WERE THE WISE MEN REALLY WISE?

A reader of a Quora post responded that her favorite Bible contradiction was “the tale of wise kings' betrayal to the local king followed by the massacre of all the toddlers.” Actually, she never actually spells out what was the exact nature of the “contradiction” here. But reading between the lines, I assume that it consisted of the fact that they couldn't have been all that wise if their actions led to such a massacre.

But before answering this contradiction, it should be pointed out that the author of that problem above was a bit off-base in no less that four ways: the visitors were not said to be wise, they were not kings, any betrayal was strictly inadvertent, and the massacre amounted to no more than 20 boys (that last event paling in comparison to Herod's other atrocities – see my earlier post titled “Matthew 2:16”). With that introduction, we can proceed to elaborate and delve a little further into the exact identification of the “wise men” and who they represent in Matthew's Gospel.

One description of them offered above can be disposed of in a few words – their kingly status. “In fact, the Greek word from which 'magi' is derived does not refer to royalty...” (Showalter) Ellis explains where that mistaken idea arose: “Later Christian traditions regard the Magi as kings (because of Ps. lxxii. 10; Is xlix.7)...”

Next, let's deal with the critical issue as to whether they really are called “wise men” at all. A good start is to look at modern English translations to see how they read:

    wise men – RSV, Jerusalem Bible

    astrologers – NEB, JB Phillips, The Living Bible

    men who studied the stars – TEV

    scholars – The Message

    magi – NIV, NASB, AB

Regarding the first translation, Albright and Mann state: “The RSV perpetuates the unhappy translation of 'wise men,' ..We have consistently referred to the visitors as 'magi,' as being less liable to misunderstanding.”

Treating these visitors as astrologers (men who studied the stars for hidden meanings or oracles) is a definite possibility, as Showalter points out when he identifies them as “practitioners of eastern magical arts. The connection between magic and astrology is reflected in the visitors' fascination with the star that had led them to Bethlehem.”

The last option above is the most accurate since it is a simple transliteration of the original Greek word, magos. But, of course, that still begs the question as to what magos precisely means. One solution seems to jump out at us due to the similarity of the word to our English “magician.” And this is indeed part of its meaning, as demonstrated below.

Ellis says, “The term is used in Herodotus (I.10, 132) of a tribe of the Medes who had a priestly function in the Persian Empire; in other classical writers it is synonymous with priest. Complementing this, Daniel (i. 20, ii. 27, v. 15) [in the Greek Septuagint version] applies the word to a class of 'wise men' or astrologers who interpret dreams and messages of the gods. In the New Testament the usage broadens to include all who practice magic arts (cf. Acts viii 9, xiii, 6,8).”

Raymond Brown reviews competing arguments offered in favor of the magi coming from the following geographical areas – Persia, Babylon or Arabia– without arriving at any firm conclusion on the issue.

As far as their country of origin, Albright and Mann go against most other commentators when they state: “There is...no indication in the story that we were meant to identify the magi as Gentiles.”

That brings us to the vital question as to how magic was viewed by the Jews at the time. And here, scholars are in agreement:

Kee: “The gospel narratives are characterized by a virtual absence of the formulas and techniques of magic...Encounters with magic and magicians are explicitly mentioned [in the NT] only in Acts, where their work is denounced (Acts 8:9-24) and the perpetrator is struck blind (Acts 13:8-9).” One could also add the reference in II Timothy 3:8 to the OT magicians Jannes and Jambre who opposed Moses.

Showalter: “Elsewhere in the Bible the portrayal of magi is not so positive. Greek versions of the book of Daniel refer to magi who were ineffective advisors to King Nebuchadrezzar.”

Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: “In truth, for the inhabitants of the biblical world most confrontations between good and evil were simply the visible manifestations of a larger spiritual reality, which was the domain of magic.” Thus, the Old Testament regulations prescribed the death penalty for anyone who practiced magic.

So why were these magi chosen to be one of the first to visit the young Jesus from the outside? Hill feels the answer is obvious: “The evangelist is clearly hinting at the submission of the Gentiles to Christ.” Ellis adds, “For Matthew the Magi's visit represents the Messiah's relationship to the Gentile world and is also a fitting introduction to other prophetically significant events of Christ's infancy...”

But, as pointed out above, not everyone agrees that the magi were even Gentiles; and even if they were, that fact is not exactly stressed in the text.

There is another symbolic reason for the “wise men's” visit that meets with even greater approval among scholars, and that is based on the overwhelmingly negative biblical view on magic of all sorts.

Blomberg feels that “the magi may replace Balaam as unlikely Gentile witnesses to God's redemption...In the OT, faithful Israelites prove superior to foreign magicians (Gen. 41; Exod. 7-10; Dan. 2), but here in Matt. 2 the tables are turned.”

Brown cites Davies as thinking that “just as the sorcerers of Egypt were vanquished by Moses, so the power of the astrologers was broken at the advent of Christ. He sees the homage of the magi in vs. 11 as their being 'led to kneel at the feet of the greater Moses.'”

France goes even further in his assessment of the magi. “The story of the homage of the magi is...not only a demonstration of the fulfillment of the messianic prophecy of Mic.5:2 but also a multi-layered study of the fulfillment of scriptural models in the coming of Jesus, with royal, messianic motifs at the heart of these models.” He then cites examples of the “dubious reputation of magi in Jewish and Christian circles. If there were no historical basis for the narration, it is unlikely that a church which repudiated astrology and magic would have embarrassed itself by inventing such undesirable witnesses to the Messiah...M.A. Powell argues that the term magoi would predispose Matthew's readers to a negative evaluation, and that Matthew expects them to regard these visitors 'not as wise men but as fools'. The fact that God chooses such men to receive his revelation is a sign not of their wisdom but of their foolishness and ignorance, on the principle set out in 11:25.”

That passage reads, “At that time Jesus said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants.”

One could also cite Paul for the same idea: “Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong. God chose what is low and despised in the world...so that no one might boast in the presence of God.” (I Corinthians 26-28, NRSV)

Adding to that same concept, we could cite the presence of another despised group, shepherds, as key witnesses to Jesus' birth and early years. That group of people was considered so unreliable that their testimony in a court of law at the time was not even allowed. Or what about the first witnesses to the open tomb and the risen Savior? They were women, another group usually disqualified as a witness by the Jews.

In conclusion, the presence of magi in the birth story along with shepherds (although their visits were not at the same time) does not represent the extremes of Gentiles and Jews, wealthy and poor, educated and ignorant, or wise and foolish as much as it symbolizes two groups similarly despised by Jews at the time.

 

REVELATION 11:1-13 WHO ARE THE TWO WITNESSES?

Properly understanding the identity of these mysterious personages breaks down into two separate issues which are sometimes mistakenly conflated with one another: (a) identifying the source of the imagery and (b) determining how John is utilizing those images.

We must keep in mind, first of all, that practically everything in the Book of Revelation has Old Testament roots. Therefore it is not surprising that almost every scholarly commentator begins at that point for their understanding of passages in it. However, most also realize that this is only a starting point since John alludes to OT passages in order to convey deeper information regarding the future of the church.

Source of the Imagery

JB note: “In Zc[2:5-9] the two olive trees symbolize Joshua and Zerubbabel, the religious and the civil leaders of the repatriated community who restored Temple and city after the Exile.”

Mounce gives additional reasons showing that the powers of the “two witnesses” were obviously modeled first of all on Moses and Elijah. Namely, “they have the power, like Elijah to consume their enemies with fire (II Kgs 17:10ff) and to shut the heavens so that it will not rain (I Kgs 17:1), and like Moses they can turn water into blood (Ex 7:14-18) and smite the earth with every plague (Ex 8:12). Further, it was a common expectation that Elijah and Moses would return before the end of the world. Malachi had prophesied, 'Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes' (Mal 4:5; cf. Mk 9:11 and Mt 11:14). Apparently Deuteronomy 18:18 ('I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren') had given rise to a similar expectation regarding Moses (cf. Jn 6:14; 7:40). It was Moses and Elijah who appeared with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mk 9:4). Furthermore, the ascension of the two witnesses into heaven (vs. 12) corresponds with II Kings 2:11 (Elijah's transport) and the tradition underlying the pseudepigraphical Assumption of Moses.”

Ruiz, on the other hand, points to the additional possibility that the two are modeled after Enoch (Gen 5.24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:1-11; Mal 4:5).” And Morris notes that others see Elijah and Elisha in those roles.

John's Application of the Imagery

For some of the more literal commentators, there is no need to go any further in deciding the identify of the two witnesses than pinning down exactly which of the two Old Testament characters they are. And even this is not as easy as it might seem to be, as seen in the candidates mentioned above.

For example, John Phillips unexpectedly concludes, after an incredibly detailed description of exactly what he feels will be happening in world affairs at the time, that he is not quite sure who the two witnesses will are. A literal understanding would dictate that they be Moses and Elijah brought back from heaven only to be killed off. Phillips' only objection to this scenario is that perhaps it wouldn't be quite fair to Moses since he had already died once. I guess he felt that making Elijah die would not pose any problem since, after all, he never had a chance to die earlier.

And for a Roman Catholic perspective, it is not surprising that a footnote in The Jerusalem Bible translation, states, “Here they probably symbolize the two leaders appointed to build the new Temple, the Church of Christ, namely Peter and Paul, probably martyred in Rome under Nero, v. 8.” Just for clarification, this is certainly not referring to the non-instrumental church congregations of that name which are widespread in America.

We are probably on safer ground, considering the highly symbolic meaning of most every image in Revelation, to speculate on what deeper meaning should be attached to the two witnesses. But, unfortunately, there is even more division of opinion concerning this issue.

Thus Morris begins with the common understandings of either the Law and the Prophets; or the Law and the gospel; or the Old Testament and the New Testament as possible interpretations. And then he goes on with his personal thoughts on the subject: “The context seems to demand something directly associated with the church, and in view of verse 7 perhaps we should think particularly of the martyrs. The number two may stand for adequacy of testimony (as in Dt. xvii. 6). Or it may derive from the two faithful churches in chapters II-III, and point to that section of the church which is faithful unto death, the martyrs. The clothing of the witnesses is sackcloth, which points to mourning. They are prophesying doom and their attitude accordingly is sad and penitent. The church is a powerful church only when it is a penitent church. A comfortable, easy-minded church has no power to stir the world either to salvation or to opposition.”

Jacques Ellul can always be relied upon to give a novel perspective to Scripture, and his explanation of this passage is certainly no exception. “It is difficult to be more explicit in describing the time of Jesus upon earth (...we must not, for example, become confused by the number 'two'). Truly then there is here an exact synthesis of the work of Jesus. The two witnesses undoubtedly represent the two dimensions that relate to Jesus Christ...we must not forget the duality of name: he is Son of Man and also Son of God...On the other hand, we must not forget either that Jesus is not an isolated, solitary person: he is descended from the elect people and he bears in himself the whole race of David. And he is head of the Church, which is his body. So in him the two witnesses of God meet: Israel and the Church.”

Ellul's association of the two witnesses with Jesus is also shared to a limited extent by Beale, who says that the reason “a three and one-half year period is chosen to represent the church's witness is that Christ's ministry lasted about that amount of time....The pattern of the narration of the witnesses' career in 11:3-12 is intended as a replica of Christ's career: proclamation and signs result in satanic opposition, persecution (John 15:20), and violent death in the city where Christ was crucified; the world looks on its victim (Rev. 1:7) and rejoices (cf. John 16:20); then the witnesses are raised and vindicated by ascension in a cloud.”

For a typical amillennial understanding of Revelation, Hendricksen says, “In very close connection with 10:8-11, chapter 11 now gives us a description of the 'bitter' experiences which the true church must endure when it preaches the 'sweet' Gospel of salvation...The true church is now represented under the symbolism of two witnesses. 'These witnesses symbolize the church militant bearing testimony through its ministries and missionaries throughout the present dispensation.' The fact that there are two witnesses emphasizes the missionary task of the church. Cf. Lk. 10:1: the Lord sends his missionaries two by two: what the one lacks the other supplies. Now the church as an organization, functioning through its ministers and missionaries, will carry on this work for twelve hundred sixty days. This is [symbolically] the period that extends from the moment of Christ's ascension almost until the judgment day.”

Beale begins by stating, “The 'two witnesses' aren't two individual prophets...or the two Jewish high priests killed in A,D. 68 [Hal Lindsay's contention']. Neither are they only a part of the Christian community...The two witnesses also do not represent concepts like 'the word of God' and 'the testimony of Jesus' because they are portrayed as people who perform actions and speak words. Rather they represent the whole community of faith whose primary function is to be a prophetic witness. The OT had prophesied that the entire eschatological community of God's people would receive the Spirit's gift of prophecy (Joel 2:28-32. The early Christian community understood that Joel's prophecy had begun fulfillment in their midst (Act 2:17-21). This prophetic gift would be the means by which the entire church would 'witness' to the whole world (Acts 1:8).” And for those still not convinced, Beale, in his usual thorough manner, confirms this belief by listing six other considerations that point in the same direction.”

J.B. Payne reaches the same conclusion in a different manner. After first noting the similarity to both Moses/Elijah and Zerubbabel/Joshua, he states that it would be strange for the beast to “make war” on two individuals. However, that phrase is applied to the church as a whole in Revelation 13:7. Secondly, the resurrection and ascension of the witnesses into heaven is paralleled by the resurrection and ascension of the dead in Christ described in I Thessalonians 4:16.

Peter Davids simply says, “Just as there will be an embodiment of evil, so witness will be embodied in two individuals who will come in the spirit of Moses and Elijah.”
It is perhaps appropriate to conclude with J.M. Ford's brief historical survey of candidates for the two witnesses proposed by various scholars over the years just to demonstrate that this is issue has always been a live one within the church:

    Hippolytus and Tertullian – Enoch and Elijah (see I Enoch 90:31)

    Victorinus – Jeremiah and Elijah (see Jeremiah 5:14)

    Bacon – James the Bishop of Jerusalem and the Apostle John

    Gelin – two Christian prophets martyred by Titus

    Munck and others – Peter and Paul

    Qumran scrolls – Joshua and Zerubbabel, symbolizing the priesthood and laity

DID GOLIATH DIE TWICE? (I SAMUEL 17:50-51)

The website QUORA invited their atheist readers to submit their favorite Bible contradictions. Here is an intriguing one: “I Samuel 17:50-51 states first the David killed Goliath without a sword and second that David killed Goliath using Goliath's own sword.”

Rather than, as the author of that contradiction states, this being a problem that no one else had pointed out earlier, it is in fact well known to Bible scholars. And similarly, there have been several approaches to dealing with the issue.

Multiple Sources

For the more liberal commentators, this poses absolutely no problem since they have consistently stated that most books in the Old Testament were composed over extended periods by multiple editors piecing together multiple original sources. Thus, in this particular case they propose that verses 50 and 51 come from two different source materials, each one giving a slightly different slant on the same episode being narrated. Their assumption is that the final editor did not know which account was the most historically correct, so he simply wrote down both narrations side-by-side, even though that might result in an apparent contradiction.

Verse 50 as a Summary Account

McKenzie, for example, accepts the previous scenario and deals with it in the following way: “These verses make it appear as though David killed the Philistine twice, once with the sling stone (v. 50) and once by beheading him with his own sword (v. 51). The repetition results from the combination of two versions of the story, but v. 50 can be read as an overview of the entire episode.”

Deletion of Verse 50

A sort of Gordian knot approach is simply to delete the problem verse 50 altogether as a later addition to the text. The Anchor Bible does just that, explaining “Here MT [the Hebrew text] and other MSS add a verse missing from LXX [the Greek version].” So basically, it rejects the older, majority Hebrew manuscripts in favor of a later one in another language. Few other modern translations have taken such a drastic approach.

Porter gives more textual information: “Chapters 17 and 18 seem originally to have existed in two different forms, a longer one represented by the present Heb. text...and a shorter one represented by the Vatican MS of LXX. This latter omits 17:12-31, 41, 50; 17:55-18:5.”

Other English Translations

Modern versions attempt to smooth over any problems in the original Hebrew by resorting to various expediencies:

NIV renders the end of v. 51 as “after he killed him, he cut off his head with a sword.” This assumes that Goliath was already dead at the end of v. 50.

NEB takes the opposite view that Goliath was still alive in v. 50 and so reads the two verses as David “gave him a mortal wound” (v. 50) and “dispatched him” in v. 51. The Message paraphrase agrees with this approach in their translation of v. 51 as a “finished the job by.”

NRSV reads the conclusion of v. 50 as “he fell face down on the ground” but omits “he killed him.” Similarly, Li states, “David first caused Goliath to fall [v. 50], and then he killed him [v. 51].”

Literary Approach #1

Tsumura comments on v. 50 during this explanation: “This verse interrupts the flow of the narrative from v. 49 to v. 51; it is a little off the main line, and the narrator exults over this seemingly impossible victory. Verse 51 returns to the main line of narrative, and the emphasis is again on what David did. Thus, vv. 49-51 constitutes an AXB pattern. By the insertion [of v. 50] the quick tempo of the narrative is slowed down 'so that the real significance of the day's victory over the Philistines can be underlined' (R.P. Gordon).”

The “quick tempo” mentioned by Tsumura has been also noted by Murphy, who counts no less than thirty-six action verbs in I Samuel 17:48-54.

Literary Approach #2

My own personal favorite way of treating situations such as this where duplications in the Old Testament are suspected to indicate multiple versions, is to ascribe it to the noted propensity of Hebrew writers to purposely say the same thing more than once. This is especially true in the poetry sections of the OT where practically every verse contains multiple stanzas, each one echoing the other(s) in thought. But the phenomenon can also appear in narrative accounts. Thus, one can outline the parallelism between verses 50 and 51 as follows:

        A. David prevailed over the Philistine (50a)

                B. killing him (50b)

                        C. And there was no sword in his hand (50c)

        A'. David stood over the Philistine (51a)

                        C'. He grasped Goliath's sword (51b)

                B'. and killed him (51c)

Parallel Passages

The history books of the OT relate some similar stories to the David and Goliath tale that are interesting to compare to it.

Perhaps the closest in theme and literary approach is the death of the attacking general Sisera at the hand of a housewife (Judges 5). As you may remember, she first rendered the general unconscious with a meal including hot milk, which put him to sleep. Then she picked up a hammer and tent peg and pierced his ear with it. Thematically, this is practically identical to the death of the giant antagonist Goliath at the hand of a mere shepherd youth with no military training. And in terms of literary technique, there is just as strong a correspondence.

In the first place, the account of Sisera's death in verses 26-27 is also loaded with action verbs – twelve in these two verses alone. Also, there is a form of symmetry in the story of his actual death:

        He sank

                he fell

                        he lay still

                                at her feet

                        he lay still

            he fell

       Where he sank

                                        there he died.

If one were to read this as a straightforward, chronological account instead, on would certainly see logical contradictions in the multiple sinking, falling, and laying still. And just as in I Samuel, it is fairly obvious that the method of narration, if taken chronologically, appears to give the false impression that Sisera died multiple times, as well as implying that he was sleeping while standing up. Otherwise why did he “sink” when the stake was pounded into his head? And did Jael have to stand up on a stool to reach up to where she could deliver the blow?

Another somewhat similar story, at least in theme if not in style, is found in Judges 9:52-54 where the attacking commander Abimelech is killed by a woman up on a tower who dropped a millstone on his head. But before dying, the commander has his aide finish him off with a sword so that no one can say that a mere women killed him.

The third parallel as far as style is concerned is found slightly earlier in the same chapter in I Samuel (17:34-36). The shepherd David gives Saul his qualifications before being sent out to battle the giant. It can be diagrammed as follows:

                A. Whenever a lion or bear came, I would strike it,

                                B. I would kill it.

                                B'. I have killed

                A'. both lions and bears.

David is basically repeating himself, using Hebrew poetic parallelism.

 

EZEKIEL 38

This chapter is really closely tied to the following one in the arrangement shown below:

CYCLE 1

Introduction (38:1-6)

        A. Readiness for attack on Israel (38:7-13)

                B. The attack (38:14-16)

                        C. Judgment on Gog (38:17-23)

CYCLE 2

Introduction (39:1-3)

                B. The attack (39:4a)

                        C. Judgment on Gog (39:4b-20)

                                D. Restoration of Israel (39:21-29)

As you can see, this type of organization takes the form of what is called “progressive parallelism” in which the same basic territory is covered twice, with the second version advancing the action somewhat chronologically. This identical structure is seen in the Book of Revelation, another eschatological writing.

Andersen and Freedman note: “The whole of [Micah 4,] vv. 11-13 is eschatological...Ezekiel 38-39 can be seen as an elaboration of the theme of vv. 11-13.”

Ezekiel 38:1-3 – “Following an exceptionally lengthy introduction, the challenge formula leaves no doubt about where the lines are drawn in this oracle. The conflict will inevitably touch Israel, but what Ezekiel envisages is essentially a duel between Yahweh and Gog.” (Block)

Most commentaries spend an inordinate amount of space trying to explain where each of the place names is located, but I will leave it to Chisholm to adequately summarize the situation: “Attempts to identify these proper names with modern Russian place names are anachronistic. The names Magog, Meshech, and Tubal (as well as Gomer and Togarmah; see v. 6) appear in Genesis 10:2-3 as descendants of Japheth. Some translations take the Hebrew word rosh in 38:2 as a proper name...However, it is far more likely that the word is appositional [i.e. parallel] to 'prince.'”

Chishholm adds that the coalition of nations includes those from the distant east, the distant south and the distant north. “Also the fact there are exactly seven such nations suggest both totality and completeness. Ezekiel's description of this battle was contextualized for his sixth-century B.C. audience. These distant, mysterious nations, located on the very perimeter of Israel's world, made apt archetypes because of their 'foreignness.'”

“Gog's invasion cannot be identified with any known historical event; the attempt to interpret the passage with reference to Alexander the Great (Browne, 1952) founders on the undoubted fact that Alexander and his followers did not meet their end on the 'mountains of Israel' (39:4).” (Bruce)

Ezekiel 38:4-6 – This reads, “I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws.” For this thought, Bruce refers the reader to “the language addressed to Pharaoh in 29:4, but the warning to Sennacherib in Isa. 37:29 provides a closer parallel.”
Rogers states, “In Ezek 38:6,15 and 39:2 the prophecy concerns nations that will march against Israel...The identification of this 'foe' is difficult because the context has eschatological overtones. Some hold that these people will occupy the geographical areas in the 'last days'...Others see in the structural development of Ezek 36-39 God's assurance that regardless of the opposition, represented by the enemies from the north, God will restore his people, console them, and establish his kingdom.”

“The account of Gog's attack (38:1-39:29) provides an example of apocalyptic, with a battle involving supernatural intervention at the end of the age and, significantly, after the coming of the Davidic ruler [the Messiah?]. The geographical identification of Gomer (38:6) with the Cimmerians suggest that Ezekiel has transposed the threat from the north, with its constant eruptions into Middle Eastern history, to the end-times and made it represent the powers of evil in general.” (J.B. Job)

Ezekiel 38:7-9 – “It is evident that Israel had begun to despair over the delay of the Day of the Lord for the nations (38:8; 39:8)...so chapters 38-39 function as encouragement...” (Bullock)

Beasley-Murray explains that the phrase 'After many days' indicates that “the invasion is not to occur for a long time. Cf. Is. 24:22.” Also, “'The latter years' indicates the period of the kingdom (cf. Is. 2:2).”

Block: “Yahweh's marching orders for God are spelled out. Although Jeremiah had also spoken of the enemy advancing from the north like storm clouds...at Yahweh's command (4:12-13), Ezekiel's use of so'a, 'storm', points to inspiration from Isa. 10:3. 'What will you do on the day of punishment (pequdda) in the storm (so'a) that will cover the land?' so'a means literally 'devastation,' but its pairing with 'anan suggests a destructive 'storm cloud,' a metaphor for a sudden invasion by vast numbers of troops.”

Ezekiel 38:10-12 – “The nom. perazot occurs only 3x (Esth 9:19; Ezk 38:11; Zech 2:4) and signifies villages without walls...Ezekiel (Ezek 38:10-11) warns of a future day when Gog will devise an attack against restored Israel...In all three cases, the Jews who lived in unwalled villages or cities were exposed to more peril than inhabitants of walled cities. However, in each instance Yahweh provides the necessary protection.” (Grisanti)

Verse 10 reads, “Thoughts will come into your mind.” Bruce interprets this as indicating “that the invasion as planned by Gog does not conflict with his being brought against the land by the divine overruling (v. 16f.); his thoughts as well as his actions are foreordained.”

Ezekiel 38:13-16 – Wakely says, “When Gog's huge army (...Ezek 38:15), which will come to oppress Israel, is eradicated by Yahweh, the slaughter will be considered a sacrifice to God's glory.”

“Since the normal deity-nation-land relationships are operative, for Gog to attack his people and invade his land is to hit their/its patron.” (Block)

Ezekiel 38:17 – Beasley-Murray: “ The reference to the earlier prophets in v. 17 would be to such passages as Zp. 3:8; Je. 3:6; and perhaps, seeing that the prophets spoke 'in former days', to prophecies known to Ezekiel but which have since perished.”

“The key to understanding the oracles is 38:17, 'Are you not the one...?' Most interpret this as a question to be answered positively, but this raises many difficulties...Others make it a positive statement, 'You are the one...'; Ezekiel is then seen to refer to earlier prophecies of a 'foe from the north' (e.g., Jer 1:13-15; 4:6), fulfilled by other invaders, now reapplied to Gog. If the verse is interpreted as a question to be answered negatively, as D. Block has perceived, the problems diminish. Gog could not assault Israel as God's agent to inflict merited punishment, like Sennacherib or Nebuchadnezzar; his onslaught would be directed wholly at his own self-aggrandizement, arrogant and cruel.” (Millard)

Ezekiel 38:18-23 – “Gog's destruction will be by earthquake (vv. 19,20), mutual strife (v. 21) and plagues like those on Egypt at the Exodus (vv. 22,23); it is presumed that Israel will be brought safely through these calamities as in that former time.” (Beasley-Murray)

J.B. Job: “Gog and his hordes, the archetypical enemies of Israel gathered from the four corners of the earth (chs. 38-39), are puppets brought in by the divine hand to prove Yahweh's enduring commitment to the safety of his people. By eliminating them he magnifies himself (gdl; 38:23), makes himself known...and sets his glory (39:21) among the nations. He is indeed concerned that all the world recognizes his person and his presence in their affairs, but his agenda is always focused on Israel.”

Peterson notes that while rain is withheld in Ezek. 22:24 as a judgment on Judah, in 38:22 it pours down excessively as a judgment against Gog and his army.

 

CHRIST'S PRESENT POSITION AND MINISTRY

 Christians are often so preoccupied with speculations regarding the time of Christ's coming to earth to set everything right that they forget the fact that Christ is already reigning universally. Here are a few comments from noted theologians belonging to varying doctrinal camps explaining the scope of that present ministry. On this issue, they appear to be remarkably in agreement with one another. You may want to look up the biblical references that are cited below to get a fuller picture of Christ's position, power and activities today.

Ladd: “He is now reigning as King at God's right hand (I Cor. 15:25). However, his reign and his Lordship are not evident to the world...In view of the Pauline emphasis that Jesus has now been exalted and is reigning as Lord at God's right hand (Eph. 1:20-27; Phil. 2:9), we must think of Christ as beginning his kingly reign at his ascension...Lord and king are interchangeable, expressing Christ's exalted sovereignty. His sovereignty rests...on his resurrection...The glory that is now his is known only by men of faith. So far as the world is concerned, Christ's reign is only potential and unrealized. Nevertheless, contrary to appearances, he is reigning and 'he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet' (1 Cor. 15:25). Then his reign must become public in power and glory and the Lordship universally recognized (Phil. 2:10-11).”

Ryrie enumerates the various activities of Christ that comprise His ministry since His ascension:

“He formed the body by sending the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost to baptize believers into the body (Acts 1:5; 2:33; 1 Cor. 12:13).”

“He sanctifies it [i.e. the body] (Eph. 5:26), a reference to the entire process of sanctification which begins at conversion and continues until we are presented perfect in His presence in heaven...His work of sanctifying includes nourishing and cherishing His body (Eph. 5:29. To nourish means to bring to maturity (as in 6:4).”

“Our ascended Lord also gives gifts to the body (Eph 4:7-13)...Here Paul uses an illustration from Psalm 68:18 in which the triumphant warrior is exalted when he returns with captured prisoners. He receives gifts from the conquered people and gives gifts to his own people. Christ conquered sin and death during His ministry on earth; now He gives gifts to His followers during His ministry in heaven. In 1 Corinthians 12:5 the giving of gifts is also related to the Lord.”

“The ascended Lord also empowers the body (John 15:1-10). This well-known illustration of the vine and branches makes clear that without the power of the living Christ flowing through us we can do nothing. Clearly that power is resurrection power dependent on a relationship of our being in Him and His being in us (14:17).”

“As a faithful Priest our Lord sympathizes, succors, and gives grace to His people (Heb. 2:18; 4:14-16). ..As a faithful Priest our Lord intercedes for His people (7:25)...As to the exact form this ministry may take in communication or mentioning our needs we cannot fully know; but it apparently focuses both on the positive aspect of asking that things be prevented from happening in our lives (Luke 22:23) and the negative aspect of cleansing us from evil things that do happen (1 John 2:1-2). We will not know until we are in heaven all that this ministry of our High Priest has meant in our lives, both in its positive and negative facets.”

“Just before his death the Lord informed the disciples that He was shortly going to prepare a place for them after which He would return in order to take them there (John 14:1-3).”

Furnish: “There are various aspects of Christ's lordship unfolded in Paul's preaching, but of first importance is the eschatological. It is true that the expectation of the future parousia of the Messiah who will judge and redeem is still alive in Paul, and that the title “Lord' is characteristically applied in this connection...But primarily the lordship is seen as already operative...Through his death-resurrection he has been enthroned in power to exercise his dominion already in the present age: 'For to this end Christ died and lived, that he might reign...over the dead and the living' (Rom. 14:9). ...Christ himself continues to reign, for God has put all things in subjection to him (I Cor. 15:25,27)...At its center, then, Paul's gospel of the Lord Jesus who lives and reigns is a declaration concerning the believer's relationship to Christ as Lord.”

Cullmann: Christ's present works even have their consequences in our own lives on earth. “The new element in the New Testament is not eschatology, but what I call the tension between the decisive 'already fulfilled' and the 'not yet completed,' between present and future. The whole theology of the New Testament, including Jesus' preaching is qualified by this tension...The tension between the 'already' and the 'not yet' is illustrated in various ways: 'We are holy; this means that we should sanctify ourselves. We have received the Spirit; this means that we should 'walk in the Spirit.' In Christ we already have redemption from the power of sin; this means that now as never before we must battle against sin.”

Marshall: And the same applies to Christ's present work through the Church as a body. “Acts refers to the Gospel's relation of 'all that Jesus began to do and teach' (Acts 1:1); the second book relates all that Jesus continued to do and teach through his followers who acted 'in his name' (Acts 3:6,16; 16:18)....It is...through the Spirit [of Jesus] that Jesus is active in the early Christians and their mission...His exaltation led to his 'reign', which will continue until the time when all opposition to him has been overcome and he hands over his kingdom to his Father (1 Cor. 15:24-25).”

Intercession: I was rather surprised to see that Jesus' continued intercession for us in heaven (Romans 8:34b; Hebrews 7:25) was not included in any of the above comments on His continuing activities in heaven. It turns out that it is a somewhat controversial subject, as you can see from the quotes below from some prominent scholars:

    Ellingsworth on Hebrews 7:25: “In both these passages the language is too general to determine whether prayer for help or for forgiveness is intended. Such partial parallels as 2:18; 4:15; 5:2,7 suggest the more inclusive meaning 'help.' Where the forgiveness of sins is specifically mentioned, as in 9:22; 10:18, it is linked with Christ's one sacrifice rather than with his continuing intercession...but there is no logical or theological reason why the author should not have linked the one sacrifice and the constant intercession as naturally as Paul does in Rom. 8:34.”

    Bruce says that “the teaching and action of Jesus on earth must have encouraged His disciples to recognize in Him their all-prevailing intercessor...(Luke 22:32). If it be asked what form His heavenly intercession takes, what better answer can be given than that He still does for His people at the right of God what He did for Peter on earth? He is not to be thought of 'as...standing ever before the Father with outstretched arms...pleading our cause in the presence of a reluctant God; but as a throned Priest-King, asking what He will from a Father who always hears and grants His request.'” (Swete)

    Murray: “Only here [i.e. Romans 8:34b] and in Hebrews 7:25 is the heavenly intercession of Christ expressly mentioned. But it is implied in other passages (cf. John 14:16; I John 2:1; possibly Isa. 53:12). That 'intercession' is referred to in this verse is beyond reasonable question – the same term is used with reference to the Holy Spirit in verses 26, 27. The reality of heavenly intercession on the part of Christ is, therefore, beyond question...the evidence will demonstrate that every need of the believer and every grace requisite to consummate his redemption are brought within the scope of Christ's intercession (cf. 7:24, 25)...Nothing serves to verify the intimacy and constancy of the Redeemer's preoccupation with the security of his people, nothing assures us of his unchanging love more than the tenderness which his heavenly priesthood bespeaks and particularly as it comes to expression in intercession for us.”

    Fitzmyer: “The risen, exalted Christ still presents his supplication to the Father on behalf of the Christian elect. So not only the Spirit intercedes for Christians ([Rom.] 8:26-27), but also the heavenly Christ. Cf. 1 John 2:1, where Christ is depicted as the Paraclete; Eph 1:20. Such an exalted intercessor cannot assume the role of an accuser or one who will condemn us.”

    Kasemann: “His [Paul's] first concern is with the death of Jesus which sets aside all condemnation. This event certainly belongs to the past but to to a past that has been overcome (cf. 4:25; 5:10). For he who died for us is now the risen Lord who according to the interpretation of messianic prophecy current in primitive Christianity sits as he exalted One at the right hand of God. He can thus be our constant Intercessor like the High Priest of Heb 7:25 or the Paraclete of 1 John 2:1, warding off even future accusations against us.”

These scholars above all agree that Christ is still actively interceding for us, even though they may have slightly different explanations of the exact nature of that intercession. But that is not a universally held opinion, as seen in the next two citations:

    Morris: “His [Christ's] death removes the possibility of condemnation for those who are in him...The death is important, and indeed central. But it does not stand on its own, and Paul proceeds to the thought that Christ was raised...Christ is at the right hand of God, an important part of New Testament teaching....It means that he is in the place of highest honor in heaven. The posture of sitting (Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, etc.) signifies 'the finished work of Christ'...This means that we should take 'is also interceding for us' with some care (cf. Heb 7:25; 1 John 2:1). We should interpret the intercession passages in the light of frequent references to sitting at the right hand of God. His presence at God's right hand in his capacity as the one who died for sinners and rose again is itself the intercession.”

    Wescott: “The modern conception of Christ pleading in heaven His Passion 'offering His blood,' on behalf of men, has no foundation in the Epistle (i.e. Hebrews). His glorified humanity is the eternal pledge of the absolute efficacy of His accomplished work. He pleads, as older writers truly expressed the thought, by his presence on the Father's Throne.”

REVELATION 10

Revelation 10

Just as Revelation 7 acts as an interlude of two scenes occurring just before the seventh seal is opened, chapters 10-11 with their two respective visions serve a similar function before the seventh trumpet is blown. And there is some shared language between these two sections to help confirm that analysis:

both contain “earth, sea,” “a loud voice,” something is “sealed,” “every nation, all tribes and peoples and languages / many peoples and nations and languages,” “standing,” “forever and ever” in a hymn-like passage, and “the sun.”

Revelation 10 itself can be divided into two parts which can be diagrammed roughly as follows:

                                                      The Structure of Revelation 10

an angel “from heaven” (1)

        “a little scroll open in his hand” (2a)

                “his feet on the sea and land” (2b)

                        “seven thunders sounded” (3-4a)

a voice “from heaven” (4b)

                         seal up what the seven thunders said” (4c)

                “standing on sea and land” (5a)

hand raised to “heaven” (5b)

who created “heaven,” (6a)

                “the earth and the sea” (6b)

                                God announced to his servants the “prophets” (7)

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

“the voice from heaven” (8a)

        “take the scroll that is open in the hand of the angel” (8b)

                “standing on sea and land” (8c)

        “give me the little scroll” (9a)

                                        “it will be bitter to your stomach” (9b)

                                                “but sweet in your mouth” (9c)

        “I took the little scroll from the hand of the angel” (10a)

                                                “it was sweet in the mouth” (10b)

                                        “but bitter in the mouth” (10c)

                                You must “prophesy” to the people (11)

There is no strict symmetry to the above organization. However, it does highlight the repeated phraseology throughout the section as well as the progression of thought contained in the closing statements in both halves: Thus, just as God had earlier announced His mysteries to the Old Testament prophets (v. 7), John himself is now to transmit His message to the people (v.11).

As to the exact content of that message, most commentators feel this must refer to what is in the scroll that John ate, and subsequently recorded in the rest of Revelation.

Here are a few specific comments on the verses in this chapter.

Revelation 10:1 – Beale states, “John sees a heavenly being 'descending from heaven.' Some commentators have noted that the seer's position now is no longer in heaven, in contrast to 4:1-2. But even there he was caught up into the heavenly dimension 'in spirit' and not in body. Nevertheless, there is a change in the location in which revelation is being received...Although this heavenly being is called an 'angel,' he may be more than an angel, and, therefore, in a different class from the 'strong' angel in 5:2 and 18:21...He is given attributes that are given only to God in the OT or to God or Christ in Revelation. Therefore this heavenly being is either the divine Christ himself or the divine angel of Yahweh.”

Revelation 10:2-3 – In agreement with the above, Ruiz says, “The little scroll is distinct from the seven-sealed scroll in the right hand of God in 5.1. This scroll is in the angel's left hand, since in 10.5 he raises his hand to heaven to swear an oath (Dan. 12.7).”

Mounce states, “Because the strong angel of 5:2 speaks with a great voice (cf. 10:3) and is connected with the opening of the book of destiny (cf. 10:2), it is quite possible that he is also the one who appears here in chapter 10.”

Ford says that “when the angel places one foot on the sea and the other on the earth..., it indicates that all things are subjugated to him, 'sea and land' being an OT formula denoting the totality of terrestrial things; cf. Mark 6:48; Matt 14:28-36.”

Revelation 10:4 – “The instructions to John are that he should seal up what the thunders said and write them not. This prohibition contrasts with 1:19 (Write what you saw, what is, and what will be) and 22:10 (Do not seal up the prophecy).” (Mounce) Note that these three passages appear at the start, middle, and conclusion of the chapter.

Revelation 10:5-6 – Morris comments: “The oath is made very solemn by the prolonged description of God. The angel singles out His eternality and His activities in creation. This is to bring out the point that what the angel is about to speak is not some panic device to which a surprised God must resort in reaction to the machinations of evil men and evil spirits.”

Revelation 10:7 – Ruiz refers the reader to Romans 16:25; Ephesians 1:9; 3:3-9; and Colossians 1:26-27 for an explanation of the phrase “mystery of God.”

“The more precise meaning of the oath 'that time will be no longer' is now given...The occurrence of etelesthe ('it will be completed) in Rev. 10:7 betrays the continuing influence of Dan. 12:7 (syntelesthestai, 'It will be completed,' in Dan.: 12:7 LXX). John views the 'times, time, and half a time' as the church age, leading up to the final judgment...” (Beale) Note that this phrase should not be interpreted, as in the KJV, as if the whole concept of time will cease to be meaningful after this period.

Revelation 10:8-10 – “There are innumerable explanations of this double character [i.e. sweet and bitter]; all, however unhesitantlingly refer to the Word of God: sweetness of the announcement of salvation, bitterness of the announcement of judgment; sweetness of the announcement of election, bitterness of the announcement of persecution. I believe, rather: sweetness of receiving the testimony of the immensity of the love of God, and bitterness of the difficulty of leading the life in which the 'little scroll' involves us. For, in fact, the witness must immediately prophesy.” (Ellul)

“One notes that Ezekiel eats the scroll before his denunciations of Jerusalem, the most potent of which is in ch. 16 concerning her adultery. Num 5, Ezek 3, and Rev 10 are the only biblical texts which refer to the words of a scroll being consumed.” (Ford)

Beale explains that, as you can see in Figure 1, “This is the third time that John mentions that this angel is standing on the sea and the earth. The repetition is not for mere rhetorical purposes [as Mounce thinks], but more likely emphasizes the fact that now this angel (Christ) exercises sovereignty over the whole earth....the book held by the angel and then given to John has a message applicable in some way to all the inhabitants of earth.”

Mounce's opinion is that “Some commentators see in the specific counsel to take the scroll the truth that God's revelation must be actively appropriated rather than passively received.” However, that may be reading too much into the imagery.

Revelation 10:11 – Charles: “It is interesting that this enumeration ['many peoples and nations and tongues and kings'], which occurs seven times in the Apocalypse...is here given a different form, and basileusin (kings) is put in the place of phulais (tribes). The 'kings' are especially those mentioned in xvii 10,12. The Seer is recasting this characteristic phrase with a view to the contents of his later vision.” This fact reinforces the opinion that the second half of the book will soon follow.

 

SACRED NAMES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

 

Philip Wesley Comfort, in his book A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament introduces the reader to the interesting phenomena of sacred names (nomina sacra) in the NT and the way they were originally written in Greek manuscripts. Below is a brief summary of that discussion. It is well known that Old Testament scribes wrote the personal name of God, Yahweh, in a special manner so that it would not be taken in vain when someone was reading it out loud. It was written as YHWH in all caps.

It is well known that Old Testament scribes wrote the personal name of God, Yahweh, in a special manner so that it would not be taken in vain when someone was reading it out loud. It was written as YHWH in all caps.

Taking that practice as an example, Christian scribes soon began to adopting it when copying the NT. Comfort notes a general trend over time in which Kurios (Lord) and Iesous (Jesus) were the first words to be written in an abbreviated form, soon followed by Christos (Christ), theos (God), and pneuma (Spirit). Nomina sacra for these were common in manuscripts by the beginning of the second century AD.

By that time, also dignified in the same manner were the Greek words for “cross” and “crucify.” During the next century, a few individual scribes experimented with showing the same sort of honor to words such as man (in 'Son of man'), Father, Son, David (in 'Son of David'), Jerusalem, Israel, and heaven.

However, an opposite trend set in with the arrival of the 4^th century by which the nomina sacra were confined to the earlier words: Lord, Jesus, Christ, God, Christian and Spirit.

At this time I should describe the actual method of denoting such sacred names in Greek manuscripts.

The most obvious tip-off is the fact that the scribes placed an an overbar (sort of like the opposite of an underline) for each occurrence. Keep in mind that merely writing these words in all capitals would have done little to set them apart from most early manuscripts since these were already written in all capitals. Thus, the next thing scribes did was to abbreviate the words, such as was done with “Yahweh” in the OT. But, as Comfort points out, “there was no official rule book as to the exact form in which the nomina sacra were to be written,” giving rise to several variations.

For example, some abbreviated “Christ” (XPICTOC) using the first and last letters XC; a very few wrote it with the first two letters XP; and others utilized XPC as a sort of combination form. And the same lack of consistency occurs for the abbreviations of the other sacred names.

Advantages of the Nomina Sacra

As with YHWH in the Old Testament, “One of the primary results of making a name a nomen sacrum was that it desecularized the term; it uplifted the term to sacred status. For example, scribes could differentiate between 'the Lord' and 'lord'/'sir'/'master'...and they could distinguish between 'Spirit' (the divine spirit) and 'spirit' (the human spirit)...The term pneuma in ordinary secular Greek meant 'wind,' 'breath,' or 'spirit.' Writing it as a nomen sacrum signals that this is the divine Spirit.” (Comfort)

He also notes, “The special written forms of the nomina sacra would not be enigmatic to Christian readers; they could easily decipher them. In fact, these forms would heighten their importance in the text and prompt the readers (lectors) to give them special attention when reading that text out loud to the congregation.”

Disadvantages of the Nomina Sacra

These are few and far between and are outweighed in importance by the advantages of using this method of writing. One notable example is found in I Timothy 3:16 which contains the following uncertainty, reading either:

    “Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: God was manifested in the flesh...” or

    “Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion who was manifested in the flesh...”

There is not a great deal of difference in meaning between the two, but one would like to pin down the precise wording of the original, which was either “who” (os) or God (theos), commonly abbreviated as a sacred name by using only the first letter (theta, which looks like an “o” with a line through it) and last letter, sigma, with a line over both (a superbar). It is easy to see how either word could be accidentally read as the other when a scribe was copying an earlier manuscript.

Metzger, writing for the translation committee of the RSV, opts for os as the original wording since almost all the earliest manuscripts read that way. As to theos instead, he says, “The reading theos arose either (a) accidentally...or (b) deliberately, either to supply a substantive for the following six verbs, or, with less probability to provide greater dogmatic precision.”

Comfort arrives at the same conclusion, citing the wording in the earliest manuscripts: “The documentation supporting 'who' (or 'he who') is very strong; many MSS were corrected to read 'God' – clearly the result of scribal emendation. Obviously, the pronoun 'who' refers to Jesus Christ, God incarnate.”

PSALM 33

Many Christians go to the Psalms to find comfort since the psalmists have a way of echoing the various feelings we have as we go through life. But it is selling the psalms short to think that they are only the uncontrolled outpourings of some overly emotional authors. Although they may very well speak to our emotions, the composition of each one of these is done quite carefully, as is the compilation of the entire Psalter. I have demonstrated the latter fact in my post titled “Psalms: Introduction to the Literary Structure.”

But before even going into the individual verses within Psalm 33, there are first some general items to discuss. Anderson alludes to two of the most perplexing overall issues when he states, “Some scholars have seen a connection between the twenty-two verses of this Psalm and the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet...yet this similarity may be more of a coincidence than a deliberate feature of the style. The Psalm has no title, but LXX [the Greek version] attributes it to David. This may be either a later addition, or it could have been accidentally omitted from M.T. [the accepted Hebrew text].”

Concerning the first point, Baigent agrees: “There is no evidence that the twenty-two verses were intended to correspond to the twenty-two letters of the Heb. alphabet (cf. Ps. 34).” What both Anderson and Baigent are referring to is the fact that in other places in the Old Testament, such as Psalm 94, poems are structured as alphabetical acrostics in which each of the 22 verses in the composition starts with a consecutive letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

But not all scholars agree, and it does seem rather a coincidence that the very next psalm in the collection (Ps. 34) is a true alphabetic acrostic, even though Ps. 33 does not contain that same regular progression of letters, and thus would be classified as a non-alphabetic acrostic. To me the deciding factor in favor of using that last label for our psalm in question comes from considering the overall structure of Psalms 1-41, often called Davidic Psalms due to the authorship assigned to 39 of them.

Figure 1: Structure of Psalms 1-41

A. Introduction (Ps. 1-2)

B. Seven Psalms of David, ending in an acrostic (Ps. 3-9)

C. Bridge (Ps. 10)

D. Psalms of David (Ps. 11-32)

C'. Bridge (Ps. 33)

B'. Seven Psalms of David, beginning with an acrostic (Ps. 34-40)

A'. Conclusion (Ps. 41)

Note the strong correspondences between the parallel psalms 10 and 33: (1) They are the only two in that collection which are not assigned to David in their superscriptions. (2) And whereas Psalm 10 is an incomplete alphabetic acrostic, Psalm 33 is, as I have stated, a non-alphabetic acrostic. As to the bridging function mentioned in Figure 1, Ps. 33 shares connections with both psalms 32 and 34.

M'Caw and Motyer note that Ps. 33 “picks up part of the concluding sentence of the previous psalm, but unlike it, is not a personal record of experience. It is a corporate expression of praise and worship marked by balance of thought and symmetrical structure.” More on that last thought below.

Holladay also remarks that Ps. 33 “seems to have had a peculiar relaton to Psalm 32 (one notes the likeness of 32:11 and 33:1).”

And, as mentioned earlier, Pss. 33 and 34 share an alphabetic connection.

These two commentators also provide some very helpful hints in constructing the organization of Psalm 33:

1. “The introduction (vv. 1-3) and the conclusion (vv. 20-22) are clearly distinguished from the body of the poem.”

2. “In the body of the psalm are two sections, vv. 4-12 and vv. 13-19, the first of which deals with God the Ruler, and the second with God the Judge.”

3. “Throughout all, He is faithful and steadfast to what He has spoken.” (vv. 4-5) And the same idea reappears in vv. 18-19: “The fundamental principle is simply that of the Lord's faithfulness.”

Supplementing the above three observations are the following: “steadfast love” appears in vv. 5 and 18; “heaven(s)” occurs in vv. 6-9 as well as vv. 13-15; and vv. 10-12 and 16-17 convey the thought that the nations and rulers by themselves are helpless.

Putting all these similarities together, it is extremely easy to reconstruct the overall symmetrical organization of this psalm, contra Jacobson's comment, “The structure of the poem is debated.”

                                                Figure 2: The Structure of Psalm 33

    A. Introduction (vv. 1-3)

            B. God's Faithfulness (vv. 4-5)

                    C. God as Creator (vv. 6-9)

                            D. The Helplessness of Nations (vv. 10-12)

                    C'. God as Creator (vv. 13-15)

                            D'. The Helplessness of Rulers (vv. 16-17)

            B'. God's faithfulness (vv. 18-19)

    A'. Conclusion (vv. 20-22)

The division into the above sub-units finds some confirmation in the scholarly literature. Thus, Anderson breaks the psalm into five units: verses 1-3 (A), 4-9 (B-C), 10-12 (D), 13-19 (C'-D'-B'), and 20-22 (A'). The RSV comes up with a slightly different combination of the groupings in Figure 2: vv. 1-3 (A), vv. 4-5 (B), vv. 6-7 (first half of C), vv. 8-9 (last half of C), vv. 10-12 (D), vv. 13-17 (C'-D'), vv. 18-19 (B'), and vv. 20-22 (A').

In addition, Freedman has done an extensive analysis of the number of syllables and stresses in each section of this psalm. Of most interest are the following results:

Verses         Section in Figure 2     # of Syllables     # of Stresses

1-3                 A                                  18                      48

20-22             A'                                 19                      49

4-5                 B                                  13                      32

18-19             B'                                 11                       32

Note how well the first two and last two sections of Figure 2 match up in this regard.

With all that as introduction, here are a few select comments relating to the individual sections:

Section A

Holladay: “binginot...is found in the superscriptions of Psalms 4, 6, 54, 55, 67, and 76. The NRSV rightly translates 'with stringed instruments, ' that is, various types of lyres or harps (compare 33:2-3).”

Regarding v. 3, Ryken asks, “Why does the psalmist command us to 'sing a new song' to the Lord? Don't the old songs express the truth adequately? They do, but they also gradually lose their power through sheer repetition and familiarity.”

However, Anderson says, “The reference to the 'new song' (verse 3) is occasionally taken to mean that it was intended for the ritual of the renewal of creation at the turn of the year, but it could also be linked with the renewal of the Covenant.”

Section B

“'He loves righteousness and justice'; i.e. loves to perform righteous and just deeds (cf. 99:4; Jer. 9:24). This may also imply that God is concerned both to do and to uphold righteousness and justice. 'Righteousness' (sedakah) is a term of relationships denoting that kind of conduct which serves to maintain the established ties.” (Anderson)

Section C

In regard to verse 6, “The psalm's emphasis on creation is unique, as Diane Jacobson notes, because 'it alone among all the psalms, speaks of God's creation by word.'” (R. Jacobson)

Baigent explains that verse 7 “could refer to the waters above the sky-vault (Gen. 1:7) poetically viewed as an ocean, or to the separation of waters from dry land (Gen. 1:9f; 7:11; Ps. 78:15). Some see the reference to Yahweh's mastery over the primordial sea...”

Section D

The Greek Septuagint adds to the conclusion of v. 10, “and he rejects the plots of princes.”

In verse 12, “the relationship between God and the people is stressed rather than any particular quality of the people. The nation is not even named! It is not called Israel, merely the nation whose God is the LORD. The point scored, again, is that it is the relationship with God that defines the people – the people do not author their own identity. They are those who have been chosen (bahar).” (Jacobson)

Section C'

Anderson states, “Yahweh is not an 'absentee landlord', but he is acquainted with everything that goes on in his world. Being the creator of all, he rules over all, and sees all...God, being the creator of men's minds, is the only one who knows what is in the heart of man (i.e. what determines his actions), and therefore he is able to judge between appearance and reality (cf. I Kg. 3:9).”

Section D'

Jacobson notes that in this section, “the theme changes to 'what saves,' or perhaps better, 'in whom can one trust?'...The theme of what saves is introduced with the stark declaration: 'There is no king who is saved by the greatness of his army.' The force here is dual – both that armies and military might cannot save, so trust not in their empty promises, and that kings themselves, mortal men, cannot save....the king is cast as the leader who in turn needs a leader, the king who in turn needs a lord – the Lord. The term saved (yasa) does not refer to spiritual, eschatological salvation, but to deliverance from earthly threats. That term, along with two synonyms, occurs a total of five times in...vv. 16-7.”

Section B'

Towner notes the similarity between I Timothy 3:11 ('what persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from them all') and Ps. 33:18b,20. He adds, “The theme of 'deliverance' begins in Ps 33:5, but Paul seems to have made his entrance at the point where it is applied specifically to the Lord's intervention on behalf of 'the righteous' in 33:18-20. Thus he makes explicit his interest in a theology of suffering built on the OT theme of the righteous sufferer.”

Section A'

The word nepes “refers to the total human being in both physical and psychological manifestations ...The word may be used not only of the will of an individual but of the will of the whole community: in Ps. 33:20 we read, 'Our nepes waits for Yahweh; he is our help and shield.” (Holladay)