ECCLESIASTES 8: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

This interesting chapter was chosen quite randomly to see what different perspectives could be brought to bear on it. Besides this post on how the chapter is organized, subsequent postings will treat it in two additional ways.

Structure

One must start first with an overview of how the whole book is organized. The arrangement shown in Figure 1 above has much to recommend itself and is defended in my post titled “Is There Any Organization to Ecclesiastes?” But, of course, there are many alternative ways of viewing it.

Figure 1: Overall Structure of Ecclesiastes

A. Prologue (1:1-11)

    B. The ultimate futility of pursuing wisdom (1:12-2:11)

        C. The common fate of the wise man and fool (2:12-26)

            D. God’s time for everything, including judgment (3:1-22)

                E. Enjoyment of work better than pursuit of riches (4:1-5:20)

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

                E'. Prosperity and adversity both come from God (6:1-7:14)

            D'. God’s time for everything, including judgment (7:15-8:17)

        C'. The common fate of the righteous and the wicked (9:1-10)

    B'. Live wisely but realize that success is uncertain (9:11-11:10)

A'. Epilogue (12:1-14)

Concentrating on Chapter 8 only, we note the following parallels which pair up D with that portion of D'.

    The majority of the references to “matter” appear in D and D' (see especially 3:1 and 8:6).

    The thought in 3:11 is parallel to the teachings in 7:27-28 and 8:17.

    The phrase “there is nothing better” appears in 3:12; 3:22 and 8:15.

    The Teacher observes examples of oppression in 3:16 and 8:9.

    Childs sees a similar eschatological motif in 3:17 and 8:11-12.

Zeroing in on our chapter in question, one should keep in mind the astute comment of Fredericks: “No structural outline for the entire book has demanded significant support from critics, though many outlines have been offered.” And the same is certainly true of this one chapter.

Thus, looking first at the scope of the literary unit only, we have the NIV, Whybray, and Scott attaching 8:1 to the ending of Chapter 7 as well as disagreement as to where the section's conclusion is located. J.S. Wright believes that from 8:8 to 9:3 constitutes a discrete literary unit, and Scott includes the last two verses of Ecclesiastes 8 in with 9:1-12.

Just about the only point of agreement between the above options is that v. 1 serves as an introduction to the chapter while vv. 16-17 constitute the conclusion. This view is actually strongly suggested by the following parallel words and phrases found in both those passages:

    “the wise man” / “those who are wise”

    “know” / “claim to know but they cannot find it out”

    “wisdom” / “wisdom”

    “one's face” / “one's eyes

Then, even among those who treat chapter 8 as a complete unit, there is disagreement as to its internal divisions. Several sources locate one major break of thought in this chapter, but there is little agreement between them as to exactly where that is located:

    J.S. Wright: after v. 7

    Dorsey: after v. 8

    Glenn, Fleming, and Scott: after v. 9

    The Message: after v. 13

Most others propose multiple sub-sections within the bulk of Ecclesiastes 8:

    NIV                  2-4; 5-8; 9-10; 11-13;       14-15.

    Living Bible    2-7; 8;    9-13;                   14; 15

    The Message   2-7; 8;    9; 10; 11; 12-13; 14; 15

    TEV                2-8;        9-10; 11-14;              15

    RSV, NRSV    2-9             10-13              14-15

    JB                    2-9;           10-14;                   15

    Whybray         2-9;           10-15

    Hendry            2-9;           10; 11-15

Note the reasonable agreement here with those who see only one break in the chapter and locate it after either verses 7 (2 votes), 8 (4 votes), or 9 (6 votes). In addition, five of the above sources feel that v. 14 begins a new thought.

The section divisions in Figure 2 below are those determined by RSV and NRSV.

                                           Figure 2: Structure of Ecclesiastes 8

        1. Introduction (v. 1)

                2. Dealing with Authorities (vv. 2-9)

                2'. Fate of the Wicked (vv. 10-13)

                2''.Fate of and Advice for the Wise (vv. 14-15)

        1'. Conclusion (vv. 16-17)

The parallels between 1 and 1' have already been enumerated above. But, as you can see, it is much more controversial as to the internal breaks between sub-units, especially since Bible scholars and lay readers alike tend to look only for basic changes of thought or topic in the text to indicate at what point a new literary unit begins. Such a method is usually far too subjective a criteria to be safely relied on when taken alone.

The above is why the identification of the opening (v. 1) and closing literary unit (vv. 16-17) is relatively easy to determine since there are the four verbal agreements given above to help confirm them as a matched pair. But in the absence of such obvious confirmation (as in the remainder ot chapter 8), one person's opinion is just about as good as another's. So below is a rough compilation of verbal or near verbal parallels arranged in order of their appearance in the text:

wise man (1a)

            who knows? (1b)

wisdom (1c)

                        God (2)

                                    evil (3)

                                                power (4)

            not know (5a)

                                    evil time (5b)    

            do not know (7)

                                                power (8a)

                                    wickedness (8b)

                                                         I saw (9a)

                                                                applying my mind (9b)

                            done under the sun (9c)

                                    evil (9d)

                                                       I saw (9e)

                                                power (10a)

                                                                        this is vanity (10b)

                                    evil deed (11b)

                                    do evil (11c, 12a)

            know (12b)

                        God (12c)

                                                                                    their days (13)

                                                                         this is vanity (14a)

                                        done on earth (14b)

                                   deeds of the wicked (14c)

                            under the sun (15a)

                                                                                    the days of life (15b)

                            under the sun (15c)

                                                                I applied my mind (16a)

            to know (16b)

wisdom (16c)

                    to see (16d)

                            what is done on earth (16e)

                    he sees not (16f)

                    I saw (17a)

                            done under the sun (17b)

While the above analysis certainly does not immediately lend itself to an exact breakdown of the sub-sections in Ecclesiastes 8, just glancing at it reveals that it builds to a peak somewhere in the vicinity of vv. 13-15 with the repetition of references to the days of one's life. In addition, there appears to be a parallel pattern with “under the sun...on earth...under the sun” in both 9c-15a and 15c-17b, suggesting a major break somewhere in v. 15. Another piece of data leading to the same basic conclusion of a two-part construction is the fact that all references to evil, wickedness, vanity and power are located in the first half of the chapter.

I am afraid that in this particular chapter, trying to go to the next step of breaking it down further into precisely delineated sub-sections which are exactly parallel to one another both verbally and in thought would be going beyond what the evidence demands. However, in many other instances in the Bible, such a procedure is very helpful in understanding now the inspired authors organized their thoughts.

 

REVELATION 14:8

There are several questions and insights which this single verse brings up.

Two Implications

A few scholars have pointed out how the symbology in this verse indicates dual meanings. Thus, the following citations:

Morris: “The reason for her [i.e. Babylon's] fall is her bad influence She made all the nations drink of the wine of her fornication (again in xviii, 3). John is combining two thoughts: first, that Babylon makes the nations drink the wine of her impurity, i.e. she corrupts them with her evil ways, and second that this impurity brings down upon it the wrath of God (cf. Je. xxv. 15), 'The nations having drunk the wine of her fornication have really therein drunk the wine of the wrath of God' (Charles).”

John Phillips states, “If the first proclamation [Rev. 14:6-7] was good news, the second was great news...This is the first mention of Babylon in the Apocalypse, but it is by no means the last. It gathers up into itself, in one brief preliminary statement, all that is later unfolded in chapter seventeen and eighteen. This proclamation anticipates the complete collapse of the political, economic, and religious system of the beast. This note is sounded here in view of the warning that follows, for those alive on the earth at this time will have a dire choice before them. That choice is the subject of the third proclamation [Rev. 14:9-12]. This second proclamation puts things into perspective and thus helps them decide. The triumph of Babylon will be brief.”

Porter: “In Revelation 14:8 and Revelation 18:3, in two similar passages, an angel proclaims that Babylon the whore, a personification of Rome, has fallen. She is the one who made the nations drink the wine of the passion (thymos) of her immorality. There is the possibility that thymos here should be interpreted anger or wrath, in light of Babylon's destructive and bloodthirsty purposes.”

Society set free from God is its own worst enemy...This pictures Rome the prostitute seducing the world by the intoxicating influence of her corrupt practices. The other concept is that of the cup of God's wrath as divine punishment (a figure used elsewhere in Rev. 14:10; 16:19; 19:15). By joining the two symbols, the angel may be pointing out that the heady potion of Rome's seductive practices inevitably involves the wrath of God.” (Mounce)

Figurative Language

Almost all commentators agree that the Book of Revelation is filled with non-literal language containing many figures of speech and symbols.

Hendricksen, speaking from an amillennialist perspective, says, “Chapter 13 shows us the agents, instruments, or tools which the dragon uses in his attack upon the church...The first is satan's hand. The second is the devil's mind. The first represents the persecuting power of satan operating in and through the nations of this world and their governments. The second symbolizes the false religions and philosophies of this world...In 14:8 a third agent is mentioned, namely, Babylon, the harlot. So, in all, three agents are employed by satan in his attack upon the earth. They are: antichristian persecution, antichristian religion, and antichristian seduction.”

Ford states that 'wine' in this verse “indicates the intoxicating influence of Babylon's vices. The same concept appears in Jer 51:7,8, which refers to Babylon as 'a golden cup in the Lord's hand' that has intoxicated the earth and driven the nations mad.”

“A second angel now appears...and announces the fall of Babylon the Great. The introduction of this symbolic reference without explanation assumes that the readers would understand the allusion. The ancient Mesopotamian city of Babylon had become the political and religious capital of a world empire, renowned for its luxury and moral corruption. Above all it was the great enemy of the people of God...It is a symbol of the spirit of godlessness which in every age lures men away from the worship of the Creator. It is the final manifestation of secular humanism in its attempt to destroy the remaining vestiges of true religion. (Mounce)

D.R. Wright states, “The Revelation of John makes frequent use of the language of prostitution and fornication, sometimes literally (Rev 9:21) but more often figuratively of idolatry and the excesses of debauched luxury (Rev 14:8, 17:1-5, 18:3, 19:2)...In these later chapters pagan, Christian-persecuting Rome seems to embody these forces of evil, but the letters to the Asian churches in Revelation 2-3 reveal subtler internal threats.”

The footnote to the Jerusalem Bible states: “The 'wine of anger' is a familiar image, cf. Is 51:17+, for the divine anger to which Babylon (Rome) has exposed all nations by making them worship her idols.”

“To drink from a cup handed to you by the Lord means accepting your lot, a metaphor frequently used in prophetic writings to describe the bitter end of the wicked. The cup, described as containing divine judgment and wrath, is one from which they have no choice but to drink.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

“Images of prostitution are completed by judgment. In Revelation's judgment, prostitution again assumes figurative force. Babylon, the city of godlessness, decadence, materialism and ruthless power, is pictured as the Great Whore 'which made all nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries' (Rev 14:8 NIV).” (DBI)

“Revelation...depicts the Christian community as a temple (naos, Rev 3:12; 11:1-2) and as a city (polis, Rev 3:12; 11:3; 20:9; 21:2,22; 22:19) – a city that is opposed by another city, the embodiment of evil (Rev 11:8; 14:8; 16:19).” (Giles)

The True Identity of Babylon

There is reasonable agreement between most theological branches of Christianity concerning this issue:

Ruiz: “Babylon is a symbolic name for Rome (2 Esd 3:1-2). The association of the two is based on the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon in 586 BCE and by Rome in 70 CE.”

Beasley-Murray: “In the latter chapters of the book Rome is called 'Babylon' (see Rev 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2,10,21). The most probable reason for giving the name Babylon to Rome was that as Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, had destroyed Jerusalem in 586 B.C. so Rome had done in recent times...This symbolic name [i.e. 'Babylon'] for Rome appears in 1 Pet. 5:13, the Sibylline Oracles 5:143, 159 and 2 Baruch 11:1.”

Metzger calls this verse “an anticipation of ch. 18” which he labels as “Dirge over the fallen city (Rome).”

Payne's historical premillennial view is expressed in his interpretation of Rev. 14:8. “After the eschatological material of vv. 1-7, this verse appears to involve a reversion to the conditions of John's day...Fulfillment...the fall of the Roman empire, A.D. 476...”

“The theme of great Babylon's downfall is continued [from 14:18], but is now presented in terms of the destruction of a great mercantile city. In John's day Rome was the center of world commerce...and what is here portrayed is not merely the doom of an ancient city, but the sure collapse of all human organization, commercial and otherwise, that leaves God out of its reckoning.” (Bruce)

“While the image of Babylon in the Revelation may not be exhausted by the exclusive application to Rome, there is much about the imperial capital that well fits the apocalyptic denunciation.” (Rapske)

Beagley presents the arguments pro and con regarding the identity of Babylon – either Rome or Jerusalem. He remains undecided as to which city is intended.

Arnold says, “While there is much in the Apocalypse that has the historical city of Rome in view, there appears to be the anticipation of judgment on a future city (or, possibly, some future manifestation symbolized by the city) that possesses all the ungodly and evil characteristics of ancient Rome and Babylon.”

Although most of the above opinions center in one way or another on the Roman Empire of the past which indeed fell as predicted in Revelation, there is one outlier. Thus, Walvoord, speaking from a dispensational viewpoint (which always insists on taking Scripture in a strictly literal manner even when it makes little sense to do so) disputes whether this identification is fully justified. He concludes “that it is Babylon itself, located on the Euphrates River, which in the end time will be converted into a ship-bearing river. When all the evidence is studied, the conclusion seems to point to Babylon being rebuilt as the capital of the world empire in the end time rather than to Rome in Italy. Bible expositors, however, continue to be divided on this question.” Notice that even he hedges his bets in that last statement.

 

"UNLESS" IN JOHN'S GOSPEL

There is a grammatical construction which appears eleven times in the Gospel of John. In Greek it reads “ean...me,” which roughly translates to “unless” (or “except”)...you cannot.” These occurrences are listed in their order of appearance, where they are grouped together by similar formulations. Thus, the first four occurrences form a symmetrical ABBA pattern:

Apart from God you can do no miracles (3:2)

Unless you are born from above, you cannot see the kingdom (3:3)

Unless you are born of water and the Spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom (3:5)

Without it being given from heaven, you cannot receive anything (3:27)

The next appearance of “ean...me” is in John 4:48, which reads, “Except you see signs, you will not believe.” Whereas the other ten usages of this formulation describe necessary conditions for one to be a a true and productive Christian, this one is more of an ironic usage pointing to the hard-heartedness and unbelief possessed by skeptics who need to be convinced before they will even consider the claims of Christ.

The following four references in order also form a symmetrical pattern, this time being an ABAB one:

Unless you are drawn by the Father, you cannot come to me (6:44)

Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you (6:53)

Unless it is granted by the Father, you cannot come to me (6:65)

Unless a grain of wheat dies, it cannot bear fruit (12:24)

And as a concluding note, there is a double usage of “ean...me” found in John 15:4 –

“Unless the branch abides in the vine, it bears no fruit”

These final references serve to tie together the whole series above by echoing ideas and specific language found in both John 3:2 and 12:24. Here are what a few commentators have to say regarding these occurrences:

John 3:3

R.E. Brown notes regarding “the synonymous, parallel expression 'enter' in vs. 5” that “perhaps 'see' brings out more clearly the relationship of the kingdom to the revelation brought by Jesus, revelation that has to be seen, accepted and believed.”

John 3:5

“This is linked immediately with the new birth [3:3]...One application of 'water' may, indeed, be the act of John's baptism to repentance, though the idea of Christian baptism is not entirely unconnected, since in the NT it is closely linked with the imparting of the Spirit to the individual (cf. Ac. 2:38).” (Ellis)

John 3:37

Blum: “God is sovereign in bestowing His blessing on one's ministry...This principle of God's sovereignty is stressed in John (cf. 6:65; 19:11) as well as elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g. 1 Cor. 4:7).”

John 4:48

Culpepper: “Jesus laments the necessity of 'signs and wonders,' but the sign leads the official to believe...The official...exemplifies those who believe because of the signs but show themselves ready to believe the words of Jesus. Theirs is an authentic faith, and they will have the life it gives (cf. 20:30-31).”

John 6:44

“Logically His claims seemed inconceivable, but discernment needed a spiritual impulse.” (Guthrie)

John 6:53

Guthrie also states: “The metaphor of eating and drinking prepares the way for the later institution of the Lord's Supper. It is understandable that the Jews would not have grasped the spiritual meaning of these words, which can be understood only in the light of the subsequent sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross.”

John 6:65

“Once again [see v. 36] what follows is not an exact citation of anything that Jesus has said, although it is almost a composite of what is said in vss. 44 and 37.” (R.E. Brown)

John 12:24

“The grain of wheat introduces us to a paradox, namely, that the way to fruitfulness lies through death...it is only through 'death' that its potentiality for fruitfulness becomes actual. This is a general truth. But it refers particularly to our Lord Himself.” (Morris)

John 15:4

Borchert says that “this theme of remaining or abiding is one of the key Johannine themes that in the mashal [figure of speech] or parable of the vine and branch becomes a focal term for the evangelist in his enunciation of genuine qualities of disciplehsip (15:4-7).”

“Abbott points out that eun me with the present subjunctive is rare in the New Testament, being found twice in this verse and again only in v. 6, and Luke 13:3 in the Gospels.” (Morris)

WAS ZEPHANIAH OF AFRICAN DESCENT?

This is one of those controversial issues in the Bible where the more one reads on the subject, the more 

confused one becomes. That is why it is so common among Christians I have known over the years to

 fix on one particular commentator and swear by everything that author, preacher or media personality

 says. The advantage of that approach to the Bible is that you never are called upon to think for yourself

 by having that one particular view questioned by other commentators. That way you can always be

 definite in your opinions even if those opinions happen to be definitely mistaken.

Pro

One of the most intriguing issues in this book is the identity of the author since although his name is 

obviously Hebrew (meaning “Yahweh has protected, or hidden”) with three other personages in the 

Bible by the same name (see II Kings 25:18; I Chronicles 6:36; and Zechariah 6:10-14), his father is 

called Cushi, indicating that he comes from Cush, almost always in the Bible referring to Ethiopia.

So although there are other characters in the Bible who come from Africa (such as Moses' wife, the 

Queen of Sheba, and the Ethiopian eunuch converted by Philip), Zephaniah may possibly be the only 

author of Scripture with that distinction.

Con

Working against that possibility is the fact that Zephaniah's heritage goes back three more generations 

(a highly unusual occurrence in the Bible) and all of those names are squarely Hebrew, and one of 

them, Hezekiah, may even refer to the famous king of Judah. Watts, for example, says, “The 

superscription goes to unusual lengths in giving the prophet's ancestry, which is traced back to 

Hezekiah, the great Judean king.”

After consulting all of the pertinent resource books in my home library, I compiled the following 

citations from fairly recent Bible commentaries. .

Zephaniah 1:1

Why are so many generations of descendants given? Who was the Hezekiah mentioned in this verse?

These two closely related questions are best handled together. Childs appears to be one of the few 

scholars who doesn't feel it is necessary to even discuss these questions. He says, “The unusually 

lengthy genealogy of the superscription has evoked some interest, but the message of the book seems 

unaffected regardless of the identification of Hezekiah.”

Most other commentators fall into one of two camps, those who feel that Zephaniah was descended to 

royalty and those who are negative or undecided. In the former camp we have the following:

Payne: “Zephaniah 1:1 introduces the prophet through a genealogy that goes back four generations. 

This  is the longest for any of the writing prophets for it identifies Zephaniah's great-great grandfather 

as the  famous King Hezekiah...who reigned 726-697; and this may, in turn help account for the 

prophet's insight into the royal family (1:9) and into the contemporaneous international situation (as in 

2:8). For that reason, it has even been proposed without proof by some that those three names were 

purposely added later by an editor to remove any suggestion of the prophet's African lineage.

Hicks states that “Zephaniah's intimate knowledge of Jerusalem and its court circles, his failure to 

denounce the king personally, and the absence of any concern with the poor of the land support the 

inference that he was of royal descent.”

Hannah: “Most prophets are traced only to their fathers. Zephaniah's careful delineation of his 

pedigree which included Hezekiah has led many scholars to assume Zephaniah's royalty...”

“The use of four generations for a prophet is unprecedented in Hebrew tradition and may indicate that 

Zephaniah himself was of royal lineage...” (Redditt)

Chisholm states that “there must be some reason for the more extensive genealogy that appears in 

Zephaniah's case. The best explanation for this is that Zephaniah was a descendant of the famous king

 Hezekiah.”

Then there are those who are not quite convinced that the prophet was related at all to King Hezekiah:

“The connection to 'Cushi' in the genealogy raises the intriguing possibility of an African ancestry for 

the prophet, which in turn may explain the longer introduction for the purpose of stressing legitimacy.” 

(Premnath) In plain words, that means that a later editor probably added the genealogy in v. 1 to the 

text..

Bullock: “C.F. Keil...avoids the problem that he [i.e. Hezekiah] is not directly called 'king' by taking 

'king of Judah' at the end of the verse, obviously applied to Josiah, to apply also to Hezekiah...However

 appealing the identification of Hizkiyyah with king Hezekiah, it cannot be substantiated. Yet being the 

last named in the list, we surmise that he was a very important man.”

Reid: His genealogy is much longer than the usual prophetic pedigree...Suggested reasons for this are 

(a) to overcome opposition to him because of his African father, 'Cushi' meaning 'Ethiopian', though 

this does not tally with Dt. 23. (b) that 'he probably belonged to a family of some importance' 

(Ellison).”

Redditt explains:”The name 'Cushi'...means 'Ethiopian.' A reader might wonder if such a person were 

indeed an authentic spokesperson for Judah's God, and so, one might presume a redactor added the 

Yahweistic pedigree that follows...Thus, the superscription seeks to stamp the imprimatur of Yahweh 

on the collection of sayings of the prophet.”

Bridger: “We're told that Zephaniah's father is a man called Cushi (1). This is an Egyptian name, and 

some have suggested that he may have been of Ethiopian negro origin and a slave or civil servant in the

 royal household. We can't be sure. More significant perhaps is the mention of a Hezekiah as the great,

 great grandfather of Zephaniah. Is this King Hezekiah the earlier reforming king of Judah? Again we 

can't be sure. But why does the ancestry stop once Hezekiah is mentioned? Could it be to relate 

Zephaniah to the royal house? This certainly fits in to what we find Zephaniah saying and knowing.”

It has been suggested that the extended Jewish genealogy at the start of the book was purposely given 

to counter any suggestion that Zephaniah was in fact of Ethiopian lineage. (LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush)

“The superscription of Zephaniiah is unique in that the prophet's lineage is traced back through four 

generations. This may indicate that Zephaniah's great, great grandfather was the famous King Hezekiah.

 However, if the Hezekiah of the superscription had been the king, that probably would have been 

made clear. Kapelrud points out that Hezekiah was a common name in Judah (1 Chr 3:23; Ezra 2:16;

 Neh 7:21), so this Hezekiah could have been someone other than the king. There were only two 

generations between Hezekiah and Josiah according to 1 Kgs 21-22 (Manasseh and Amon) not three as

Zephaniah's superscription would have it if Hezekiah were the king. Also, Amariah is not attested as 

one of Hezekiah's sons.” (R.L. Smith)

Zephaniah 2:12

Was “Cushite” in the original text and, if so, to what country does it refer?

The second appearance is in the “Oracles to the Nations” section where it is notable in that (a) the 

oracle is unusually truncated, (b) “Cushites” appears in place of the expected “Cush,” and (c) it is not 

clear why Cush is mentioned instead of the expected powerful nation of Egypt. (Berlin) Dorsey labels 

this verse textually suspect and “seemingly intrusive.” Assuming the verse is authentic, the nation 

actually referred to by this designation could be either Egypt, Ethiopia, Midian, tribes of the Arabian

 peninsula, or Assyria. (See Baker and Boda for discussion of these options). If the last country is in 

mind, then 2:12 should be included with 2:13-15, thus disrupting the entire chiastic structure...Midian 

or the tribes of Arabia are equally poor options in light of the geographical scheme for the Oracles 

described earlier. Some scholars feel that Egypt is being referred to in this verse since it sometimes 

appears in the Hebrew Bible in close conjunction with Cush although Berlin notes that Cush never 

stands in place of Egypt. The best option appears to be a literal rendering of Cush as Ethiopia. The last 

appearance is at 3:10 (“rivers of Cush”) where it may or may not refer to one of the four rivers of Eden.

Remarking on 2:12, Reid says, “Cushites may be reference to Egypt whose 25^th dynasty, 712-663

 B.C., had been Cushite. Since the other nations mentioned are on the west, east and north points of the 

compass, it seems that Cush was chosen as representing the south.”

It is also worth noting in the fact that in the oracles to the nations in Zephaniah 2:4-15, the prophecy 

against Cush is much briefer (only one very short verse) than those against Philistia (4 vv.), Moab and 

Ammon (4 vv.), and Assyria (3vv.).

Zephaniah 3:9-10

Beale and Gladd list Zephaniah 3:9-10 as one of twelve Old Testament passages, eight of which are 

found in Isaiah, predicting what has been been labeled as the “eschatological pilgrimage of the 

Gentiles.”

“Obadiah, Joel, Amos, and Isaiah had all spoken of this day [i.e. Day of the Lord], but Zephaniah alone

 emphasized more strenuously than them all the universality of its judgment while also surprisingly 

predicting the conversion of the nations as one of its fruits [see 3:9].” (Kaiser)

Childs notes that in Zephaniah, “the nations have been assigned a new role in the promise of God 

which breaks out of their traditional role as mere recipients of divine judgment. 2.11 first introduces a 

new note by describing the conversion of the nations, but in 3.9f. the new period of promised salvation

actually begins with the conversion of the nations which precedes the promise to Israel...The 

universalism of the threatened judgment is closely paralleled by a universal redemption.”

Literary Considerations

One way in which to present the overall contents of a biblical book as well as to show how it is organized in a symmetrical manner. Figure 1 summarizes by analysis of Zephaniah (discussed in more detail in my post “Zephaniah: Introduction to the Literary Structure”).

Figure 1: The Structure of the Book of Zephaniah

I. The Day of the Lord: Judgment (1:1-18)

A. Universal Events (1:2-3)

B. Against Judah (1:4-13)

A'. Universal Events (1:14-18)

II. Call to Repentance (2:1-4)

III. Oracle to the Nations (2:5-15)

A. Against Philistia (2:5-7)

B. Against Moab and Ammon (2:8-10)

C. Universal Worship of Yahweh (2:11)                                                                                            B'. Against Cush (2:12)

A'. Against Assyria (2:13-15)

II'. Call to Repentance (3:1-7)

I'. The Day of the Lord: Salvation (3:8-20)

                    A. Universal Events (3:8-10)

                                    B. Regarding Judah (3:11-18)

                    A'. Universal Events (3:19-20)

Thus the three occurrences of “Cush” happen to appear at the beginnings of Sections I (1:1) and I' 

(3:10), as well as the almost exact center (2:12). How Cush relates to the overall theme of the book, The

 Day of the Lord, is hard to fathom. However, in retrospect, it appears that perhaps the prophet 

highlighted this term as a purposeful play on his father’s name, contra those who feel that Zephaniah 

wished to distance himself from Ethiopian connections.

In any case, it seems likely that all three symmetrically disposed references to Cush are a purposeful 

touch designed by the author and are all part of the original text (contra Dorsey's opinion regarding 

2:12).

.

ROMANS 12:9-21

There is a often a great deal of subjectivity regarding the way to divide up a given passage of Scripture into individual paragraphs. Below is a listing of a few such suggestions made by scholars and found in English translations:

NRSV, Davison and Martin, JB, NIV, RSV     9-13                     14-21

NEB, Morris                                                     9-10     11-16                          17-21

TEV                                                                  9-13                     14-16          17-21

Living Bible                                                     9-11         12-13   14-16           17-18      19-21

And then there are several other sources who treat verses 9-21 as a unity without attempting to further break that passage down into smaller units. The difficulty in pinning down the organization exactly as a table of contents probably arises from the way these verses are interrelated in a roughly symmetrical manner so that there is no strong demarcation point between each theme to the next. This is shown in Figure 1 below in which six different themes appear and then re-appear at regular intervals afterward, with a center point somewhere around verses 15-18 where there is a two-fold emphasis on the word “all.” Thus, we can say with some certainty that Paul's main point in this whole passage is that Christians should so behave that they can interact effectively with both other believers and unbelievers alike. Only in that manner can the Gospel spread throughout the world in the way it was intended.

                                                     Figure 1: Structure of Romans 12:9-12

I. Do's and don'ts (9-18)

        A. “Let love be genuine” (9a)

                B. “hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good” (9b)

                        C. “one another” (2x) (10)

                                D. “Lord” (11)

                                        E. Bless your enemies (14)

                                                F. Sympathize with all (15)

                        C''. “one another” (16)

                                        E'. Do not repay evil with evil (17a)

                                                F'. Live peacefully with “all” (2x) (17b-18)

I'. Do's and don'ts (19-21)

        A'. “Beloved” (19a)

                                        E. God will repay (19b)

                                D'. “Lord” (19c)

                                        E''. treat your enemies with kindness (20)

                B'. “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (21)

You can see from the above that vv. 9b and 21 act as an inclusion marking the limits of this overall section. Additionally, as Elliott notes, the thought in both Romans 12:17 and 21 can be traced back to Jesus' teachings in Matthew 5, thus approximately closing out both halves of the above passage.

By contrast, the second half of this arrangement (verses 19-21) is heavy in allusions to the Old Testament. See Deuteronomy 32:35 for the wrath of God in Romans 12:19 as well as Proverbs 25:21-22 for Romans 12:21-22.

It has been pointed out by several scholars that verses 9-10 actually contain three of the four different Gtreek words meaning “love.” If you would like to learn more concerning the different nuances between these words, a valuable resource is C.S. Lewis' The Four Loves.

This overall passage is mainly characterized by the catalog of things that Christians are to do as well as behaviors and attitudes to avoid. It is a little difficult to count how many of each type of command are present. However, it is possible to see exactly 21 positive comments and 7 negative ones. If so, then that is entirely appropriate considering that throughout the Old and New Testaments the number seven (or its exact multiples) symbolically stands for completion or perfection. In other words, Paul is presenting an exhaustive, or typical, list of behaviors to both emulate and avoid in order to guide the believers' thought patterns and subsequent resulting actions.

As a roughly chiastic (i.e. mirror-image) structure, Figure 1 leads us to the all-important passage(s) at the middle of the organization. This central teaching can be approximately located around sections F and F' which jointly instruct us to so conduct ourselves among those around us so that whether they are believers or not, we can live in peace with “all” (a word notably repeated in 17b-18) and perhaps win them over through our godly example of behavior. The concomitant goal of such a Christian life is that the Church will not be put to shame by our negative witness in the world.

It is sad to see how in many cases today, a liberal church group will completely lose its uniquely Christian prophetic witness to the world in its attempts to “fit in”with society and not make any waves. At the same time, the fundamentalist wing of the church often has no opportunity to witness to the world in the first place since it likes to spend its time huddled together in its small and isolated like-minded enclaves which devote an inordinate amount of time and effort to bad-mouthing everyone outside who doesn't agree with them 100%.

Below are some sample comments from the scholarly literature attempting to summarize the overall message of Romans 12:9-21:

Barclay takes a basically political interpretation of these verses when he says,“Paul's main view of the state was that in his day, as he saw things, the Roman Empire was the divinely ordained instrument to save the world from chaos...Paul saw in the state an instrument in the hand of God; the state preserved the world from chaos; those who administered the state were playing their part in that great task. Whether they knew it or not they were doing God's work, and it was the Christian's duty to help and not to hinder.”

Kasemann derives a more personal application out of this passage: “Verse 21 takes up again the heading in v. 17a and rounds off the section. Only love overcomes evil by the doing of good. This raises again the question whether love is not the guiding idea of the verses. It this is denied, one must grant that in any case it determines both the beginning and the end and repeatedly comes into view...When a person burns in the Spirit and simultaneously associates with the lowly, this involves eschatological conduct and the other requirements [in this passage] are also to be seen against this background...The individual is left unusual room to maneuver within the framework of his abilities and weaknesses. A church order can develop out of all this, as in the Pastorals. But it is not yet present here.”

Morris says of v. 9, “At this point Paul moves from the charismatic gifts, functions exercised by individuals, to virtues he expects to see in all believers. Characteristically he begins with love.” And when he comes to verses17-21 at the end of the passage, he states, “this should not be regarded as a hard-and-fast division. Some of what we saw in the previous section applies to the way Christians should behave towards outsiders and some in this section to their treatment of fellow believers.” His comments on vv. 9-21 conclude by saying, “We should be clear that Paul is not laying down some useful ethical precepts for the edification of the general public. He has spent a lot of time in this letter on the subject of justification by faith, and it is the justified person of whom he continues to write.”

 

TENSIONS IN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

There is actually a fairly fine line between the concepts of a tension and a contradiction so that a critic can often cite two passages in Scripture and point out that they appear to express exactly opposite or incompatible ideas. At the same time, one who is committed to the truth of the Bible will delve into the matter a little deeper in order to see if both concepts can be held simultaneously without giving up any intellectual integrity. A former pastor once compared it to stretching a rubber band between your two hands. It forms a taut support as long as you don't let go of it with one hand. If you do, all the tension is gone and you are left with a limp rubber band in the other hand.

Generally speaking, there are several ways in which this desirable tension can be maintained. For example, the contexts of the two passages might represent entirely different situations or even dispensations. Then there is the possibility that the perspectives differ between the conflicting teachings (i.e. divine vs. human). Or each individual passage might only give half of the story, and both are needed to get the complete message. Here is how those tensions play out concerning certain points of theology.

Faith and Works

The relationship between these two seemingly diametrically opposed concepts related to the question of salvation has been worked to death over the centuries by many theologians, and so I won't bore you with rehearsing all the ins and outs of that subject. One simple-minded way of resolving this issue is to say that your works save you only if they are considered as evidence of a prior faith. But at the same time, without works, there is the real question as to whether you in fact have that faith. However, those who think they can earn their way to heaven through their works alone are also sadly mistaken.

There are similar discussions regarding whether our salvation is solely due to God's grace or to our faith. The best approach there appears to be treatment of God's grace being first extended to all and leaving it up to human beings to respond or not respond in faith. Some Calvinists would deny that there is any free will for man and in addition quote Bible passages that can be made to say that even faith itself is not up to us but given only to certain pre-chosen persons. To me, that is a prime example of letting go of the rubber band with one hand.

Steps of Salvation

I was raised in the Restoration tradition which came up with the simple mnemonic preaching device of holding up one hand and showing how each of the five fingers represented one of the steps necessary for salvation. That was their approach, and in my mind a good one, to help their audience keep in mind all of the New Testament passages dealing with this subject. These various passages, taken individually as if they were in a vacuum, might easily lead one to think that all was needed was either faith, repentance, confession of faith in front of others, baptism, or persistence in belief. Taking your pick of which one or ones you happen to feel are sufficient (as do most Christian denominations) and trying to explain away the others as not necessary, is again a case of letting go one end of the rubber band.

God's Omniscience and Human Actions

After Jacob dies in Egypt, Joseph's brothers are afraid that he will then seek revenge on them for selling him into slavery. But Joseph replies, “Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today. So have no fear.” Here we see that Joseph is able to overlook the sin against him because he can see events from God's viewpoint rather than from his own limited perspective. God was able to turn man's evil intent around and use it instead as a means of saving the Jewish people.

A close parallel to this type of tension is seen in the NT account of Christ's Passion in which He foretells Judas' betrayal with the words: “For the Son of Man is going as it has been determined, but woe to that one by whom he is betrayed.” (Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22) Thus, God is again seen to utilize an evil act to accomplish His purposes. But in addition, we see here that Judas was no mere puppet to carry out God's will; he was held fully responsible for his own actions.