WHO IS SPEAKING IN SONG OF SONGS 8:6a?

Popular mottoes featuring “love” abound in culture. They include:

    the cute – Love is a warm puppy,

    the theological – God is love,

    the controversial – Love makes the world go round (one young woman at church got extremely mad at me when I took issue with her statement that this was literally true),

    the nonsensical – Love is never having to say you're sorry,

    etc., etc.

But perhaps the most unexpected statement comes from Song of Songs 8:6. This verse states, “Love is as strong as death.” I have already dealt in some detail with the meaning of this statement (see the post titled “Song of Songs 8:6”). But one aspect was overlooked – the speaker in this verse.

There are two places in this poetic book, which can also be read as a play, in which the identity of the speaker is in doubt. And interestingly, these are also the two places which have been identified as the literary conclusion of the Song.

In another post titled “What is the Importance of the Organization of the Song of Songs?” I proposed that the center point of the book in terms of its literary structure was located at 5:1b, a short benediction which has been variously attributed to the chorus or to God Himself. If it refers to God, then that verse has the distinction of being the only one in the book to do so.

However, there is the more common understanding (with accompanying confusion) that Song 8:6 should have that honor. For example, Pokrifka says, “Although God is mentioned only once in the book (Song 8:6b), it portrays life as redeemed from the curses of Genesis 3; it is life under divine blessing beyond the hostility of nature and male domination,” and Oswalt says that “a divine title occurs only once in Song of Songs: 'the LORD.'”

However, Oswalt continues by saying that “the reference is of almost no theological significance. Most modern versions actually take it as an adjective of intensity. Thus, the literal '[jealousy] like a flame of the LORD' is rendered with 'like a mighty flame' or something similar.”

The common confusion regarding these two candidates for the central passage in the Song involves the identity of the speaker. Verse 5:1b has been attributed to either God or to the Chorus in the book. And there are actually three candidates for the person talking in 8:6.

As to the speaker in that verse, Gledhill says “that here, the author of the poems is himself intruding into his own creation and meditating on the nature of love itself. No longer is it the particular love of our young lovers, but love in its most abstract guise...For many, this unit represents a high point in the Song. If 5:1 represents a climax in the lovers' physical relationship, then these verses represent a climax in praise of the unconquerability of love in the face of all its foes.”

Longman states: “This verse is arguably the most memorable and intense of the entire book. M. Sadgrove remarks on this verse and the next that 'this is the only place in the Song where any attempt is made to probe the meaning of the love that is its theme; everywhere else it is simply described'...the woman gives a motive for her request to the man.

Dobbs-Allsopp agrees with this attribution: “The woman desires to be bound closely and always to her lover.” R.B.Y. Scott says, “The lovers return, the maiden imploring her lover to be faithful.” NIV asigns this speaking part to “She;” TEV and The Message to “The Woman;” and The Living Bible to “The Girl.”

By contrast, The Jerusalem Bible and NEB both assign speaking parts to each verse and identify 8:6 as being said by the bridegroom. And although Pope in his Anchor Bible commentary opts for the woman to be the speaker, he mentions that there is some confusion regarding the gender of the pronouns in the passage.

This whole issue, which will probably never be settled, is but one of several that certainly set Song of Songs apart from all other books in the Bible.

WHAT EVENT IS MICAH 5:5-6 PREDICTING?

What event is Micah 5:5-6 predicting?

Trying to make sense out of Old Testament prophecies is probably one of the most difficult tasks faced by a Bible interpreter. It is actually quite easy to get a consistent picture as long as you limit your sources to those who hold to the same general view of prophecy. But once you stray outside that narrow field, you are bound to get as confused as I am in attempting to explain this one verse.

Let me start out, as I often like to do, by diagramming this passage to point out the symmetry within it.

                                                        Structure of Micah 5:5-6

    And this shall be peace:

        1. when the Assyrian comes into our land

            2. and treads upon our soil

                3. that we will raise against him seven shepherds and eight princes of men

                    4. they shall rule the land of Assyria with the sword

                    4'. and the land of Nimrod with the drawn sword

                3'. and they shall deliver us from the Assyrian

    1'. when he comes into our land

        2'. and treads upon our soil

This literary organization helps to settle one minor disagreement among commentators, some of whom take the events in these two verses in chronological order while others feel that it should read in reverse order so as to make sense. In fact, both camps are partially correct, since the chronological order reads from both ends toward the middle. The order of events is therefore: (1) the Assyrians come into the land, (2) Israel's rulers fight them off, and finally (3) Israel actually conquers Assyria.

Seven and Eight

Let us start with the easiest issue to deal with – the significance of these two numbers.

Those conservative scholars who hold to a dispensational premillennial interpretation of prophecy generally make a fetish out of the fact that they take everything in the Bible as literal. Thus, most of them steer away entirely from trying to explain the meaning of the numbers 7 and 8. One exception is J.B. Payne, who states: “The progression 7>8, seems to be a literary figure for augmented strength (cf. Amos 1:3,6, Prov 30:15,18, etc.); but the concept itself remains essentially literal.” He rightly recognizes the figurative meaning of the numbers, but needs to add that the “concept” is literal, whatever that might mean exactly.

“There seems to be no special significance to the numbers seven and eight. Probably they are used in the same manner in which Amos uses three and four (Am. chs. 1 and 2), and simply indicate a number of leaders adequate to meet the exigencies of the situation.” (D.J. Clark)

This opinion is echoed by R.L. Smith: “The seven shepherds and eight leaders are not to be taken literally. This is a Hebrew literary device to indicate than an indefinite yet adequate number of leaders will arise to overthrow the Assyrians (Prov 30:15,18,21,29; Eccl 11:2).”

Clark is correct in as far as he goes, but Gleason Archer probably hits on the most complete explanation: “The number seven represents the full and perfect work of God, and would be quite sufficient, but one more (eight) is added to ensure that there will be more than enough to furnish the proper leadership against all assailants.”

Then there is the opinion of Andersen and Freedman, who tentatively endorse the figurative use of these numbers: “Parallelism of numbers x/x+1 is a feature of West-Semitic literature, used sparingly elsewhere...It is not clear whether the numbers...have a precise meaning and refer to some specific group leadership pattern. In a context that has memories of David's historic role, there may be an echo of the fact that he was the eighth and youngest son of Jesse...But there is no tradition that he held the primacy in leadership shared in some way with his brothers.”

Assyria

But the major dividing point among scholars involves the identification of “Assyria” and the concomitant issue of the expected timing of the predicted event in Micah 5. The five basic opinions appear to be (a) events during Sennacherib's reign and attack of Israel, (b) events directly following the Assyrian/Babylonian exile, (c) events that are still in our future, (d) figurative fulfillments throughout history, and (e) a partial fulfillment soon after the prophecy with a more complete and literal fulfillment during the Last Days.

(a). One school of thought tends to look for the nearest adequate fulfillment of a prophecy occurring after the prediction itself. Thus we have the opinion of McConville: “An oracle such as Micah 5:2-6 appears to come from a time when the Assyrian invasion of Judah was a threat that had not yet been realized...On one view, Micah here refers to none other than King Hezekiah. This is plausible because Hezekiah is remembered in 2 Kings 18-19 as a righteous king who averted a national disaster by his prayer and trust in Yahweh. The passage may be taken quite differently, however, because it avoids the term 'king'...On this view the predicted ruler is actually contrasted with Hezekiah, because of the (equally valid) memory that in his day Judah had in fact been overrun by the Assyrians. This debate is hard to resolve.”

“In 5:1-6 there seems to be little reason to take Assyria (vv. 5f.) as other than literal. The resultant period can be narrowed down by the reference in v. 1 to the state of siege Jerusalem was undergoing. Accordingly 701 B.C. appears to be the year when this oracle was delivered...It is evident that Micah placed the fulfillment of these promises in an eighth-century B.C. setting of threat of Assyrian invasion. The coming of this royal hero is presented as the eventual antidote to the threat and fact of Assyrian invasion. Eventual, because his birth lies in the future and so his saving activity is to be later still. There will be no immediate end to Assyrian domination. The attacking imperialist will be allowed his fling for a time, but is doomed to meet his match in the person of the victorious king of Israel. In this respect Micah agrees with his greater contemporary Isaiah, who also depicted this promised king as the answer to the menace of Assyria.” (L.C. Allen)

The problem with this view is pinpointed by the following two commentators:

    “Not only will they 'deliver us from the Assyrian' invader, but they will 'rule the land of Assyria' itself...These verses are rather difficult and admit of more than one interpretation. If referred to the background of Sennacherib's siege, they portray not merely deliverance but even military conquest of Assyria itself...Such a situation is...out of keeping with the historical realities...” (D.J. Clark)

    “This passage is difficult to interpret. If 4:14-5:3 refers to the messianic age, does 5:4-5 follow chronologically the coming of the Messiah according to the prophet's understanding? If so, Micah expected the Messiah to come at the end of the Assyrian crisis. It appears that Isaiah at one time expected a new king of the line of David to appear when the Assyrians were cut down (cf. Isa 10:34-11:10...'He' in 5b 'he will deliver' probably refers to God rather than the new king.” (R.L. Smith)

(b). The scholar D.J. Clark says, “The prophet here looks into the dark tunnel of exile to see what awaits the nation there...it seems preferable to view these verses either as a reference still future events [option c], or perhaps as a figurative description of Judean leadership coming into positions of prominence during the exile, and delivering the people in the sense of preventing their assimilation and disappearance as a distinct religious and ethnic group.”

(c). “The fact that Christ will reign over the earth is of course embedded in practically every prophecy concerning the millennial kingdom...It should be clear from the details surrounding these predictions that these prophecies are not being fulfilled in the present age, nor are they a description of the sovereignty of God in the heavenly sphere. Many other Scriptures can be cited [including Micah 5:2-5] to substantiate the reign of Christ as King in the millennium...” (Walvoord) I will not bother going into all the hermeneutical assumptions that go into this sweeping statement.

The fulfillment, according to J.B. Payne, concerns “the activity of Christian leaders at the Lord's return; cf. the more general forecast of Rev 20:4,6, about those who 'live and reign' with Christ.”

(d). “Christ will constitute the peace and welfare of His people as they come under the attack of their foes, who are (very appropriately for Micah's time) represented by the Assyrians, but doubtless this term here includes all the future enemies of Israel and the church: the Seleucid Syrians, the Romans, the Inquisition, the Modernists and the Marxists. All these will be checked and repulsed by Spirit-empowered leaders: the Maccabean patriots, the apostles, Athanasius, Augustine, Wycliffe and Luther, and whoever else would be needed to preserve the community of true believers from conquest or extinction.” (Archer)

(e). Andersen and Freedman believe that “the language of v. 5b – 'and he will rescue us from Assyria' – does not suggest merely the successful repulsion of an attack. It suggests rather that after Israel has been conquered...and prisoners have been taken back to Assyria the shepherds will go to the land of Assyria and recover the captives from there. This is the task of a shepherd, to rescue the flock, stolen by a thief, going after him with the sword. If Micah 5:1-5 is an eighth century prophecy that the outcome of menacing Assyrian imperialists would be the fresh creation of David's empire, then it was not fulfilled. Israel never conquered Assyria. Such a prophecy would retain its vitality in later interpretation only by postponing it to the End-Time...In this later setting Assyria has now become an archetypical symbol. Assyria is named in Isa 52:4 in a context that clearly refers to Babylon. If the usage in Mic 5:4-5 is similar, it could be likewise exilic.”

This is one of those issues in which I am not comfortable enough with any one interpretation to endorse it to the exclusion of the others. So feel free to investigate the possibilities for yourself and make up your own minds on the subject.

 

GRUMBLING IN THE BIBLE

The above verb, also translated as 'murmuring,' is generally associated with the Israelites complaints made while they were undergoing their wilderness wanderings. “There are over a dozen passages in the Pentateuch where such 'murmuring' is mentioned; it was characteristic of Israel” (Cole)

Less recognized is the fact that there are an equal number of times in the New Testament where someone is grumbling against someone else. On most of these occasions, the Greek root gogguzo is the verb employed. Vine says that this verb denotes “to mutter, murmur, grumble, say anything in a low tone (Eng. gong), an onomatopoeic word, representing the significance by the sound of the word, as in English with the word 'murmur' itself...” In case you are confused by Vine's reference to “gong,” I should explain that the letter combination 'gg' in Greek is generally pronounced as 'ng' instead.

Below are some comments regarding the dozen NT references to “murmuring.”

Matthew 20:11 – Workers in Jesus parable grumble against the landowner when late-comers receive the same wages as they have.

“The nature of their grumbling...showed what kind of men they were. They did not say, 'You have put us on a par with the late-comers,' but 'you have put them on a par with us.' In other words, they were not only dissatisfied with what they themselves had received; they were also – perhaps especially – envious of what had been given to the others!” (Hendricksen)

Mark 14:5 – Bystanders complain to Jesus about the woman “wasting” valuable perfume on him.

This episode is practically a duplicate of John 12:3-5 in which it is specifically Judas who complains about the waste. But as Ralph Martin says, “The comment of the Evangelist is intended to stress the avarice of Judas, who saw in the price of the ointment nothing of the beautiful deed which Jesus praised but only a means by which the apostolic fund would be increased, and thereby his own pocket lined. And even this motive was cloaked under a specious plea that the money could be given away to relieve the poor. Thus to covetousness there is added the trait of deceit.”

Luke 5:30 – The Pharisees and scribes complain to the disciples about them eating and drinking with sinners.

“From the words of the Saviour it...appears that those who in their self-complacency imagine themselves to be righteous and spiritually healthy will have no part in the salvation brought by Him. But those who know themselves as sinners will find that He has come to call and heal them. In His attitude towards sinners Jesus was quite different from the Jewish religious leaders who thought it beneath their dignity to mix with sinners and to seek to save them. The best ones among them did allow sinners to come to them to seek a better life, but they never went to fallen ones to try to reclaim them.” (Gelderhuys)

Luke 15:1-2 – This is practically a duplicate of Luke 5:30 in that the situation is almost identical.

Craddock's comments are as follows: “The reader is...to hear what follows as the response of Jesus, and hence the response of the church, to critics who find in the presence of tax collectors and sinners around Jesus something contradictory, or inappropriate, or unsavory, or repulsive, or socially disruptive, or in violation of the nature and purpose of true religion. More correctly, it should be said that these people are not simply in Jesus' presence; he 'receives' (RSV) or 'welcomes' (NEB) them, a term that could mean Jesus is host to them as guests. The issue, then, is table fellowship, breaking bread together being the sign and seal of full acceptance.”

Luke 19:7 – Outsiders grumble about Jesus associating with Zacchaeus, the tax-collector.

On the surface, this appears to be yet another case of Jesus associating himself with sinners, who come to him in repentance. However, Fitzmyer makes a good case for the fact that, despite the opinion of the crowd that Zacchaeus is a “sinner,” he is really an upright, practicing Jew who already gives half his money to the poor.

Fitzmyer states, “Zacchaeus is not self-effacing, but he is not boasting either; cf. the antecedent protestation of the self-asserting Pharisee in 18:11-12 with the deferential defense that the toll-collector makes here. Jesus' pronouncement of salvation (v. 9) is not made to reveal his own power in forgiving sin or to imply that former sins of extortion are remitted (recall the condition in Zacchaeus' statement, 'if,' not 'when'). His words are addressed to the grumbling crowd; they vindicate Zacchaeus and make it clear that even such a person can find salvation: He too is a 'son of Abraham.' This does not mean that Zacchaeus has become a child of Abraham in some spiritual sense (as in Pauline usage, Gal 3:7,29; Rom 4:16-17); Jesus seeks lodging from him because he is really an offspring of Abraham, a Jew, with as much claim to the salvation which Jesus brings as any other Israelite (cf. 13:16).”

John 6:41,43 – The Jews complain when Jesus calls himself “the bread from heaven.”

“The same word ['murmur'] appears in LXX [the Septuagint] account of the murmuring of the Israelites during the Exodus (Exod xvi, 2, 7, 8)...With the 'murmuring' in vs. 41 we return to the atmosphere of the Israelites in the desert and the manna. Although the historical connections between the multiplication [of the loaves] and the discourse may not have been as close as now portrayed, the evangelist loses no opportunity to show how the same themes run through them. The familiar question of Jesus' origins betrays the usual misunderstanding that greets Jesus as the revealer. If he is the bread from heaven, if he is the Son of Man who is to come on the clouds, how can he have grown up in a family at Nazareth?” (R.E. Brown)

John 6:61 – Even Jesus' own disciples are offended by his saying they must eat his body and drink his blood. This attitude is somewhat understandable in light of the scrupulous measures the Jews took to ensure that all blood was drained from an animal before preparing it for food.

“Who were these disciples? Were they the twelve? Probably not (cf. 6:67-69) because they departed from following Jesus at this point. But apparently they were people who had been numbered among the followers of Jesus. Yet even though they were persons who had been regarded as part of the group, these disciples (like the wilderness rebels) were designated as grumblers and were warned by Jesus not to be scandalized (offended, 6:61)...Thus it should be evident that discipleship in John is far more than a matter of saying the right words or belonging to a group. It is a matter of obediently following Jesus (6:60; cf. 12:42-43).” (Borchert)

John 7:12 – Some people complain that Jesus is deceiving the crowd while others feel he is a good man. “Yet no man spoke openly of him for fear of the Jews.”

I am reminded of the current political climate in America where, both in the church and outside, people are afraid to openly voice their views for fear of reprisals from others. Instead, all we are likely is to hear is vague murmuring from all sides. Morris says, “'Murmuring' usually indicates discontent, but here it probably denotes rather quiet discussion, 'whispering,' suppressed discussion in low tones, in corners, and among friends' (Dodds). The crowds were divided in their opinions, but it was not safe to speak up about Jesus, so they kept their voices low.” (Morris)

John 7:32 – The crowd murmurs against the Jewish authorities who seem to be unable to arrest Jesus. They even speculate that perhaps they know that Jesus really is the Messiah.

Morris points out that the Pharisees were the most active opponents of Jesus while the chief priests were the only ones who had the power to do something about it. So they combine their forces and bide their time, waiting for the most propitious moment to strike. He adds, “It is not without its interest that the Pharisees heard all this [murmuring] and that 'the chief priests and the Pharisees' took action. The Pharisees would have their finger on the public pulse more than the chief priests who were more remote.”

Acts 6:1 – The Christian Hellenists complain about the unequal food distribution.

This is one of the very few times in the Bible when the “grumbling” appears to have been totally justified, at least in terms of it being due to a real injustice. However, an open airing of the issue would have been a more appropriate response.

John Stott says that “the Jerusalem church members were murmuring against the apostles, who received the relief money (4:35,37) and were therefore expected to distribute it equitably. But such grumbling is inappropriate in Christians...It is not suggested that the oversight was deliberate ('the Hebrew widows were being given preferential treatment'); more probably the cause was poor administration or supervision.” Thus, the Twelve turn the problem of distribution over to a group of “deacons” who have Hellenistic backgrounds instead in order to alleviate the problem.

I Corinthians 10:10 – The example of Jews grumbling in the wilderness is given to the church as a warning.

“Israel's fifth failure, which God disciplined with death, occurred when they spoke rebelliously against God's appointed leaders, Moses and Aaron (Num. 16:41-49). As a result they were killed by snakes (Num. 21:4-6). Did the Corinthians think that they knew better than God the path that would bring them to heaven? (cf. 1 Cor. 1:18-3:20)” (Lowery)

Philippians 2:14 – Paul tells the church to do all things without murmuring or arguing.

Hendricksen: “Paul has been speaking about the necessity of obedience (verse 12) in the great task of so working out salvation. But obedience may be of two kinds: grudging or voluntary...grudging obedience is in reality no obedience at all...True religion is never merely external compliance. Hence, Paul continues, 'Practice doing all things without muttering and argumentations'...All the dictates of God's will must be obeyed cheerfully; in such a manner that the will of man does not rebel against them by means of discontented, undertone grumblings, nor his mind by means of perpetual ingenious disputations.”

Jude 16 – A warning is given to the church against intruders who are murmurers, etc.

“Jude sums up his description of the false brethren by stressing their three chief characteristics; his opponents were rebellious, licentious and motivated by their own advantages.” (David Payne) And all of this came out in the form of their grumbling against the constituted authorities in the church. Unfortunately, I have seen this type of behavior first-hand again and again in various congregations. At one church business meeting where various parties were quite obviously jockeying for favorable positions, someone stood up and said, “We are suffering from a power vacuum in this church!” I corrected him by replying, “We don't have a power vacuum; there are plenty of people here trying to grab power. We are suffering from a servant vacuum instead.”

WHO IS THE "ELECT LADY" OF II JOHN 1?

This is the recipient of John's second epistle and would appear to be an easy identification to make, at least in general terms. But, in fact, Raymond Brown has identified five different categories of answers to the above question.

One of the first problems an interpreter runs into is explained by Metzger: “Although either or both nouns may be taken as proper names and hence capitalized according to modern usage ('to the elect Kyria [or Cyria],' or 'to the lady [or, the dear] Electa,' or 'to Electa Kyria [or, Cyria]'), the [RSV] Committee understood the words to be used metaphorically of a local congregation.” Closely related to this issue is the reference in II John 1:13 – “The children of your elect sister greet you.”

With that background, here are Brown's five possible interpretations with comments on each by Brown and others:

The lady Electa

One major objection was brought out by Grayston, namely that it is improbable that her name was Electa “for that would be her sister's name too.” (see II John 1:13)

One suggestion falling under this category has been made by Harris, whose theory is that it is “a love letter written to a Gentile proselyte widow.” Brown counters: “Such a theory casts no light on why the lady is loved by all those who know the truth (v. 1c), or why the writer is worried about false teachers (rather than other suitors) coming to the house (v. 10)...Moreover, the translation 'the lady Electa' faces a grammatical difficulty, for in Greek as in English this construction would require the definite article, which is lacking here.”

The noble Kyria

Harris notes that Kuria (or Kyria) was a proper name attested in Asia and was the Greek rendering of the Aramaic form of the name Martha. Brown says that this translation was first proposed by Athanasius. However, Brown comments that we would “expect a Christian designation ('my beloved Kyria', 'my sister Kyria', or 'Kyria elect in the Lord'), rather than such a simple, neutral designation as 'noble.'” Despite this objection, The Living Bible paraphrases verse 1 as follows: “To that dear woman Cyria, one of God's very own.”

Dear lady

Brown: “Pure fantasy is involved in speculation that the woman might be Mary, the Mother of Jesus, who was left in the care of the Beloved Disciple...Not much better is the theory that she is Martha of John 11 [see above].”

Categories 1-3 are all variations on the same theme relating the addressee to a single person. Kroeger says that if this is true, “she must have been a leader of a house church somewhere near Ephesus. It is her duty to defend her children against heresy.”

The J.B. Phillips paraphrase reads: “This letter comes from the Elder to a certain Christian lady and her children.”

And The Daily Bible edition of the NT comments, “John addresses his second letter somewhat mysteriously to 'the chosen lady and her children.' Whether that means a particular woman and her family or refers symbolically to a given church is not wholly clear, but it is probably the former, since no other symbolic language appears in the letter.”

That above comment is more than a bit misleading, especially when one compares the language in II John with I and III John:

    possible family imagery:     I John: 25 verses out of 105 = 24%

                                                II John: 4 verses out of 13 = 31% 

                                               III John: 3 verses out of 15 = 20%

Since there is very little doubt that such references in I and III John are symbolic, the same is highly likely in II John also. And as to the objection that there is no other symbolic language in II John, that is also a very poor argument for several reasons: (a) Since I could only find four other symbols employed by John in his entire first epistle, the much shorter II John would only be expected to contain at the very most one additional symbol if the ratio were to be in the same ballpark. And one could argue that “walking in the truth” (vv. 4,6) is symbolic or figurative imagery. No detectable symbolic language other than that relating to family interactions appears in III John at all.

An Elect Lady (i.e. the universal church)

The problem with this possibility is explained by Brown, who states that “the lack of an article might suggest that no particular locale was in mind...and II John has been classified as a Catholic Epistle addressed to the church universal...However, a greeting from 'the children of your Elect Sister' [as in v. 13] to an Elect Lady who is the universal church is implausible.”

A specific Johannine church

Brown, after comparing the greetings in other NT epistles states, “on percentage alone one might guess that the symbolic designation for the addressees of II John represents a community of Christians.”

“Many commentators hold to the interpretation of 'the chosen lady' as a personification of a local church and its members...since the verbs and pronouns of the epistle are all in the plural...Regularly in the Scriptures Israel or the church is designated as a woman or the bride of Yahweh.” (M.M. Thompson) She cites five Old Testament and five New Testament passages to demonstrates her point.

Orr says, “For another example of personification of a church as a 'chosen lady' (also apparently for security reasons) see I Pet. 5:13.” Marshall similarly states, “This is in all likelihood a symbolic manner of addressing a church (cf. 1 Pet. v. 13), perhaps intended to baffle any hostile people into whose hands the letter might fall.”

“She is evidently well known to Christians in many places; she is loved by all who 'know the truth.' No individual traits appear throughout the letter, however; in this respect it forms a contrast with 3 John...Such considerations have led many interpreters, from the fourth century onwards, to understand 'the elect lady' as a corporate personality.” (Bruce) Of course, Bruce's comments would equally apply to an understanding of the 'lady' as the universal church.

“'Elect lady', probably refers to a local church, the members of which are called 'her children.'” (Quanbeck)

“The elder refers to the recipient of his letter as a 'chosen lady,' an appellation most commentators believe refers to a local church congregation; the corporate body is elect (2 Jn 1,13).” (Klein)

The footnote to the Jerusalem Bible states that it is a “figurative reference to one of the local churches under the jurisdiction of the Elder.”

Keener talks about the likelihood that her 'children' (Rev 2:23) represents her disciples, and cites 2 John 1,13 and 3 John 4 as support.

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery says that “the author regularly employs family imagery to convey the message that a true believer loves both God (the believer's Father) and fellow Christian (the believer's sibling). A key verse is I John 5:1: 'Every one who loves the father loves his child as well' (NIV). The frequently used term 'brother' (adelphos) affectionately communicates this idea and is intended by the author to include both genders. In fact, both 'lady' and 'sister' convey the same notion in 2 John (2 Jn 1,13, respectively) and serve as metaphors for two local church assemblies. According to John, the way one relates to a family member is a reliable measuring stick of authentic faith.”

“Christians could be addressed as '(little) children' (1 Jn 2:1,12,14,18,28; 3:7,18; 4:4; 5:21; 2 Jn 1:4,13; 3 Jn 4...), evoking teacher/pupil or parent/child relationships (cf. Sir 3:1; 4:1) and emphasizing the role of the child as a symbol of the future. The description suggest the focus for hope through whom the community's wider values would be perpetuated (cf. Rev 12:2).” (Drane) These passages demonstrate the widespread utilization by John of family metaphors in application to the church.

Spencer has voiced an objection to these last two corporate understandings in that a whole congregation cannot be addressed as both an individual church leader and her children.

Brown's following rejoinder adequately addresses that “problem.” “The objection that a woman addressed II John cannot herself represent a church and still have children who are members of that church does not respect the plasticity of symbols; for children are mentioned in personified female descriptions of Israel and of Zion/Jerusalem in Isa 54:1,13; Lam 4:2-3; Baruch 4:30; 5:5; and also in Gal 4:25-26...).” I would add another example which is even more pertinent to this question, namely from the Revelation of John. The fluid imagery in Revelation 12 appears to first present the “woman clothed with the sun” as a representation of the church, but by the end of the chapter the dragon goes off to make war on her offspring, another symbol for the church.

This verse is footnoted in Today's English Version, saying “This probably refers to a church and its members (also in verses 4-5).” Similarly, The Message paraphrases the address as “my dear congregation.”

Finally, there are the words of Zane Hodges: “No personal names are found in it, and the suggestion that the recipient was named either Eklecta...or Kyria...carries little conviction...It has therefore been suggested that the apostolic writer adopted a literary form in 2 John, in which a particular Christian church is personified as 'the chosen lady' and its members are called 'her children.' The personification of nations and cities as female personages is common in the Bible.., and the Christian church is often referred to as 'the bride of Christ' (cf. Eph. 5:22-23; 2 Cor. 11:2; Rev. 19:7). The conclusion that 2 John is addressed to a church is further supported by the observation that in the Greek the writer drops the singular number for his pronouns after verse 5 and uses a singular again only in verse 13. Indeed, the general nature of the epistle's content is most appropriate to a community.”

Conclusion

Akin wisely concludes his remarks on the subject by saying, “Regardless of how one interprets these words, however, the base application of the epistle remains unchanged. What the author would expect in belief and behavior of a lady and her children he would also expect of a local church and its members.”

I also like the summary given by F..F. Bruce: “The weighing up of the possibilities for the individual or corporate character of the 'lady' is part of the exegesis of the letter; so long as either interpretation claims the support of serious students of the document, the question must be treated as an open one.”

 

REVELATION 2:18-29 -- OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES

It is well known that the whole of Revelation is seeped in Old Testament allusions even if, as it has often been stated, there are no exact OT quotations in it. (However, see my comments on verses 26-27 below) As an example, consider the letter that Christ wrote to the congregation at Thyatira.

Revelation 2:18 – “The words of the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze.” (Ps. 2:7; Dan 10:6)

Ford: “In this verse the title [Son of God] has a much more profound significance than the description 'one like a son of man' in 1:13; it indicates a unique relationship to God.”

Revelation 2:20 – “...you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

Ford explains that “Jezebel is probably a nickname because the woman supported false prophets as did Queen Jezebel in Elijah's day.” As Morris says, “We may assume that the name is symbolic. “Certainly no Jew would have borne it in view of the evils practiced by Ahab's wife.”

Mounce: “The choice of the epithet, Jezebel, and references to fornication and eating things sacrificed to idols indicate a first-century parallel with the wicked queen of Ahab who fostered in Israel the idolatrous worship of the Canaanite Baal (I Kgs 16:29ff; II Kgs 9:30ff)...It is questionable whether her teaching was in any sense formal. It may only have taken the form of popular persuasion built upon unexamined assumptions. In any case, it had seduced a considerable number of believers into a fatal compromise with paganism.”

Revelation 2:21

“The concept of religious infidelity under the figure of harlotry is common in the OT. 'Rejoice not, O Israel!...for you have played the harlot, forsaking your God' (Hos 9:1; cf Jer 3:6; Ezek 23:19; etc.).” (Mounce)

Revelation 2:22

Ruiz reminds us, “In the Hebrew Bible idolatry is often called adultery, with marital infidelity used as a metaphor for worship of other gods than the LORD (Deut 31:16; Judg 2:17; 1 Chr 5:25).”

Ford notes that a “similar idiom occurs in Exod 21:18 ('...the man does not die but keeps his bed...') and I Macc 1:5 ('...he fell sick and perceived that he was dying...'): both suggest critical (lethal) illness. This is confirmed in vs. 23. In the ancient world sickness was seen as the result of sin. The punishment of the children, with the prophetess, may may suggest the Jewish belief that the sins of parents are visited upon their children (cf. Exod 34:7) or that the whole family is punished for the iniquity of one member (cf. Achan in Josh 7, Dan 6:24).”

“In some cases the inactivity of a bed connects not with rest or sloth but with pain as in Job 33:19, in which we read of one 'chastened on a bed of pain.' The 'sickbed' and 'bed of illness' (Ps 41:3) become at times symbols of pain and even punishment: pagan Jezebel, as the representative of sexual immorality and pagan idolatry, is 'cast on a bed of suffering' (Rev 2:22).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Revelation 2:23

Mounce feels that “the reference to the killing of her children may reflect the bloody occasion when the rulers of Samaria slew the seventy sons of Ahab and sent their heads to Jezreel in baskets (II Kgs 10:1-11).

The literal phrase “kill with death” in this verse appears also in the Septuagint version of Ezekiel 33:27.

Morris: “From this judgment they shall know that Christ 'searcheth the reins and hearts' (cf. Je 11:20).”

Beale feels that “Jer. 17:10 is uppermost in mind, since both expressions appear together only here.” Compare the two passages below:

“I the LORD test the mind and search the heart, to give to all according to their ways, according to the fruit of their doings.” (Jeremiah 17:10)

“I am the one who searches minds and hearts, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.” (Revelation 3:23)

Beale continues: “The statement in Jeremiah is especially suitable because it refers to God's judgment of those within the Israelite community who practice idolatry out of economic motives (cf. Jer. 17:3, 11; 11:10-17, 20). As in Jeremiah, the Thyatiran false teachers who promote involvement in idolatry may be able to hide their evil motives from human eyes, but not from God's searching vision.”

Beale and McDonough add, “Furthermore, the statement in Jeremiah is especially suitable because it refers to God's judgment of those within the Israelite community who practice idolatry out of economic motives (see Jer. 17:3,11; cf. 11:10-17,20). Believers in the province of Asia may have been tempted to worship idols to maintain their status in local trade guilds, which often had pagan gods as patrons.”

Revelation 2:26-27 – “He who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, I will give him power over the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received power from my Father.” (Ps 2:8-9)

“Mounce states, “Verses 26b-27 are a free rendering of Psalm 2:8-9, which had been interpreted messianically as early as the first century BC. The Psalms of Solomon (written probably between 70 and 40 BC) say of the son of David who is to rule over Israel, “He shall destroy the pride of the sinners as a potter's vessel. With a rod of iron he shall break in pieces all their substance (17:23-24).”

Beale calls this an actual quotation from Psalms, with a closer semblance to the Greek Septuagint (LXX) than the Hebrew version. Thus, he explains that “John has poimaino ('shepherd') in line with the LXX but in contrast with the MT [Hebrew text], which reads r'' ('smite'). It is possible that the LXX represents the original Hebrew text, which is known to be the case elsewhere in the OT...However, the parallelism of the Psalm could argue against this (Ps 2:9b reads 'break'), although this is not decisive. The unpointed Hebrew text read tr'm (a unique grammatical form of this word in the MT), which could be pointed to read 'you shall smite' (from r'') or 'you shall shepherd' (from r'h), and the LXX could easily have retained the tradition of the original vocalization...Accordingly, the 'authority' that Jesus received to begin to rule in fulfillment of the Psalm is understood to be the authority that a king wields in protecting his subjects and defeating his enemies. It is best to understand this as having begun fulfillment in the cross and resurrection, which have the double significance of salvific protection for believers, but of judgment for unbelievers.”

“In a similar manner to bronze, iron symbolizes might and even brutality (Ps 107:10,16; Dan 2:40; 7:7,19; cf. Rev 2:27).” (DBI)

“God's punishment, anger or rule is pictured by the rod approximately a dozen times, with the books of Isaiah and Revelation containing a preponderance of the references. Here the rod becomes an image of ultimate terror, as in references to God's breaking the rebellious kings of the earth 'with a rod of iron' (Ps 2:9; cf. Rev 2:27; 19:15) as well as God speaking of 'the rod of my anger, the staff of my fury' (Is 10:5.” (DBI)

“Shepherding with an iron rod might denote no more than strength or firmness were it not linked with breaking to pieces like clay vessels (cf. Ps. 2:9; Je. li:20).” (Morris)

Revelation 2:28 –

Ford: “Cf. The military savior of Israel described in Num 24:27 as a star coming out of Jacob and a scepter rising out of Israel. As Farrer...avers, 'morning star' is probably associated with the privilege of ruling or sovereignty...The word 'morning' may qualify 'star' because in Jer 23:5, 33:15, Zech 3:8, 6:12, which refer to the shoot out of Jesse, a word is employed which may mean either 'shoot' or 'dayspring.' The reward, then, is the Son of God Himself under the symbol of the morning star.”

“Here again the primary reference is to Christ himself, Rev. 22:16. As the morning-star rules the heavens, so believers will reign with Christ; they will share in his royal splendor and dominion. The star is ever the symbol of royalty, being linked with the scepter, Num 24:17. Cf. Matt. 2:2.” (Hendricksen)

Contra the above opinions, Hagner states, “Although this can be related to the words of Num. 24:17 ('a star shall come out of Jacob'), more probably it alludes to the morning star Venus, with the connotation not only of beauty, but of daybreak, and so of sovereignty and victory....In Rev. 2:28, then, we may also understand the morning star given to the faithful as sovereignty or rule, which has the virtue of being consistent with the context as well as avoiding the awkward identification of the morning star with Christ.”

Beale and McDonough add: “In addition to the parallels between Ps. 2 and Num. 24, the Numbers prophecy is a natural fit to combine with that of Ps. 2 in Rev. 2:26-28 since the prophecy was issued by Balaam, and Balaam is a symbol in Rev. 2:14 for the same heresy as is mentioned in Rev. 2:20.”

So you can see from the above that a good knowledge of the Old Testament is absolutely necessary for those wishing to understand the Book of Revelation.

 

GENESIS 32:22-32 -- JACOB'S WRESTLING MATCH

 

                           Night Wrestling (10'' x 10'' collage)

                                              Literary Structure of Genesis 32:22-31

    A. Jacob passes over Jabbok at night (32:22-24a)

            B. Jacob wrestles with a man (32:24b-25)

                    C. Jacob asks for blessing (32:26)

                            D. Man: “What is your name?” (32:27a)

                                    E. Answer: “Jacob” (32:27b)

                                            F. “You will be called Israel” (32:28)

                            D'. Jacob: “What is your name?” (32:29a)

                                    E'. No answer is given (32:29b)

                    C'. Jacob is blessed (32:29c)

            B'. Jacob: “I have seen God face to face” (32:30)

    A'. Jacob passes over Penuel at daybreak (32:31)

Most commentators have a great deal of trouble dealing adequately with this episode in the life of the patriarch Jacob, as you can see from the following quotes:

    “Considered by some the most strange and perplexing narrative in the entire OT is an ancient, complicated, mysterious and enigmatic passage that preserves multiple meanings.” (Wakely)

    Motyer calls it a “profound and mysterious story.”

    “Every man holds that this text is one of the most obscure in the Old Testament.” (Luther)

    “Gen 22-32 is a strange and mysterious narrative.” (Foulkes)

Of the many questions this story elicits in the reader, I will just briefly consider a few of the most important ones below. As you will note, not all scholars are in agreement in their answers.

Is this an historical account?

Whereas the majority of conservative scholars are firm in their belief that this should be considered as an episode that really happened in the life of Jacob, others are more suspicious:

    Gunkel dismissed the whole story as “the after-effect of an ancient goblin tale or Israelite tradition.”

    Hawk explained that Barthes “showed that the episode appropriates the elements of a story common in folklore (the hero's quest) but combines the elements of the pattern in surprising ways.”

    Josephus provided one of the earliest attempts to erase the historical context from this narrative. He felt it was merely the account of a dream. There is one thing to say in favor of this interpretation. Jacob's earlier dream of the ladder to heaven with angels ascending and descending occurred in the same geographical vicinity as he was leaving the Promised Land. Thus, this account as Jacob re-entered that land might be seen as a companion piece.

    The Jewish philosopher Philo viewed it as an allegory of the soul's fight against a person's sins.

    St. Jerome treated the story as an account of a long prayer Jacob made to God.

    Wakely states that “this feature of disappearing before sunrise is one of several motifs the story has in common with myth and folklore.”

Who is the mysterious wrestler?

Here the main possibilities are narrowed down to only a handful:

Westermann is practically alone in proposing that this mysterious personage is a hostile river god or demon, for evidence pointing to the similarity in sound between the Hebrew word for “struggled” and the River Jabbok. But as Wenham notes, it is also a play on words with “Jacob” and so may have nothing at all to do with the name of the river.

Then there is the interpretation given in early Jewish literature that the angel of Esau, named Samael, was the night wrestler.

Or more generally, another possibility is that Jacob was wrestling with an angel, since that is the view given in Hosea 12:3-4. Concerning that prophetic passage, Davies gives the following opinion: “Hosea plays down Jacob's victory by saying that it was only a victory over an angel, not God himself, who remained supreme. The fact that the word used in v. 3 (and in Gen. 32:28) for God can also mean 'a god', i.e. a lesser heavenly being than the supreme God, provided an opening for such a reinterpretation of the tradition.”

Chisholm: “The narrator, assuming Jacob's initial perspective, identifies God as 'a man', but by the story's end Jacob was certain he had encountered God 'face to face'. However, a later tradition suggests Jacob wrestled with an angel (Hos. 12:4); the relationship between the two traditions is complex.” In another writing, Chisholm adds, “Perhaps Jacob's words in Gen 48:15-16, where he appears to refer to God as an 'angel,' influenced the tradition expressed in Hosea.”

Foulkes: “Jacob...wrestles with a 'man,' but his struggle in the darkness proves to be with one more than human. The Hebrew elohim most frequently means God, but the interpretation of Hos 12:4 is possible, 'He struggled with the angel.' Yet, in effect it could be said to Jacob, 'You have struggled with God and with men and have overcome.”

Why does he want to leave before daybreak?

One possibility may have occurred to readers who are familiar with the Dracula story, namely that the wrestler will be destroyed if exposed to sunlight. Aside from that farfetched notion, Kline is representative of many scholars who say, “The angel's desire to depart before daylight expressed God's concern lest Jacob perish through beholding His face unobscured by the darkness.”

What does he mean by saying that Jacob has wrestled with God and men?

The Message leaves out the reference to “men” entirely and paraphrases the verse as “you've wrestled with God and you've come through.”

Living Bible reads, “It is Israel – one who has power with God. Because you have been strong with God, you shall prevail with men.” That rendering puts off Jacob's struggles with men to some future time.

Wong suggests that the original consonantal text can be said to read, “Because you are right with God, with men you will prevail [see the Living Bible paraphrase above].” This would fit the subsequent passage where Jacob and Esau are tentatively reconciled, but hardly in the context of the wrestling match. Wong further proposed that the standard Hebrew text added particular vowels in order to make the text purposely derogatory of the patriarch Israel in order to speak against the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Wong's scenario is unlikely and has no real proof.

“Men”

Carr reflects the opinions of most scholars in feeling that the “men” refer to Esau and Laban. I personally believe that it more specifically points back to the time in the womb when Jacob grabbed Esau's heel.

God

It should be noted that the name Yahweh appears nowhere in the text, just the generic term elohim. Therefore, NRSV is justified in giving the alternative reading, “with divine and human beings.” However, Ellul expresses the opinion: “He is not just the omnipotent God doing as he wills in heaven and earth. He stoops to man's loftiness. As he wrestled with Jacob at the ford of Jabbok, so he wrestled as an equal with Jonah.”

An Angel

“It was the captain of the Lord's hosts (cf. vv. 1f and Jos. 5:13f.; Ho. 12:3)...The divine Adversary was also the electing-saving Lord who strengthened Jacob with grace to wrestle on against Himself lest he be overcome and condemned! So by persistence in believing supplication Jacob emerged from the ordeal with a blessing.” (Kline)

“The angel who wrestled with Jacob (Hos 12:4) was recognized to be God (Gen 32:30). The angel-of-the-Lord theophanies are linked with major statements in redemptive history, including the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants.” (Rooker)

Pre-incarnate Christ

Kaiser relies on Hosea 12:3-4, noting the parallelism between God and the angel there. He concludes: “It thus appears that the 'man' or 'angel' with whom Jacob wrestled was Jesus himself, in a temporary incarnate form prior to his permanent enfleshment when he would come to earth as a human baby. This is consistent with other places in the Old Testament where the 'angel of the Lord' can be identified as the second person of the Trinity.”

Note that in a way there is no need to definitively chose between the above divine possibilities since they are very closely related with one another as divine to one extent or another.

What is the overall significance of this event?

As you read through the following comments, I will not be surprised if you come to the same conclusion that I had, namely, that the majority of these scholars appear to some extent to be spouting out a lot of theological jargon to hide the fact that they are just as confused with the story as I happen to be.

Stubbs says “it indicates that the final goal of the relationship between God and Israel is that Israel and God can be intimately present to one another; to be 'uncovered' in a reversal of the fall, to see one another 'face to face.' The goal is for humanity, represented by Israel, to be able to stand in God's presence without shame, to be reconciled with God as Jacob and Esau were.”

Patterson: “In doing so Jacob learned that a person gains the victory in life only when he or she strives to receive divine blessing, a truth represented in the change of Jacob's name to Israel.”

“Jacob was given the final lesson that broke down his self-will and convinced him that God's blessing was not something to be seized but to be accepted as a gift of grace.” (Peake) Note how this interpretation appears to be the exact opposite of the lesson Stubbs gets out of the story.

Knight: “The new orientation that Jacob had then received was the sign that the objectionable, self-centered Jacob...was still beloved of God. The 'new' Jacob had therefore become known as 'Israel', because as a forgiven man he had now become a new personality.”

“His encounter with the angel taught Jacob that the ultimate struggle for blessing must be with God and not humans.” (McKeown)

Motyer says that “the story in Genesis 32:22-32 is prototypical; that is, it reveals the underlying dynamic of Israel's relationship with Yahweh so as to set a pattern for the nation's whole history...The encounter with Esau is the climax of God's fourteen year strategy to turn Jacob the schemer into someone after whom God himself can be named (32:9; cf. Exod. 3:15)...But he cannot have it so long as he remains 'Jacob', who wangles blessings by subterfuge. And he cannot have it so long as he regards God as there simply to serve his agenda, deliverance from Esau. He needs to realize that he is there to serve God, not vice versa.”

Kline: “Before entering the land of inheritance, he must undergo an experience that sealed him as a man of faith and pointed him by a mysterious sign to the ultimate source of saving blessing.”

“srh occurs only 3x in the OT, all in reference to Jacob's wrestling with the divine being in Gen 22 (Hos 12:4-5 refers to this tradition, using srh twice). The primary occurrence is in Gen 32:29...The purpose of the text is to make a theological claim about God's transformation of Jacob, the former trickster.” (Bracke)

“The surprise ending of reconciliation [between Jacob and Esau] (Gen 33:4) is anticipated by Jacob's 'wrestling' in Genesis 32:24-32, when Jacob's name is changed by God to signal a transition from a relationship of deceit to one that God had restored...From a theological perspective, conflict with God, and the necessity of ultimately submitting to him, is part of the human condition and integral to the gospel.” (Knauth)

“In this way, the community of Israel, as descendants of this god-wrestler, is depicted as a group that successfully strives with God and humans.” (Carr)

The footnote in the Jerusalem Bible states that “the patriarch holds fast to God and forces from him a blessing; henceforth all who bear Israel's name will have a claim on God. It is not surprising that this dramatic scene later served as an image of the spiritual combat and of the value of persevering prayer (St. Jerome, Origen).”

Another final problem I have with most of the above comments in this last section is that they act as if Jacob was a totally changed, and better, person after this encounter. However, within a few verses he will baldly lie to Esau by telling him that he will go with him when he had no intention to do so but headed off in another direction instead. He was just as devious as ever, and it wasn't until a number of years later that some sort of real reconciliation between the two brothers occurred.

In that respect, I somewhat agree with Hamilton, who proposed that the duplicate renaming of Jacob to Israel mentioned in Genesis 35:10 is to be taken as follows: “This is not to be explained as a clumsy doublet. Rather, the reference to the name change before Jacob is reconciled with Esau and after he is reconciled with Esau suggests that Jacob did not fully become Israel until after he was reconciled with his estranged brother.” But a full reconciliation did not really occur until Genesis 35:29, and even after that, the names Jacob and Israel continue to both be used right up to the time of Jacob's death (see Genesis 50:24).

THE NUMBER "NINE" IN THE BIBLE

It is well known that certain numbers in the Bible may have more than a literal meaning attached to them:

    One: the unity of God

    Two: a quorum

    Three: the Trinity

    Four: creation

    Five: a common measurement based on the digits of one hand

    Six: an incomplete number falling short of perfection

    Seven: perfection or completion

    Eight: a new beginning

    Ten: another complete number

Notice how the number nine is prominent by its absence. And while it is not commonly encountered in the Bible, I would propose that, as one short of the perfect number 10, it may also stand for something not completed or imperfect just as 6 (one less that the perfect number 7) does elsewhere. Below is a quick review of the places in the Old and New Testaments where “nine” appears in a possibly symbolic context. Since most of these appear in historical settings, I realize that it may be stretching a point to look for anything deeper than a literal meaning in these passages.

Genesis 14:9

“Gen 14 is a unique chapter, which has occasioned a vast amount of discussion...Theologically, it is not easy to see the purpose and function of the story.” (D.F. Payne)

However, from a literary point of view, Hamilton notes: “The key chapter in Genesis for the institution of the covenant with Abraham are chs. 15-17. But standing on both sides of this crucial pericope are events involving Lot in unpleasant situations.”

The chapter contains several battles between alliances of kings, culminating in the capture of Lot, who must be rescued by Abraham. Verse 9 tabulates the battle as 'four kings against five,' which Wenham says “is typical of royal campaign records (cf. Josh 12:24; 2 Sam 23:39).” However, the form of those two cited passages is nothing like that in Gen. 14:9.

Perhaps, I might propose, we are to see that this battle is not at all conclusive since the two numbers add up to the “incomplete” number nine. The really conclusive encounter comes when Abraham and his men free Lot in the following verses.

Genesis 17:1

Wenham: “This most significant episode in the Abraham cycle begins rather dully with a note about his age, 'When Abraham was ninety-nine.' Yet this remark is important for it puts the momentous promises that constitute the centerpiece of this episode in context and makes it possible for us to appreciate how amazing they are.”

Thus, Abram was 99 years old when God made a covenant with him, his name was changed to Abraham, he was circumcised (17:24) and begat the promised son. Besides being a historical fact, we might say that his life up to that point was incomplete (one short of the perfect number 100) until these important events took place.

The Book of Job

The bulk of this book is comprised of Job's replies to the arguments of his 3+1 friends, presented in three cycles. Interestingly, the first three interrogators give only give eight speeches between them, the third round petering out with no comments from Zophar. That is followed in the book by an extended argument by the young Elihu, who only first appears in chapter 32. The fact that these nine speeches are all off-base and incomplete in their knowledge of God's ways is then underscored by the appearance of God himself who in the tenth speech sets Job straight.

Nehemiah 6:4-5

This is another passage in which 4 and 5 appear in close conjunction with one another. It reads: “They [Nehemiah's enemies] sent to me four times in this way, and I answered them in the same manner. In the same way Sanballat for the fifth time sent his servant to me with an open letter in his hand.” This recounts various unsuccessful attempts to stop Nehemiah from his task of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem in one way or another. The fact that they could not complete their schemes is symbolically underlined by the 4 + 5 formulation, one short of the perfect number 10.

Interestingly, the Greek Septuagint translation of this verse omits both of these numbers, perhaps feeling that they served no particular purpose.

Nehemiah 11:1

A different usage of “nine” appears here in the description of how the city of Jerusalem was repopulated. Fensham explains that “the leaders already lived in Jerusalem and that measures for the other people were being taken...Lots were cast to select one out of every ten persons to live in Jerusalem...The people regarded their selection by the sacred lot as the will of God, and were thus satisfied and glad to do his bidding. For this positive attitude they were praised by the rest of the people...It was for them a privilege to live so close to the temple where the special presence of the Lord was felt...The remaining nine were to stay in the rural cities or towns in order to maintain farming activities.”

We will see this same special honor for one out of ten in the NT story of the healing of the lepers, cited below.

In discussing the significance of the number, Jenson says, “Nine appears rarely, although as one less than ten it is significant in the nine-tenths of Neh. 11:1.” Unfortunately, he fails to spell out precisely what that significance is.

Isaiah 17:6

In the oracle concerning Damascus, God tells the prophet there will be a day when “the glory of Jacob [i.e. the Northern Kingdom] will be brought low...And it shall be as when reapers gather standing grain...gleanings will be left in it, as when an olive tree is beaten – two or three berries in the top of the highest bough, four or five on the branches of a fruit tree.”

Oswalt comments: “The prophet uses three figures of speech [in vv. 4-6] to describe what will remain to Israel (and Syria)...In each of these ways...the prophet says that only bits and pieces will be left to Damascus and Ephraim when God has done his work.”

The way the passages goes from two-three to four-five is reminiscent of Amos 1-2, which contains eight oracles of doom having the same format: “Thus says the LORD: For three transgressions of [name of country], and for four, I will not revoke the punishment.” The x,x+1 formula has been explained in various ways, one of which in Amos is to indicate that the destruction will be complete (3 + 4 = 7). If the same sort of reasoning is used in the case of Isaiah 17:6, then we might say that the Northern Kingdom's destruction will not be complete since 4 + 5 only equals 9, not 10.

Matthew 18:12-13 // Luke 15:1-10

Only Matthew's Gospel has the parable of the one missing sheep out of the 100 in the flock. Luke, however, additionally contains the somewhat parallel story of the one missing coin out of 10. The number 99 is prominently mentioned in both gospels, but the number 9 has to be deduced in the story of the woman's coins.

The biggest issue in understanding the missing sheep parable, according to most scholars, revolves around the seemingly larger value the shepherd places on the one sheep in relation to the 99. Thus, Fitzmyer responds, “Joy over ninety-nine who have no need of repentance cannot be compared with the divine joy over a penitent!” And Blomberg states, “The theme of greater joy over the captured stray may seem incongruous but only to those whose hearts are hardened like that of the prodigal son's brother (Luke 15:25-32).”

France says that this joy “emphasizes God's pastoral care: it is caused by the recovery, rather than by any superiority of the sheep itself.” By contrast, the early Gnostic writing, Gospel of Thomas (#107), tried to explain the “problem” by stating that the missing sheep was bigger than the other 99 and thus of special importance.

Strangely, the Gnostic writing called The Gospel of Truth (AD 140-180) comes the closest to agreeing with my own feeling regarding the Parable of the Lost Sheep, even if it is expressed in a rather cryptic manner. Verses 31-32 of that document say that the 99 are held in the left hand, but when the missing one is found, all 100 are transferred to the right hand. The import of this mystic language appears to be that the 99 are incomplete without the missing one, falling short of the “perfect” or “complete” number 100.

Thus, as Kistemaker puts it, both parables have “a definite evangelistic thread...The fervor Jesus displayed in associating with the so-called 'sinners' of his day must glow in every member of the church, radiating the warmth of evangelistic zeal...” I have been in all too many congregations who felt completely self-satisfied just as they were and fought any attempts to “waste” the resources of the church in efforts to reach the lost.

Matthew 27:45 // Mark 15:33-34 // Luke 23:44-46

The time of Jesus' death according to these three sources occurred around the ninth hour, which is equivalent to 3 PM. Most scholars feel that the significance of that time lies in the fact that this was one of the regular times in which sacrifices were offered in the Temple along with prayers to God (cf. Exodus 29:39; Leviticus 6:20; and Josephus' Antiquities 14.65.) This background certainly fits in with Jesus making his final prayer to God followed soon after by his sacrificial death on our behalf. In addition, Raymond Brown, for one, notes that the time indication is pertinent in highlighting the unusual darkness that spread across the land. He quotes a number of OT passages in which such a darkening seems to have been predicted much earlier.

But there may additionally be significance in the number “nine” in regard to the events taking place. For this possibility, see my comments on the passages in Acts below.

Mark 10:21

This is probably the most subtle allusion to “nine” in the whole Bible. The rich young ruler comes to Jesus and recounts all the commandments he has followed faithfully from his youth. But Jesus says to him, “Sell all you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” The man goes away sorrowing since he loves his possessions. Jesus has pinpointed the one lack in this man's life. He had not really followed all ten commandments, but only nine since he coveted all of his possessions and was unwilling to share them with anyone else.

Luke 17:17

In this miracle story, ten lepers are healed by Jesus but only one returns to thank Him. This account differs in its use of “nine” in a slightly different way than that number functioned in His matching parables discussed above. In those former cases, the emphasis was on the necessity of the lost one to be restored in order that perfection be reached. But in this case, the emphasis of the number nine is on the incomplete nature of the healed, but ungrateful, lepers.

“The contrast of nine with one further expresses the pathos, for the nine were presumably Jews, members of the house of Israel. Obedient enough to carry out Jesus' injunction to present themselves to the priests, they were cured – physically; but their failure to react responsibly (in not glorifying God and thanking Jesus) reveals that they have missed the greatest moment of their lives.” (Fitzmyer)

And Ellis adds, “The ungrateful 'nine' exemplify the general attitude of the Jewish people toward Jesus' mission.”

Acts 3:1

At the ninth hour of prayer, Peter and John were entering the temple when they encountered a lame man asking for alms. Instead, Peter heals him of his infirmity.

Acts 10:3,30

In this somewhat related episode, a godly gentile named Cornelius, known for his alms-giving, is praying at the ninth hour when an angel comes to tell him that his prayers and alms have been noticed by God, and that he needs to contact Peter. Peter comes to Cornelius' house and converts him and other gentile God-fearers.

It may be a bit of a stretch, but I see a common pattern between these two stories in Acts and the account of Jesus' death. All three occurred at the ninth hour in the context of prayers to God, and in each case what was imperfect at the time (less than the perfection of 10) becomes perfect. That applies to the despair of the cross leading directly to resurrection, the lame man being healed, and the first group of gentiles responding positively to the message of eternal salvation.

"THE FOUNDATION(S) OF THE EARTH" IN THE BIBLE

This common (approximately 20 times) phrase appears throughout the Bible, where it is often used as a marker of time. Thus, we have at least four places in the Old Testament where the laying of the foundations of the earth is said to occur soon after the stretching out of the heavens (Isaiah 51:13,16; Jeremiah 31:37; Zechariah 12:1), obvious references to the early verses of Genesis 1. This was said to have occurred “in the beginning” (Hebrews 1:10) or “long ago” (Psalm 102:25).

Then we run into some slightly contradictory passages concerning the durability of this foundation. Psalm 104:5 states that it “shall never be shaken,” and Micah 6:2 alludes to the “enduring foundations of the earth.” But then the Psalmist turns around and states that the foundations trembled and shook when God became angry (Psalm 18:7; 82:5). In addition, we read in II Samuel 22:16 that “the foundations of the world were laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD.” Of course, those particular passages are not meant to be read literally and are obviously hyperbolic.

But the most intriguing passages in this regard are those which talk about things that happened before, during, and after the setting of the earth's foundation.

    Proverbs 8:29 reads as follows: “When he [i.e. God] marked out the foundations of the earth, then I [i.e. Wisdom] was beside him, like a master worker.”

    Then the author of Hebrews begins in 9:26 quoting from Psalm 95:11 – “I swore they shall not enter my rest” and adds “for his works were finished at the foundation of the world.”

Next are those verses that talk about things happening “since (or beginning with) the foundation of the world.” Luke 11:50 mentions “the blood of prophets shed since the foundation of the world” beginning with Abel. In a similar mode, Hebrews 9:26 (felt by a number of scholars to have been written by Luke also) compares the one-time sacrifice for sin by Christ on the cross with the yearly sacrifice brought by the high priest for the sins of the people. He shows the superiority of Christ's sacrifice by saying that otherwise “he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world.”

The most mysterious references, however, are to things which actually happened before the foundation of the earth.

    John 17:24 says that God loved Christ before the foundation of the world.

    Ladd points to the many places in the NT where the pre-existence of Christ is taught, most prominently in the poetic prologue to John's Gospel. Ladd references Proverbs 8:29 above in order to point to the similarities between Wisdom and the Word (Logos). He concludes by citing two apocryphal texts: “However, wisdom is never called the word of God, even though she came forth from the mouth of the Most High (Sir. 24:3) and wisdom is placed in parallelism to the word in the Wisdom of Solomon (9:1-2).”

    Ephesians 1:4-5 – “...he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. He destined us for adoption...”

    Marcus Barth discusses this passage in some depth, starting with the statement: “There are six distinctive reasons why Ephesians cannot be considered the charter for the eternal predestination of one part of mankind for bliss, the other for hell, and a seventh reason which by itself is decisive.” I will hardly do justice to Barth's reasoning here, but his statement rests on factors such as the following:

        a. There is a general adoring, rather than calculating or speculative, tone to the passage.

        b. The election of men is not an impersonal issue for God but a strictly personal one.

        c. The author is dependent on Old Testament statements about election.

        d. This election is not a hidden mystery.

        e. This election is concerned with historical deeds by men in time.

        f. Election is “not a pillow to sleep on, but a stronghold in times of temptation and trials.”

        g. Finally, “The formula 'in Christ' denotes the concentration, summation, revelation, and execution of God's own decision in one person, that is, the Messiah upon whom the Jews had set their hope (1:12).”

The last category of such references is to things that happened “from the foundation of the world.” To my naïve mind, there doesn't seem to be much difference here between “since” and “from” the foundation of the world. And in actuality, the Greek word translated by those two prepositions is exactly the same, 'apo. Here is how some commentators weigh in on these particular passages:

    Isaiah 40:21 – “Have you not known? Have you not heard?...Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?”

    Oswalt notes that 'from' (min) is missing in the final line but understood to be carried over from the previous line. “Although the prophet does not specify which beginning he means, the following colon seems to make clear that it is the beginning of all things; foundations of the earth refers to the beginnings of the earth and envisions a time when the world was not. What he is saying is that careful thought about the origins of the world must point to a creator beyond the cosmos itself.”

    Matthew 13:35 – “This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, 'I will open my mouth in parables. I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world.'” This approximately renders Psalm 78:2, which however ends with “from of old” instead.

    “Matthew's rendering of Psalm78:2 reinforces the hidden nature of mystery to outsiders or to those who lack 'eyes to see' and 'ears to hear.'They are simply unable to grasp unveiled revelation. The quotation also corresponds to the temporary hiddenness of the mystery. God has, in eternity past ('since the foundation of the world'), planned that the kingdom ought to be introduced in an inaugurated stage and not only consummated form, though he did not divulge it clearly until the coming of Jesus.” (Beale and Gladd)

    Matthew 25:34 – “Then the King will say to those at his right hand. 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”

    France explains, “This new status is not an afterthought but the culmination of God's purpose from them 'since the foundation of the world.'... As with other such apparently deterministic language in the NT, it is possible to read 'for you' here in either a more general or a more personal sense. Traditional Calvinism has favored the more rigorous, personal interpretation which concludes that the identity of the individuals who will enjoy these blessings is already decreed before they are born. Others have understood the 'you' to refer to the class of the saved as a whole: God has prepared this kingship for those who will prove to be worthy of it, but who those people will be remains to be discovered on the basis of their response to the gospel and to the will of God.”

    Revelation 13:8; 17:8 – These seemingly parallel passages talk about “those whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the Lamb's book of life” being condemned at the Last Judgment. The interpretation of 13:8 is the most problematic due to the uncertainty of how to interpret the Greek. This can best be shown first by considering how various English interpretations deal with the phrase “from the foundation of the world,” that is, whether they connect it with the writing of the names or with the Lamb being slain.

        1. Associating the phrase with “written” are RSV, TEV, NRSV, NEB, and The Message.

        2. Associating it with “slain” are KJV and J.B. Phillips

        3. NIV opts for “slain” but gives “written” as an alternative possibility.

        4. NASB chooses a preferred association with “written” but alternatively says that it may refer to “slain” instead.

        5. The Living Bible similarly prefers “written” but attaches a footnote mentioning “slain” with the added comment: “That is, regarded as slain in the eternal plan and knowledge of God.” This comment, with others below, seems to adequately answer Walvoord's objection that Jesus “was not crucified when the world was created.” Below are some additional scholarly comments concerning these passages in Revelation.

    Morris takes the phrase to modify 'slain' rather than 'written,' saying: “It is in the capacity of the slain Lamb that Christ brings salvation. Either way God's eternal power is in view and is contrasted with the fleeting might of the powers of evil.”

    Mounce: “The problem in the immediate verse is not the meaning of the phrase but its place in the sentence. Was it the writing of believers' names or the death of the Lamb which dates from the foundation of the world. The RSV and many of the newer translations follow the first alternative.The faithful are guarded by their election...This is said to have taken place at the foundation of the world...It is better in this case to follow the order of the Greek syntax and read, 'the Lamb that hath been slain from the foundation of the world.' That is, the death of Christ was a redemptive sacrifice decreed in the counsels of eternity.”

    Bruce opts for the phrase to be read in conjunction with “written,” not “slain.” He cites as support Revelation 3:5; 17:8; and 20:12,15.

    Beasley-Murray: “The reference of the words from the foundation of the world is uncertain: they can be linked with the slaying of the Lamb...or with the writing of the saint's names in the book of life...Both are equally true; for the former cf. 1 Pet. 1:19,20, for the latter Eph. 1:4. The difficulty is settled for most by an appeal to [Rev.] 17:8, where almost identical language is used, connecting the phrase with the writing in the book [of life]. Nevertheless the word order is decidedly against this interpretation, unless it were true that the book [of Revelation] as we have it is a translation from John's original writing [supposedly in Aramaic].”

    Walvoord says that “the words 'from the Creation of the world' seem...to relate to the time in eternity past when the names were written in the book of life...13:8 probably means simply that those who are saved had their names written in the book of life in eternity past in anticipation of the death of Christ on the cross for them and that they will never be erased [cf. Revelation 3:5 and 22:19].”

    Beale: “The last phrase, “from the foundation of the world,” might explain the death of Christ was decreed before time began...Or it might affirm a decree of reprobation that took place before creation: ...The former translation is viable because the statement about the Lamb's death is immediately followed by the precreation temporal expression. And it is unlikely that the concluding temporal clause goes with 'written,' since twelve words separate them...But 13:8 may refer to the same decree as 17:8...But if that is the case here in 13:8, why is the temporal phrase separated from the clause it modifies? It is so that a further description may be given to 'the book of life.' 'Of the Lamb who was slain' is a genitive of possession, or it could also identify the Lamb as the source of the 'life' associated with the 'book' (the genitive functions likewise in 21:27).”

Beale's final words on the subject serve as a good way to end this discussion: “This conclusion stands regardless of how the syntactical problem is solved. Because the book of life is unreservedly ascribed to Christ, the salvation of all, implicitly including OT saints, is represented as depending on the one redemptive act of Christ.”