter of battles fought to exterminate a population (2 Kgs 8:12; Isa 13:16; Nah 3:10; Ps 137:9; cf. Hos 13:16), Israel itself would experience numbing brutality...The king himself, as leader of the family of Israel, will suffer annihilation. It will not be only women and children who are brutalized.”

“These verses [i.e. 10:14-15] have a somber word for the cities of Israel and particularly for Bethel. The spur to righteousness in 10:12 was a hope, but not apparently a reality...Bethel comes under particular scutiny for its surpassing wickedness. Even Israel's king will be gone when the judgment rolls through the land. One cannot tell from these terse references whether it is the cultic sins of Bethel (e.g. the calf located there) or its support for political option that qualifies as exceedingly wicked.” (Dearman)

Conclusion

Marks concludes by saying, “This historical bond [between Israel and God] is the basis for the moving depiction of YHWH as a troubled father unable to forget his wayward son, which has been placed near the end of the collection, where it prepares for the final promise of restoration at 11:11.”

I PETER 4:6

This is one of the most obscure verses in the whole New Testament. And after reading the various comments on it offered by scholars (see the selection below), I am afraid that I am even more confused than ever. The uncertainties include the exact definition of words such as “dead,” “spirit,” “flesh” and “judged”; whether I Peter 3:19-20 provides a parallel to this verse; and even disagreements concerning how many reasonable interpretations are possible in the first place. You may come away just as confused as I am, but here are some thoughts on the subject (in no particular order) which you may or may not find enlightening.

The NRSV of I Peter 4:6 reads, “For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that, even though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in the spirit as God does.”

Hoehner outlines two basic ways of understanding this verse in its context: “Traditionally many believed that the point was that Jesus preached to the dead in Hades. This approach fits the traditional view of 3:19-20, which does appear in the fairly near context. A majority of scholars today, however, understand the verse as referring to the gospel being preached to those who are now dead (but were alive when the gospel was preached to them; cf. 1:25). On this latter interpretation, those who have been martyred by human judges will ultimately be on death raised from the dead, because God is the one who will judge ultimately (cf. 4:5).”

But Stibbs says, “Not a few, including Augustine, Bede, Erasmus and Luther, have interpreted the statement as referring to the spiritually dead, to whom the gospel is preached in this world (cf. Jn. v. 25; Eph. ii. 1, 5, v. 14) that they may enter into spiritual life. Points against this second view are that the word dead has just been used in verse 5 of the physically dead; and the verb was preached is in the past tense. A point against the first view is that the preaching was done with a view to something happening to them while they were still in the flesh, are alive on earth; it cannot, therefore, have taken place after death.”

However, “Despite its current disfavor, some form of the Augustinian interpretation of the passage [i.e. I Peter 3:18-22] is the most satisfactory interpretation.., since it best accounts for the particularity of reference to Noah and the evangelization of the dead in 1 Peter 4:6...In this reading Christ did not descend into hell or the underworld but was present by the Spirit in the preaching of Noah.” (Seifrid)

Stibbs settles on a third possibility: “Sinners who do not respond to the gospel invitation must face judgment hereafter (iv. 5). But those who do respond find that the judgment due to sin is wholly completed here in the flesh, through the judgment which Christ bore for them...when such people embrace the gospel, the judgment due to them as sinners is fully accomplished in this world, i.e. in the flesh; and in the spirit, both here and still more beyond death, they enter into life, and find themselves, through Christ's physical death and spiritual quickening, truly brought into God's presence.”

Thiselton also presents three possibilities, which he describes as follows: The first is that “the gospel was preached to the dead so like all men in the flesh, they might receive their sentence. In their case, since they were already [spiritually] dead, this has already come about. But, behind this there is the intention that they might live according to the will of God in the spirit. Alternative interpretations of 1 Pet. 4:6 suggest that it refers to the proclamation of the gospel by the preincarnate Christ to men in OT times which might be related to 1 Peter 3:20 (cf. 1 Cor. 10:4), or that it refers simply to those in the present age who have received the gospel and since died. The verse would then mean that, although they share the common destiny of sinful mankind in death, nevertheless they live now in the spirit.”

Boring simply states: “The dead are probably Christians who heard the gospel while they were alive.” But even that subject is controversial. Thus Raymer explains: “This has been interpreted as referring to (a) those who are spiritually 'dead in sin,' (b) those who heard and believed the gospel but have since died, (c) those who died without hearing or believing the gospel. Barclay preferred the third interpretation, assuming that 3:19 refers to Christ's preaching to the dead...This interpretation has no scriptural support and is contrary to orthodox Christian doctrine (cf. v. 5).”

Goppelt says that “the author portrays the effective development of the gospel for the dead according to the analogy of the gospel's activity in history. The questions that arise from speculative attempts to conceptualize all this remain open...One must take the statement as a kerygmatic [i.e. relating to the proclamation of salvation through Jesus Christ] confession without attempting to objectify it as an order of salvation for the dead or as a portrayal of a Hades proclamation. As a kerygmatic confession it declares that the universal activity of salvation accomplished by Jesus' suffering unto death encompasses even the dead, indeed all (cf. Rom. 14:9).” It is hard to gauge from this comment whether Goppelt believes in universal salvation or is just opting out of expressing any concrete opinion at all on the subject.

Polkinghorne feels this verse addresses the mistaken idea that those who have physically died were being judged by God as sinners. His wise reply is: “The final assessment of a Christian life cannot be made with earthly data only; the facts of the after-life must be brought in to redress the balance.”

Wheaton similarly feels that this statement was designed to counter “a possible source of attack on the Christians by their detractors...'Surely your people die no less that us: you are suffering the same judgment as we do.'”

And Davids adds: “The point of the passage...is that the judgment is also the time of the vindication of Christians. They, like Christ, may have been judged as guilty by human beings according to their standards [i.e. that death is linked to sin], either in that they died like other human beings, or through their being put to death (either through a legal process or through paralegal vigilante action)...But, also like Christ, God will have the final say, and his verdict in the final judgment will be life.”

Stibbs explains: “Some think it is possible to find here, and in iii. 19, an indication that an opportunity to hear the gospel is given to men after death. This interpretation is not clearly demanded by the actual statement; still less is it supported by their contexts. Nor does an idea of such far-reaching consequences find support elsewhere in the Bible. So we think it right to reject it.”

A variation of this belief is discussed by Hoehner who says, “Bray notes that church fathers tended to apply this to gentiles before Christ's coming, who had not had the chance to hear before; they diversely understood 'dead' here to mean dead in sin...or in hell...or the Gentiles...or to the worst of criminals. Given the likeliest reading of 3:19, which does not refer to the dead in Hades, there is no reason to suppose that those who embraced the gospel here are the dead in Hades. Rather, those who embraced the gospel and suffered were judged in the flesh (cf. 4:17) for Christ. Thus, 4:6 does not refer to the spirits in prison in 3:19.”

But Hoehner adds that 4:6 “does draw on the preceding context: as Jesus was executed in the flesh but raised by God's Spirit (3:18), even so believers may be punished in the flesh (i.e. physically) but will be raised by God's Spirit (cf. Rom. 1:4; 8:10-11).”

I will conclude this brief review of various opinions with the comments of Reicke although you will all probably agree that no firm conclusion can be derived from any of the opinions offered here. “That the final judgment is imminent, vs. 6a, is...evident from the fact that the gospel has already been preached to the dead. Exactly how this was done is not stated. It is possible to imagine Christ's descent into the lower regions after his burial as the time for this preaching of the gospel, but explicit information is not given. A certain relation to iii 19 and to Christ's preaching to the spirits in prison may be assumed, although the spirits in prison are not to be equated with all the dead. On the other hand these people are really dead, as is evident from the analogous expression in vs. 5. About them it is further stated in vs. 6b that they received the message about Christ in order to be judged in the flesh and made alive in the spirit...Even for the dead there will be a judgment in the flesh, through the resurrection of the body. And the result for each individual will depend upon his relationship to Christ. On account of this all must hear the message of salvation through Christ, the dead as well as the living.”

 

EPHESIANS 1:18 "THE EYES OF YOUR HEART"

In this verse Paul's prayer for the Ephesians is that God will “enlighten the eyes of your heart.” Since we generally think in rather concrete terms, this phrase seems more that strange to us today since these two anatomical parts have little to do with one another. But if one realizes that the phrase is not meant to be taken literally but rather as an almost double metaphor, then Paul's words begin to make more sense. Below is how several scholars attempt to explain the meaning of the individual terms:

“The heart is mentioned some 851 times [in the Old Testament], but rarely if ever does it refer to the physical organ. It is more associated with man's thoughts and feelings, similarly to the way in which we today associate the heart with our emotions...” (Schutz)

And Hoehner adds: “The eye is metaphorically the avenue through which light flows to the heart or mind...figuratively, the heart is the very center of a person, beast, or place...In the NT 'heart' occurs 156 times..., fifty-two in Paul's writings, six of which are in Ephesians (1:18; 3:17; 4:18; 5:19; 6:5,22), and it never refers to the physical organ. In biblical usage the heart can be...as it is in the present verse, of thought and understanding...In conclusion then, Paul prays that God might give them the Spirit to procure the insight and revelation of their knowledge of God. This was possible because their understanding had already been enlightened at the moment of belief. Again, the reason Paul made this request was because of his great desire that they know God more intimately.”

“He [i.e. God] prepares human minds to receive this revelation; and this receptivity is expressed in terms of illumination.” (Martin)

“The prayer that 'the eyes of your heart be enlightened' (Eph 1:18), while odd to modern Western ears, speaks of the illumination of the heart as the perceptive seat of practical reason and wisdom, not of the emotions. And it is fitting that the people of God are 'children of light' and not 'darkness' (Eph 5:8), their works the 'fruit of light' (Eph 5:9) rather than the 'unfruitful works of darkness' (Eph 5:11), which are performed in the shadows but will be exposed by the light (Eph 5:12-13).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery) Mclean additionally notes the contrast to “their former darkened understanding” in Ephesians 4:18,

“In the OT, in Plato and in Philo, in apocalyptic writings, in Qumran, in the Corpus Hermeticum, and elsewhere, light and related terms are used to describe the process of understanding, along with corresponding references to the eyes of the heart. Jews and Jewish-influenced literature speaks of the 'eyes of the heart'; Greeks, 'of the mind.'” (M. Barth)

Chamblin says, “Paul describes incorporeal activity by various terms whose meanings overlap considerably...There is no significant difference between the apostle's presence 'in spirit [pneuma]' (1 Cor 5:3) and his presence 'in heart [kardia]' (1 Thess 2:17). One reasons and understands with the mind [nous] (1 Cor 14:14-16), but the heart (kardia) may likewise be 'enlightened.' (2 Cor 4:6; Eph 1:18)...”

And as to the concept of seeing, “Sight is often applied to spiritual insight (Ps 119:18,37), which may occur through the study of the law (Ps 19:8) or may be the direct gift of God through his Spirit (Eph 1:17-18).” (DBI)

Harpur notes the “Mere intellectual knowledge is not enough, it is the enlightening of the eyes of the heart, the inner vision of Christ.”

“Paul seeks for his Ephesian circle the spirit of wisdom and revelation, an open-eyed, increasing discernment of the things of God, the insight of 'men in understanding'. The beautiful metaphor he employs, 'the eyes of your heart being enlightened' – the true reading – must have been quite novel when he used it. It reminds us that the illumination he desiderates is inward, not dependent on the senses or even the mental activities, so much as on the spiritual enlightenment that assimilates divine truth as its congenial aliment, and descries objects invisible to the worldling's myopic vision; for the heart may have sounder perceptions than the head.” (Simpson)

Hoehner: “Wisdom (sophia; cf. Eph. 1:8; 3:10) gives insight into the true nature of things, and 'revelation' is the unveiling of the object discussed, namely, God Himself...Paul had prayed (v. 17) that they might have true spiritual insight into God, and then he included the phrase, 'having the eyes of your heart enlightened'. Paul's request for them to know God was within proper bounds because their hearts had been enlightened...as discussed in verses 3-11, especially 7-9. In the Bible the 'heart' is the center of one's personality.”

If one considers the complete thought of Paul in verses 16-18 of Ephesians 1, then a certain symmetry results:

    A. Paul prays for the Ephesians that God may give them:

            1. a spirit of wisdom

            2. and of revelation

            3. in full knowledge of him

                    B. having been enlightened the eyes of your heart

    A'. that they should know:

            1. the hope of your calling

            2. the riches of the inheritance

            3. the greatness of power

From this arrangement we can see that the two triads (A and A') Paul is praying for them are only possible because of the prior condition (B) of the Ephesians already having been enlightened by God.

 

"HOLY SPIRIT" IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

 In an earlier post titled “The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament” I gave a brief overview of that subject. Now I would like to concentrate on the only three times in which the phrase “Holy Spirit” is specifically mentioned there, compared to the approximately 90 times it appears in the New Testament. However, Van Pelt, Kaiser and Block express the opinion that “the operation of the Spirit of the Lord is both pervasive and diverse [in the Old Testament].”

As to the OT appearances, Baigent says that “it seems to denote the presence of God amongst His people.”

Naude comments on all these occurrences as follows: “The Lord's holy name contrasts with everything creaturely. The nom. [i.e. 'holiness'] also typifies the Lord's Spirit (Ps 51:11). In Isa 63:10-11 the Spirit referred to is the Spirit God sent among his people during the Exodus but who was grieved by Israel through their rebellion. God's holiness thus becomes an expression for his perfection of being that transcends everything creaturely.”

Below are scholarly comments on the meaning of these three verses along with their later use by New Testament authors:

Psalm 51:11 reads, “Do not drive me from thy presence or take thy holy spirit from me.” (NEB)

The Anchor Bible translates the last half of that verse as “and the spirit of your holiness do not take from me.”

M'Caw and Motyer state, “The...concept of sin as separation from God is now introduced with its twofold emphasis upon distress at the possibility of being severed from God for ever and deprived of His Holy Spirit, and a craving for moral health, a cleansed record, a new heart and a steadfast spirit.”

“As the self-manifesting, transforming presence of God amongst his people, the Spirit is expected to accomplish deep existential renewal that recreates the very heart of humankind in obedience (Jer. 31:31-40; Ezek. 36:24-29; cf. Ps. 51:10-14); Is. 44:3-5).” (Turner)

Anderson: “It is often argued that since the Psalmist was in permanent possession of the spirit of Yahweh, he must have been the King who was the only official in Israel who enjoyed this privilege. This is possible, but, on the other hand, 'thy holy Spirit' may be simply another term for the personal presence of Yahweh, as in Isa. 63:10-14.”

Pao and Schnabel note regarding Luke 11:13, “the Holy Spirit has already been introduced in Luke's birth narrative.., and in this verse the bestowal of the Spirit is promised as a response to prayer. This connection is rooted in the OT (Num. 11:19; Ps. 51:11)...”

“The withdrawal of Jesus' presence from the Jews in the present passage [i.e. John 9:1] strikes an ominous note of judgment similar to the removal of God's favor from King Saul (1 Sam. 15:23) or David's fear that God would take his Holy Spirit away from him (Ps. 51:11).” (Kostenberger)

Isaiah 63:10-11 says, “They rebelled and grieved his holy spirit...God put his holy spirit in the midst of them.” Besides constituting two of the three usages of “Holy Spirit” in the OT, the more important fact is that although verse 11 could be used to explain that the spirit is merely an impersonal force of some kind, verse 10 appears to treat Him as a Person.

Kidner: “The terms are close to those of Ps. 78...But he uses the terms with a new intensity (cf. v. 9a), and with a new emphasis on the holy Spirit as the Lord in the midst of His people (vv. 10,11,14).”

Watts explains: “The mal'ak panayu ('the angel of the presence') of 63:9, understood in the LXX [Greek Septuagint of the OT] as 'no angel or messenger but Yahweh himself'...had led Israel through the waters and sent his Holy Spirit among them (63:11).”

Kamlah says that “in the past, the period of salvation at the exodus had been marked by the gift of the Spirit to Moses; indeed that whole national deliverance had taken place in the power of the Spirit (Isa 63:11-14).”

“Interspersed throughout their calls for covenant renewal, the prophets also remind Israel of their rebellion against Yahweh after their exodus from Egypt (Isa 63:10).” (Carpenter and Grisanti)

As to the concept of grieving, Fretheim says, “The verbal usage [of 'sb] specifies an inner grieving in the face of loss...Three instance have to do with God's grieving, provoked by the sinful response of the human race (Gen 6:6) and by Israel, from its beginning (Ps 78:40) and throughout its history (Isa 63:10). God is revealed not as one who remains unmoved by the human response, but as one who is deeply affected by what has happened to the relationship.”

“The divine response to Jesus' acknowledgment of the judgment of God [in Mark 1:9-11] was the descent of the Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven. Both of these elements are to be associated with the new exodus in the wilderness prophesied by Isaiah (Chs. 32:15, 44:3; 63:10-14). This prophecy is fulfilled in proleptic [i.e. anticipation or applying a future development as if it were present] fashion in the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus.” (Lane)

Watts sees a parallel between Isaiah 63:10 and Mark 3:29: “As C.K. Barrett...ventured some time ago, the closest, if not only conceptual parallel in Israel's Scriptures is Isa. 63:10...The text is striking for its emphasis without parallel in Israel's Scriptures on Yahweh's 'Holy Spirit' (63:10-11; cf 63:14; Ps 51:11), which Spirit, though also infrequent in Mark, nevertheless occurs in his opening chapters only in connection with Jesus' baptism (1:10-11) – already seen by Mark as Yahweh's response to Isa 63's lament – and here where it concerns the origin of Jesus' undoubted authority.”

Also commenting on the subject of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (this time in Luke 12:10), Pao and Schnabel state: “The closest parallel is Isa. 63:10...[which] introduces the theme of Israel's rebellion and of God's judgment that followed...The 'Spirit' is 'the holy presence of Yahweh, which is a form of his outward manifestation to Israel theologically retrojected to the period of the nation's inception' (Childs). The prophet describes the Israelites' rebellion against God's saving revelation at the time of the exodus as grieving God's Spirit.”

Stephen's conclusion to his speech in Acts 7:51 ('You always resist the Holy Spirit') is reminiscent of Isaiah 63:10 according to Marshall.

Commenting on Ephesians 4:30, Thielman says, “Paul admonishes his readers not to 'grieve' [lypeite] the Holy Spirit of God, a statement that echoes the language of Isa. 63:10, although it neither translates the Hebrew...['atsab]...literally...nor matches the rendering in the LXX...Within its context Isa. 63:10 describes how Israel's rebellion against God, even after he had showed them mercy, turned God into their enemy and resulted in their exile.”

“Mathewson...argues that 'the author's language in [Hebrews] 6:4-6 is colored by OT references by means of allusion and echo apart from direct citation.'...For Mathewson, that those who have fallen away had become companions of the Holy Spirit (6:4c) echoes the experience of the wilderness wanderers, who had extensive interaction with the Spirit of God, as witnessed in numerous passages...Thus, the author of Hebrews utilizes the language of the OT to describe a particularly grievous abandonment of the Christian community in his day.” (Guthrie)

Conclusion

Kaiser asks the all-important question: “Are we to suppose that the Holy Spirit of Psalm 51 is the same Holy Spirit to which the New Testament refers? Or is an understanding of the Holy Spirit too advanced for the state of revelation under the older covenant?” He answers with the example in John 3 of Nicodemus, whom Jesus expected “to know about the person and work of the Holy Spirit...from the Old Testament alone.”

He concludes: “The Old Testament does teach of a personal Holy Spirit who brought people to truth in the Man of Promise who was to come in the line of Abraham and David – and the Spirit indwelt those saints just as surely as he indwelt believers in the New Testament.” And concerning Is. 63:10-11, Kaiser notes that v. 9 refers to God the Father as well as the preincarnate Christ, referred to as 'the angel of his presence.' That last contention is perhaps indicative, but not really stated in concrete terms.

One final indication of the opinion Bible scholars have to say on the subject can be perhaps deduced by the way various translators have rendered the phrase “Holy Spirit” in these two OT passages, i.e. in the manner of capitalization or non-capitalization of these two words:

Translation(s)                  Psalm 51:11             Isaiah 63:10                              Isaiah 63:11

JB, NEB, NRSV             holy spirit                  holy spirit                                  holy spirit

NIV, Living Bible           Holy Spirit                 Holy Spirit                                Holy Spirit

RSV                                holy Spirit                  holy Spirit                                 holy Spirit

KJV                                holy spirit                   holy Spirit                                 holy Spirit

TEV                                loyal spirit                 holy spirit                                   spirit

The Message                  breathe holiness         Holy Spirit                                 Holy Spirit

JUDE 1-4

  

                                                   Jude 1-4 (paper collage, 1984)

One way in which to view this short letter is to divide it into three parts: Introduction (vv. 1-4); Body (vv. 5-16); and Conclusion (vv. 17-25). And there is a certain symmetry in that there are a number of concepts and words shared between the Introduction and Conclusion:

Subject or Wording                                                         Introduction                  Conclusion

“Jesus Christ”                                                                 v. 1 (2x)                          v. 25

“God”                                                                              vv. 1,4                            vv. 21,25

“love”                                                                             vv. 1,3                             v. 21

“kept safe,” “keep from falling,” “save,” “Savior,”       v. 1                                 vv. 21,23,24,25

“mercy”                                                                           v. 2                                 v. 21

“beloved”                                                                        v. 3                                 vv. 17,20

contending for the faith                                                  v. 3                                 vv. 20-23

“once for all,” “now and forever”                                   v. 3                                 v. 25

“faith”                                                                             v. 3                                 v. 20

descriptions of the ungodly                                             v. 4                                 vv. 18-19

“godless”                                                                         v. 4                                 vv. 15, 18

“long ago,” “before all time”                                          v. 4                                  v. 25

“only”                                                                              v. 4                                  v. 25

In addition, the full phrase “Lord Jesus Christ” is found in verses 4, 17, and 21, as well as in the order “Jesus Christ Lord” in v. 25. And notice that the brief descriptions of the ungodly troublemakers in the church in verses 4 and 18-19 bracket the more full diatribe against these people which constitutes the central body of the letter.

A note regarding Jude's writing style is in order here before reading any further in this short letter. Many scholars have pointed out the propensity of James to list triads in his letter. Thus, we have “called, beloved and kept” (v. 1); “mercy, peace and love “ (v. 2); and “ungodly, pervert and deny” (v. 4) in just these first four verses. In Nyrey's commentary on Jude, he locates sixteen such triplets just in this short epistle. As an exercise, you might want to see how many of these you can detect.

Jude 1

It is first necessary here to discuss a textual issue since ancient manuscripts differ somewhat in their readings. Metzger notes that The King James Version chose to go with the reading hagiasmenois (“sanctified”) in place of the more widely attested and earlier Greek manuscripts which have instead agapmenois (“loved”).

Reicke states: “Even though the author calls himself the 'servant' rather than the brother of Jesus, this is fully understandable as an expression of modesty...Jude has authority enough through his relationship to James, the well-known leader of the Jerusalem church...The recipients of the epistle are described as 'the called ones who are loved by God the Father,' vs. 1, in short, as in Second Peter, the church in general. Jude, however, was writing with more regard for Jewish Christians readers than Second Peter.”

The exact familial relationship of Jude to Jesus in an earthly sense is a question of such scope that I won't attempt to tackle it here except to include an interesting quotation from the Roman Catholic priest and scholar Joseph Fitzmyer who, in his two-volume commentary on Luke, equivocates as to the sense in which Jesus had 'brothers.' He gives examples in which adelphos should be understood since it can also mean neighbor (Matt 5:22-24), coreligionist (Romans 9:3), or stepbrother (Mark 6:17-18). But he recognizes that “the only virginity of Mark of which he [i.e. Luke] speaks in the Gospel concerns her status prior to the conception of Jesus (1:27, 34).” This is in spite of the official Catholic teaching of the eternal virginity of Mary.

“Both Jude and Andrew might well have been jealous and resentful of their far greater brothers. Both must have had the gift of gladly taking second place.” (Barclay)

For more information on the siblings of Jesus, see passages such as Mark 3:31-35; 6:3;15:40; 16:6,9; Matthew 12:46-50; 13:55; 27:56; Luke 8:19-21; 24:34; John 7:2-5; Acts 7:2; and I Corinthians 15:7.

Concerning the word 'servant,' Green points out: “One of the paradoxes of Christianity is that in such glad devotion a man finds perfect freedom.”

Jude 2

“The greeting Jude conveys to the audience is almost a prayer wish that God would multiply his blessings in this community (1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 1:2). With the term mercy, Jude draws on the Hebrew concept of the 'kindness' of God (hesed) toward people that sustains the covenant. Peace is the sense of welfare and rest in God that mercy seeks to produce. These two elements were typical of Jewish greetings...Of course, love (agape) is intrinsic to the Christian understanding of God's actions in and through Christ in behalf of humankind.” (Towner)

Jude 2-3

It is widely agreed by Bible scholars that the author of 2 Peter borrowed language from the letter of Jude so that, for example, 2 Peter 1:2 // Jude 2 and 2 Peter 1:5 // Jude 3. Or, as Reicke believes, “both epistles derive from a common tradition which may well have been oral rather than written. Very possibly there was a sermon pattern formulated to resist the seducers of the church. This would explain both the similarities and the differences in a satisfactory fashion.”

Jude 3

There is another minor question regarding the Greek text of this verse which is reflected in the KJV reading of “the (hamon) salvation” vs. most modern translations which favor “our (humon) salvation.” (Metzger)

We learn here that “Jude had projected another treatise, concerning 'our common salvation', when he found himself obliged to take up a more controversial line, in vigorous defense of the apostolic faith. This defense was made necessary by the alarming advances made by an incipient gnosticism in the circle of Christians in which Jude addresses himself – not in this case an ascetic form of teaching like that attacked by Paul in Colossians, but an antinomian [lit. 'against the law'] form which may have appealed to Paul's teaching about “Christian liberty, misinterpreting that liberty as license...” (Bruce)

Nyrey explains that the metaphor 'contend' in this verse “can refer to (a) military combat (John 18:36; 2 Tim 2:4...) or (b) sporting contests (1 Cor 9:24-25; 2:Tim 2:5...). Contending for the faith (1 Tim 6:12; 2 Tim 4:7) may be viewed in two complementary ways.” The first is in terms of honor and shame while the second is in terms of purity and pollution. Concerning this last category, he says, “When boundaries are threatened, one sounds the alarm, posts guards, and seeks to identify, neutralize, and expel the threatening pollution. Hence the group is put on guard to secure the boundary ('faith delivered once for all') against polluting scoffers, who have 'crept in.'”

Jude 4

The King James Version of Jude 4 relies on manuscripts which reads “the only master God and our Lord Jesus Christ” while there is much better manuscript support for omission of the word “God.” (Metzger)

Davids says, “Jude's major concern is ethics. The false teachers are accused of denying Christ (v. 4), who is described as 'our only Master and Lord' (NRSV). But the specific charges Jude brings indicate ethical rather than doctrinal departure from Jesus: to call Jesus 'Lord' and reject his ethical teaching is just as much a denial of him as to deny he is Lord.'”

“Furthermore, they are treating the fact that God graciously accepts sinners as an excuse for flagrant, shameless sin, Aselgeia, a license for immorality, means in Greek literature, and particularly in Aristotle's Ethics, 'unrestrained vice'. Thus it comes fittingly as the climax of the foul catalogue in Galatians 5:19.” (Green)

I CORINTHIANS 2:1-7

To illustrate the utility of a good Bible reference book, the above passage was chosen as a random example to show what one such book, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (IVP, 1993), has to say in its individual articles on these verses.

I Corinthians 2:1-5 Winter comments on these first five verses of this section: “Paul explained why he had renounced in his modus operendi all formal conventions whereby a foreign rhetor established his credentials when he first came to a city (1 Cor 2:1-5). He tells why he would not proclaim the gospel using the superior presentation of rhetoric or wisdom (1 Cor 2:1). While rhetors sought topics from their audience on which to declaim in order to demonstrate their prowess in oratory, Paul was concerned only to proclaim Jesus the crucified Messiah (1 Cor 2:2)...It was a radical and costly step on the part of Paul to refuse to use much admired rhetoric of his day in preaching. His renunciation was motivated by the desire that his converts' faith must not rest on his own wisdom but on the power of God (1 Cor 2:5).”

Arnold adds: “The Corinthians...were tempted to be more impressed with the form and style of delivery...rather than the content of the message. Paul thus calls them to focus on the content of the preaching – Jesus Christ and him crucified – and the demonstration of the Spirit's power in his preaching, evident in the transformed lives of the converts (1 Cor 2:1-5).”

And to counter those who may feel that Paul could not hold his own with more rhetorically trained opponents, Yamauchi says, “Though Paul eschews the more florid displays of Greek oratory (1 Cor 2:1-4), his letters nonetheless employ [numerous] rhetorical devices.., and he meets his sophistic opponents (in 2 Cor 10-13) by using their techniques and procedures.”

And Hafemann says that “rather than questioning the legitimacy of his apostleship because of his suffering, Paul considered suffering to be a characteristic mark of his apostolic ministry (Gal 6:17; 1 Cor 2:1-5, etc.), and an aspect of his own moral life concerning which he was content...Paul's suffering also functioned to make it clear...that the power and knowledge of the gospel was God's and not his own, so that those who encountered Paul would place their faith in the power of God and not in the person of the apostle...”

I Corinthians 2:1-2 “It has been argued that the small number of converts in Athens caused Paul to change the character of his preaching, and that this is reflected in such passages as 1 Corinthians 2:1-2. But the situations in Athens and Corinth were radically different and called for different emphases.” (Gempf)

I Corinthians 2:1 Trites explains that “the noun for 'testimony' (martyrion) appears in Paul's letters as a synonym for the gospel. Paul speaks of 'the testimony about God' (1 Cor 2:1 NIV, if this is the correct textual reading), 'our testimony about Christ' (1 Cor 1:6 NIV) or simply 'our testimony' (2 Thess 1:10).”

I Corinthians 2:2 Greidanus: “Contemporary recommendations to use Paul's letters to preach biographical sermons on Paul are obviously contrary to his intentions.”

Travis says, “Two main word groups occur frequently in Paul's letters [referring to 'judgment']. Like the English verb to judge, the Greek krino can mean 'form an opinion,' 'decide' (1 Cor 2:2), but commonly refers to the assessment of human beings by others (1 Cor 4:5; 6:1) or by God (Rom 2:16).”

“Paul claims that the Corinthians misunderstood the power and freedom of the gospel because they failed to understand the significance of the cross when they were baptized into Christ and his death (cf. Rom 6:3). He reminds them, however, that when he was among them he 'knew nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified' (1 Cor 2:2; see also 1 Cor 1:18,23). Prior to the consummation of all things, the Christian life, and particularly Christians' conception of true power and authority are characterized by the cross.” (Fowl)

I Corinthians 2:3 Bruce says, “He [Paul] left Macedonia in deep depression and arrived in Corinth, as he confessed 'in weakness and fear and much trembling' (1Cor 2:3). If Macedonia had shown itself so unwelcoming Corinth would surely be more so: its public reputation promised no receptive soil for the gospel seed. But nevertheless Paul was able to spend eighteen months in Corinth, preaching the gospel and building up the church, with no serious molestation.”

“The phrase 'fear and trembling' is unique to the Pauline writings in the NT (1 Cor 2:3; 2 Cor 7:15; Phil 2:12; Eph 6:5).” (Porter)

I Corinthians 2:1,4 “A number of commentators have taken en sophia logou as a reference to a formal characteristic of skillful speech...Paul reiterates that he did not come in such a way as to distinguish himself in eloquence or wisdom (1 Cor 2:1; cf. 1:7). What is primarily at stake is Paul's speaking. Paul is adamant in restating in 1 Corinthians 2:4 that his speech and proclamation were not with eloquence and rhetorical skill.” (Blue)

I Corinthians 2:3 Black: “Anthropologically, weakness presupposes that a person's whole being is dependent upon God and is subject to the humiliations of all creation (1 Cor 2:3). Weakness also involves the inability of human beings to attain God's favor by themselves (1 Cor 9:22).”

I Corinthians 2:3-4 Barton says that “Paul's authority depended upon his ability to mediate effectively the message of the cross along with its cultural and socio-economic corollaries. This he attempted to do by preaching it (with whatever lack of rhetorical finesse, cf. 1 Cor 2:3-4), teaching and writing letters about it, and by embodying it in his own apostolic lifestyle and person.”

I Corinthians 2:4 Kim states that “when Paul speaks of 'the signs of the apostle' in terms of 'signs and wonders and mighty work' (2 Cor 12:12; Rom 15:18-19; Gal 3:5; 1 Cor 2:4; 1 Thess 1:5), he seems to reflect Jesus' words of apostolic commission (Mk 6:7-8; cf. Mk 16:17-18).”

“Righteousness and Spirit, together with closely related concepts like life (2 Cor 3:6), freedom (2 Cor 3:17) and power (cf. 1 Cor 2:4), form a matrix that constitutes the eschatological glory revealed in Christ.” (Gaffin)

Twelftree states that “the compelling power of Paul's message was not in his rhetoric but in the demonstration 'of Spirit and of power' (1 Cor 2:4). As 'Spirit' and 'power' can be interchangeable in Paul's writing (cf. Rom 15:1,19; 1 Thess 1:5), the words here are likely to signify the same reality.”

I Corinthians 2:4-5 “Paul inherits from the OT and intertestamental Judaism the concept of the Spirit as the power of God. He attributes his evangelistic success to the Spirit's effective presence, and suggests more than once that miracles attended his own preaching, though he does not enumerate these (1 Thess 1:4-6; 1 Cor 2:4-6; Rom 2:4-5; Rom 15:18-19; Gal 3:2).” (Paige)

“The Spirit is...spoken of as the power of resurrection existence made operative in the Christian's ethical life (as in Rom 8:1; 1 Cor 2:4-5) (Kreitzer)

I Corinthians 2:4-7 “Paul emphasized the dissimilarity between the word of the cross and

'wisdom of speech' (1 Cor 1:17) which is the 'wisdom of the world' (1 Cor 1:20), 'human wisdom' (1 Cor 2:5), the 'wisdom of this age,' which is the wisdom of the earthly 'rulers of this age' (1 Cor 2:6) – mere 'human wisdom' (1 Cor 2:13)...the message of the gospel is 'God's wisdom' (1 Cor 2:7)...Thus the proclamation of the gospel of Christ who is God's wisdom has the power to lead to faith and the bestowal of the gift of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:4-5).” (Schnabel)

I Corinthians 2:5 Guthrie and Martin explain: “So glorious a being [as God] could never be impotent (cf. Rom 4:21; 11:23; 1 Cor 2:5; 2 Cor 9:8). Indeed the description 'the power of God,'

which is used absolutely, aptly indicates this dynamic aspect of God's character (cf. 2 Cor 6:7; 13:4; 2 Tim 1:8).”

I Corinthians 2:6 Reid comments on the term “rulers” found in verses 6 and 8: “This term commonly referred to human rulers, a sense Paul himself used when he spoke of rulers as civil authorities (archontes) in Romans 13:3...Interpreters are divided over whether 1 Corinthians 2:6,8 refers to human or to spiritual powers, with some suggesting a dual reference.”

“Paul alludes to the Corinthians as 'perfect' or 'mature' (1 Cor 2:6) because to them God's Spirit revealed his wisdom that is 'not of this age' (1 Cor 2:6,10). The Corinthians stand in contrast to those without the Spirit (1 Cor 2:12,14), who possess no spiritual discernment.” (Klein)

Kreitzer says, “The adjective teleios can...take the sense of 'mature' or 'adult' and is so used in 1 Corinthians 2:6; 14:20; Philippians 3:15...”

I Corinthians 2:6-7 “Paul understood the death and resurrection of Jesus in the past as cosmic eschatological events that separate 'this age' (Rom 12:2; 1 Cor 1:20; 2:6), or 'this present evil age' (Gal 1:4), from 'the age to come.' This present age is dominated by rulers, demonic powers who are doomed to pass away (1 Cor 2:6-7).” (Aune)

Painter: “Ephesians 1:4 envisages the plan and action of God before the foundation of the world (pro kata boles kosmou). This Jewish expression is found four times in the Gospels (Mt 13:35 = Ps 78:2; Mt 24:21; Mk 10:6; 13:9) and with 'before the ages' (proton aionon, 1 Cor 2:7) means 'before the creation'...The urgency of the moment calls for denial, not because the physical world is evil in itself (1 Cor 10:26) but because the form of this world is passing away (1 Cor 2:6; 7:31) and the new age is dawning. Attachment to 'things of this world' is not appropriate.”

ECCLESIASTES 1:1-11

Several authors have stressed the joint importance of the poems located in the prologue (1:3-11) and toward the end of the book (12:1-7) in setting out the whole scope and theme of Ecclesiastes. These two poems correspond roughly to the respective themes of “the futility of life” and “the answer of practical faith,” the two poles around which the book's observations revolve. But, surprisingly, few commentators seem to have viewed the beginning and conclusion of Ecclesiastes as a pair of perfectly symmetrical bookends, as Seow notes:

        A. The Words of the Preacher (1:1)

                B. Thesis: All is Vanity (1:2)

                        C. Poem (1:3-11)

---------------------

                        C'. Poem (12:1-7)

                B'. Thesis: All is Vanity (12:8)

        A'. The Words of the Preacher (12:9-14)

Ecclesiastes 1:1 The controversies concerning this passage begin with discussions concerning the identity of the author these words. Longman states, “Even conservative commentators...reject the tradition of Solomonic authorship. The connection between Qohelet and Solomon is instead recognized as a literary fiction on the part of the writer of the book...”

And elsewhere Longman says, “Increasingly, commentators have recognized two voices in the book. In Ecclesiastes 1:12-12:7, Qohelet speaks in the first person; In Ecclesiastes 1:1-11; 12:8-14 someone else (often called the frame narrator or second wise teacher) speaks about Qohelet to his son...” Note how that roughly fits the literary structure shown above.

“To disguise the identity of an actual king by naming him 'Qohelet' ['teacher] is one thing, but to refer to him as 'son of David, king in Jerusalem (Eccles 1:1) when he was not is problematic for some interpreters, although it need not be, since there is no reason to assume that adopting a literary persona is an act of deception...It simply means that the main character of the book is referred as Qohelet for reasons which still elude interpreters to this day.” (Enns)

Shields discusses the pros and cons regarding the identity of Qohelet with Solomon. He concludes: “The fact that Qohelet is never explicitly identified with Solomon suggests that the association exists to serve a purpose other than outright identification. And the most recognized reason for the association is to establish the authority and integrity of Qohelet's wisdom.”

Ecclesiastes 1:2 And now we come to that mysterious Hebrew term hebel, translated as “vanity” by the KJV. Depending on the English translation you have or the commentator you read, this may be rendered by one of the following possibilities: breath, absurd, vapor, empty, self-pride, fleeting, transitory, futile, senseless, incomprehensible, mystery, enigma, meaningless, frustrating, temporary, air, steam, or gas.

As one example, Pokrifka says, “The life that God breathes into creatures is portrayed as fleeting. Life and everything in it is hebel (Eccles 1:2), which literally means 'vapor' (Ps 144:4; Prov 13:11; 21:6) and is often translated as 'breath'...'Vapor' figuratively speaks of the ephemeral nature of life and its absurdity. The translation 'vapor' is preferred over against the traditional rendering 'vanity' (KJV), especially given the plethora of images for the brevity and transience of life used in close connection with hebel.”

Thus, Firth makes the following interesting suggestion: “The pleasure for readers is in seeking to follow all the clues that Qohelet provides as to what he means by hebel [breath, vanity, etc.] Indeed, by deferring from providing an exact resolution, Qohelet continually invites the readers to come back and reread the text and to continue the exploration.”

Hendry brings up a question regarding the statement 'All is vanity' in this verse. He asks, “(H)ow could [the author of] Ecclesiastes pronounce all to be vanity, unless he knew of some validity, some sure ground to which his spirit clung? His object is not to counsel despair but to refute secularism on its own ground.”

I would add that hebel often appears in the repeated phrase 'vanities of vanities', which is a Hebraic way of expressing a superlative and thus means 'the greatest vanity.' In the same way 'king of kings' denotes the ultimate king and 'song of songs' means 'the foremost song.'

Ecclesiastes 1:3 In this verse we come upon another translation quandary. Klingbeil states that “the frequent use of the phrase 'under the sun' (e.g. Eccles 1:3,9,14; 2:11,17,18)...could have been used in a polemical sense against known (non-Israelite) theological concepts – a tendency found in other biblical material as well (see Ps 121:6).”

I would add that the exactly six times the phrase occurs in Ecclesiastes may symbolically indicate, as it does in many other places in the Bible, one less than the symbolic perfection or completion indicated by the number seven. Thus it may very well be another subtle reminder that our human understanding of the situation we are in will always remain incomplete.

Seow notes that in the Ecclesiastes this phrase “is preferred over the phrase tahal hassamayim 'under the heavens,' which occurs much less frequently in the book (1:13; 2:3; 3:1) but is very common elsewhere in the Bible. The two expressions are synonymous to the extent that they both refer to the universality of human experience.”

And we must not forget the first part of verse 3 having to do with the lack of gain achieved by man for all his work. “The thought expressed in v. 3 is not confined to the beginning of the book but occurs repeatedly, and is actually repeated in almost identical words in another passage (3:9).” (Whybray)

Beale and Carson point out: “Verse 26 [of Matthew 15] may faintly echo Eccles. 1:3 on the ultimate futility of merely earthly labor (see also Ps 49:7-9).”

Belcher says, “Although there is reward (heleq) to labor that should be enjoyed (Eccles 2:10; 9:9), there is no profit (yitron) to labor (Eccles 1:2; 2:11).” And Longman notes that the refrain “What profit is there?” also appears in Ecclesiastes 3:9 and 5:16.

Ecclesiastes 1:4 Prokrifka says that “there are cycles of time set by the natural life cycle and developmental stages of human beings. There are generational cycles of about forty years (Ps 78:5-8; Eccles 1:4) and the natural life cycle of about seventy years (Ps 90:11).”

Moore qualifies the words in this verse by stating, “Obviously the earth is not eternal. Only God is. This is simply a way of saying a great long while or a relatively long period of time.”

Ecclesiastes 1:4-7

Grant discusses the genre of Wisdom Poetry in the Bible, typified by Job 28. “Similarly, Ecclesiastes 1:2-11 probably should be considered a wisdom poem. It too sets the tone for much of the ensuing autobiographical debate while remaining distinct from that narrative. It speaks with the language of creation theology (Eccles 1:4-7), and its introductory status provides a hermeneutical lens through which to read the succeeding sections of the book.”

Crenshaw: “The initial unit (1:4-7) deals with the four elements of the universe as discussed by ancient philosophers: earth, air, fire, and water. The remaining unit (1:8-11) refers to the quality that distinguishes human beings from animals, the capacity for speech, and isolates two aspects of the affective dimension, sight and sound. The section concludes with a denial that novelty occurs anywhere and a bold assertion that everything is destined to oblivion...Despite continual departures and entries of separate generations, both human and natural, the earth stands intact...Jerome perceived the irony in this observation about ephemerality and permanence.”

Moore also notes this irony: “Humans truly are the capstone of God's creation, yet we have an uncertain and transient existence. But the material world, which is of much less value than man, has relative stability and consistency. Understandably, we cry out at the inequality of this situation. We are extremely uncomfortable with these graphic reminders of our mortality.”

Hendry says that “men endeavor to screen themselves from the icy wind of mortality by the thought of their posterity and the continuing race..They seek a pseudo-immortality in the fanciful perpetuity of their work...But there is nothing to support this in the course of nature, which is circular, as Ecclesiastes points out (vv. 5-7), or in the course of history, which endlessly repeats itself (vv. 9,10). Progress is ever accompanied by regress. It is only the actors and the scenery that change...”

Thus, as Seow says, in 4-8, “the repeated language subtly conveys the point about the repetitive character of everything.” I would go a step further in demonstrating how form and function follow one another. Thus, for example we see in verses 5 and 7 how the author has utilized the poetic form of the chiasm to show that no matter how things change, they still remain the same:

        A. The sun rises

                B. and the sun goes down

                B'. and hurries to the place

        A' where it rises (1:5)

        A. All streams run to the sea

                B. but the sea is not full

                B'. to the place (i.e. the sea) where the seas flow

        A'. there they continue to flow (1:7)

Ecclesiastes 1:5 is notable in that it is from this verse that Ernest Hemingway got the title for his masterpiece concerning the “lost generation,” The Sun Also Rises.

Ecclesiastes 1:7 “We should point out Qohelet's unusual knowledge in this passage: he writes as if he knew that water evaporates from the ocean and then rains on the land, thus feeding the rivers!” (Ellul) As a scientist, I had also thought that this seemed to betray a knowledge of the physical world beyond what the ancients were aware.

Ecclesiastes 1:8 “NRSV gives the alternative translation of 1:8 as “all words are wearisome; more than one can express.” If adopted, that would provide a fitting parallel to the ending of the book – “Of the making of many books there is no end, and much study is weariness of the flesh” (12:12).

Similarly, Seow prefers the translation 'words' to 'things' and notes that in the eleven subsequent uses of debarim in the book, the meaning is clearly 'words.' Seow additionally notes the similarity of this verse to 12:12.

“Qohelet jumps from this 'trite' observation concerning the cycle of nature to humanity (he could have added the seasons). Words become wearisome. A person gets to the point where he cannot talk any more, but the eye does not get its fill of seeing, nor the ear of listening. This is the first step: as creators or producers of speech (of truth? of information?), we are limited: we reach a stopping point.” (Ellul)

But Whybray questions the translation 'wearisome' itself: “The subject of which yege'im is the predicate is not 'mankind' or 'human life' but All things. If yagea' – the singular form – means 'weary', the literal meaning of the line is 'All things are weary'. There is no justification for rendering yagea' by 'wearisome', that is causing weariness (presumably to man). But, further, the meaning of 'weary' for yagea' is by no means well established. It is a very rare word, only occurring in two other passages in the Old Testament. The related noun yegia', which occurs more frequently, has two other connotations besides that of weariness: hard work or toil, and the product which results from toil...In the present context it makes good sense to take the phrase 'All things are yage'im' as referring to the ceaseless 'toil' or busy activity of any natural phenomena described in the following verses...”

Ecclesiastes 1:9 “Aside from reading conclusions that placed Qohelet in direct contradiction to the prophets (e.g. Eccles 1:9 vs. Is. 42:9; 43:19), some of his words may represent a direct attack on the prophets and other religious officials in ancient Israel.” (Shields)

Koptak also notes this contradiction and says, “Readers of the canon in later generations may bring together the opposing perspectives of Isaiah 43:19 ('I make something new') with Ecclesiastes 1:9 ('Nothing new exists under the sun'), examining the way each speaks to the topic of knowledge. Qolelet helps readers recognize the limits of human knowledge, itself a step forward in wisdom. Historical lessons are not enough.., and a new creation is needed, both in the vision that the suffering servant mediates and a re-creation of the people.”

Ecclesiastes 1:10 Fleming says of the phrase no remembrance of men of old, “people too easily forget what happened in past generations. It is because of this that things appear to them as new (v. 10).”

Ecclesiastes 1:11 “In common OT thought life ended at the grave. Thus, if one's name or reputation did not live beyond the grave in someone's memory, that person's existence had ceased entirely. Such a fate might happen as a natural part of history (Eccles 1:11), but it might also have moral overtones...With this concept, God imposed on those not being remembered after death was usually a terrible fate that God imposed on those who deserved it.” (Seevers)

JAMES 2:1-7 REVISITED

Five years ago, almost to the day, I posted the following comments on these verses based on some older commentaries in my library verses:

James 2:1-4. The example is one of non-Christians visiting a congregation. The two are clearly visitors or they wouldn't have to be told where to go. The setting is literally the “synagogue,” which sounds strange to us today but was common terminology for Christian Jews of 50-60 AD who may have continued to worship in the same place as their non-Christian brethren. It helps date the epistle since the term would be totally out of place at a somewhat later date when the Christians were effectively excluded from the synagogues.

Verse 2: The gold ring indicates he is a Roman nobleman or senator. Only they were permitted to wear gold rings, according to some commentators. Thus, it indicates rank or profession as well as wealth. The splendid robe is a white toga, often worn by those seeking political office. Perhaps he is a visiting politician seeking votes. It opens the question of our currying favor with those in power because we think they can do us some good. “Poor” in this case is not poor in heart, but those who are in material poverty.

Verse 3: “Stand there” has the implication of “just where you are, don't go any closer.”

“Under my footstool” indicates the lower row of stone benches around the synagogue where one rested one's feet. Footstool is a place traditionally mentioned in the OT for conquered enemies, not exactly a place of honor.

Verse 4: “Haven't you made a distinction among yourselves.” Another possibility in the NIV is “are you not divided,” i.e. double-minded, serving God and mammon.

Verse 5: Note that even though the rebuke may be stern, James softens it by using “beloved brothers.” He believed in speaking the truth, but in love. James actually goes beyond equality here. The poor are actually to be given preferential treatment in line with God's standards of worth. See Luke 1:52 and I Corinthians 1:26-29.

Verse 7: James' opposition to the rich is not just based on general principles, but on actual experience. These verses employ diatribe style and generalities that may not apply to all cases (such as in Proverbs).

Alternative Understandings

Since the above words were written, I have come across somewhat different interpretations of this passage based on the supposed historical context in which James' audience was experiencing at the time.

The exegesis most different from the above is typified by Alicia Batten's comments in a recent issue of Biblical Archaeology Today magazine. She states, “Some interpreters think this scenario...reflects a meal setting, while others argue that a worship meeting is presupposed. I contend, however, that the author has in mind a courtroom scene, based on clues in the text itself.” Her arguments can be summarized in the following points:

    1. James was likely familiar with public court activities in the Roman Empire.

    2. Well-dressed people were advertising their exalted status while litigants were often coached to dress poorly in order to gain sympathy from the judges or jurors.

    3. The audience may have ordered the poor man to stand or sit instead of falling at the judges' feet and begging for mercy.

    4. Legal proceedings were sometimes held in synagogues “and there are indications that Roman and later rabbinic legal proceedings shared things in common.”

Reasoning based on such flimsy “evidence” does not seem to me to be at all persuasive. But below are some comments from both the liberal and conservative wings of Christianity for comparison.

Wall: “Clearly they [i.e.,the first readers of the letter] are believers (Jas 1:2) who are members of a Jewish Christian synagogue (Jas. 2:1-2), who are a congregation of humble means...Their enemies are the landed rich (Jas 5:1) and merchant middle class (Jas 4:13) who are members of a Jewish congregation attached to the local synagogue (Jas 2:2-4; cf. 1:9)...[who] oppress the impoverished members of the Christian congregation (Jas 2:2), even using their political clout to exploit the working-class poor (Jas 5:1-6) and to demand favorable verdicts against them from the law court (Jas 2:6-7) and the synagogue court (Jas 2:3-4).”

Johnson states, “The portrayal raises a number of critical questions.” These include the following:

    1. Does the use of synagogue say anything in particular regarding the character of the community being described?

    2. Is the synagogue the assembly itself or the building in which it occurs?

    3. Is the rich person who enters a member of the community or an outsider?

    4. Is the community gathered for worship and study or to reach a legal decision?

    5. Did this scene really occur or is it made up for rhetorical purposes?

He concludes that in each case “it is impossible, on the basis of the evidence offered here, to decide. Nor does the decision on any of these points really matter, for the force of James' example does not derive from its historical referentiality, but from its rhetorical function.”

McKnight goes into even more detail, beginning with the comment that “the messianic community is treating the poor unjustly and showing favoritism toward the wealthy in public settings...2:1 is filled with exegetical questions, some of which could be partly or completely resolved if we knew more of the precise context...Having prohibited the stunning behavior of the messianic community and set forth the theme of this section [in v. 1], now James elucidates or illustrates the prohibition with a graphic instance of favoritism...Both Laws and Davids suggest that the hypothetical example bears some relationship to actual events in the messianic community and could be an example with some caricature involved.”

As did Johnson, he also asks a series of questions regarding the use of the word 'synagogue' in v. 2. It can mean any building in which a group assembles, the gathering itself, or (his preferred choice)
the messianic community's worship and learning center, which for whatever reasons visitors sometimes attended.

McKnight concludes: “While traces of ancient evidence tease one into considering the event in James 2:2-4 as a judicial assembly, I wonder if we are not pressing James's words well beyond their intent...Suggestive parallels to judicial courts in other literature may have nothing to do with what James is describing. Furthermore, there is nothing in the synagogue assembly in James 2:2-4 that suggests the presence of a judge...Finally, the language of 2:6 suggests a setting other than the synagogue assembly in 2:2-4. In 2:6 the rich are using their power to drag poor members of the messianic community to what appears to be a new setting, a court (not to 'synagogue') where slander (2:7) occurs. Moreover, the rich are described in two different ways: in 2:2-4 the rich are treated with deferential respect and favoritism while in 2:6-7 they are seizing control. The greater the difference between 2:2-4 and 2:6-7, the less likely the former portrays a judicial seeing.”

It appears to me that McKnight's arguments have sealed the doom of interpretations such as offered by Batten despite the admitted uncertainties due to our imprecise knowledge of conditions during the time of James' writing. As L. P. Hartley once said, "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."