REVELATION 9:1

Although we would love to be in the know concerning the meaning of all the bizarre symbols and events taking place in this final book of the Bible, when it comes to this puzzling verse involving a falling star the best we can do is list some of the possibilities without being too definite in our opinion as to which is the one and only interpretation.

Firstly, we must always keep in mind that Revelation is filled with symbolic and non-literal language. As Hagner says, “Out of the 28 occurrences of the words [aster and astron, i.e. stars, in the Bible], only five may be described as ordinary or literal...The real meaning of this language is theological … Momentous events have occurred and are yet to occur – all of which are part of the same fabric of judgment and blessing, and call for the most exalted language.”

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery goes on to say, “Virtually all the biblical star motifs converge in the book of Revelation, where more than a dozen verses contain images of stars...Amid the cataclysmic events at the end of history, stars fall from the sky (Rev 6:13; 8:10; 9:1; 12:4) and refuse to give their light (Rev 8:12).”

To demonstrate the diversity of opinions regarding the identity of the one fallen from heaven who is given the key to the abyss, I will first quote from Morris, who says, “Angels were sometimes called stars (cf. 1.20) and it seems likely that this star was an angel. Some take 'fallen' very literally and think of a 'fallen angel'. But this is probably reading too much into it. On the basis of certain apocryphal passages Charles argues that when the imagery is that of a star there is not much difference between falling...and descending...So this verse will mean much the same as xx.1.” Morris reviews previous scholarly opinions on the subject of the star's identity, which include such diverse suggestions as: Nero, a fallen angel, an evil spirit, Satan, the Word of God, an angel such as Uriel, or Christ Himself. Morris' succinct conclusion is “With the experts so divided it is unwise to be dogmatic: John does not identify him and we simply do not have enough information to supply the lack.”

This same fallen personage appears in Revelation 9:11, where we are given a little more information to go by, but still not enough to pin down his identity. As Davids puts it, “The identity of this ruler is unclear. Is he an angel, perhaps the one who opens the pit and then is sent to control the host he allows out? John normally uses 'angel' for one of those loyal to God; there is also plenty of evidence in Scripture to accept the idea of a destroying angel. Or is he one of the host allowed out, himself a fallen angel or demon? The evidence is fairly well balanced, but given John's use of the term 'angel,' we suspect that the first suggestion is correct.”

Below are quotes from a number of other Bible scholars offered to demonstrate how divided the “experts” are. Based on the disagreements between them, we would probably be best to take Morris' advice and exercise a little humility regarding the subject.

Ford: “The seer did not see a star falling from heaven to earth but a star which had already fallen. The author probably identified the star with an angel (cf. II Enoch 30:14), but stars may also represent men...Here in ch. 9 the fifth and sixth trumpets are blown, introducing hostile powers from the nether world and from the earth. Yet everything is still under the authority of God.. This is indicated by the bestowal of the key to the abyss in vs. 1...the prophet records having seen a fallen star, probably an angel who has transgressed the commandments of God and whose realm is now not heaven but earth.”

Beasley-Murray: “The fifth trumpet introduces a plague of demonic locusts. The fact that the star seen by John has fallen from heaven to earth does not necessitate its being a 'fallen' angel. The movement is narrated merely to show that the 'star' came down from heaven to earth to open the abyss, wherein dwelt the demonic hordes.”

“God's final acts of redemption and judgment are foreshadowed by astronomical signs. The prophets and our Lord foretell such signs; and in Revelation they are prominent.” (Fermer)

Ruiz identifies this personage by citing v. 11 as well as other pertinent passages such as Isaiah 14:12 and Luke 10:18. He adds, “The name Abaddon which means 'Destruction,' denotes the depths of Sheol (Job 26:6; see Prov 15:11; Sheol and Abaddon are the abode and state – destruction – of the dead).”

Bruce's opinion is that he is “Probably a fallen angel (cf. 12:4), possibly identical with Abaddon-Apollyon, the angel of the abyss (verse 11). In Enoch 86:1 'a star fell from heaven' refers to the first fallen angel, who was followed by other 'stars'...”

“Finally, in chapter 9:1-12, there is even the unchaining of the Abyss, that is to say, the return to chaos, the plunge again into nothingness. Abaddon is absolute destruction, the decreation. It is the triumph of chaos, the return to what was before the Spirit of God installed order in this disorder; it is Sheol that prevails. In all we are here in the presence of the opposite of that which was the creative act of God.” (Ellul)

Mounce: “Jewish thought readily symbolized living beings as stars. Many expositors take the next step and concede that in Jewish thought the stars were held to be celestial spirits possessing conscious personalities. The usual passages cited in support of this position are Judges 5:20 ('From heaven fought the stars, from their courses they fought against Sisera') and Job 38:7 ('When the morning stars sang together'). In that both verses occur in poetic sections it would seem unwise to press upon them such a literal interpretation. Elsewhere Israel is sternly warned against worshiping stellar deities (Deut 4:19; Jer 7:18).”

Contrary to many of the opinions offered regarding the nature of the star in Rev. 9:1, Mounce feels, “It is more likely, that the star-angel is simply one of the many divine agents who throughout the book of Revelation are pictured as carrying out the will of God...He is probably the same angel who in 20:1 comes down out of heaven with the key of the abyss.”

Walvoord begins with a rather obvious observation when he states: “Because of the he in verse 2 and 'king' in verse 11, the star that fell to the earth was a person rather than a fragment of a star (cf. Isa. 14:12-17; Luke 10:18)...But from that point on, Walvoord represents a decided outlier in his opinion that “This star, probably representing Satan cast out of heaven of the beginning of the Great Tribulation (Rev. 12:9),...will be confined for a thousand years in the Abyss during the reign of Christ on earth (Rev. 20:1-3).” One seeming difficulty in his conflation of this verse with the imprisonment of Satan is the fact that it would mean that God actually gives the key to unlock the Abyss to Satan, rather than imprisoning him there. But there are ways of getting around that problem.

Payne's somewhat similar interpretation is expressed more tentatively: “The star must...have symbolized a personal being, and probably an angel, as in 1:20 – perhaps the elect angel who is to have the key of the abyss in 20:1, but more likely the fallen angelic ruler of demons, 'the angel of the abyss,' who is Abaddon, or Apollyon, namely Satan the destroyer, 9:11; cf. 12:9.” He also notes that 9:3 parallels the eighth plague of Egypt in Exodus 10:14.

Phillips expresses much the same thought more colorfully when he says that “the fallen star is Satan, who is now given authority to open the abyss and unleash the terrible beings incarcerated there. The imagination cannot picture what the earth will be like when the church is removed from the scene, when society, having completely corrupted itself, is handed over to the malignant attention of the most horrible fiends of hell. These wicked spirits, long mercifully chained by God, are now let loose upon the earth...”

In Beale's commentary of Revelation, he discusses this one verse for four pages. I will not attempt to capture all that he has to say on the subject, but just a few thoughts from the beginning of his interpretation.. “The main debate is whether this is a good or evil being. It could be either the archangel Uriel, was was chief 'over Tartarus,' or the archangel Saraqael [of the Book of Enoch). But I Enoch never calls those figures 'fallen stars,' Instead, this description is reserved exclusively for fallen angels under the confinement of the archangels. The star should rather be interpreted in the same way as the star in 8:10 because of the parallel wording ('a star fell from heaven'). We argued that the star in 8:10 was either an angel executing judgment or, more probably, in line with Isaiah 14, an angel representing sinful people, undergoing judgment along with those people. The portrayal of a heavenly being 'falling like a star from heaven' elsewhere also represents judgment of either Satan or his angels...Jesus uses virtually the identical expression to describe Satan's judgment in Luke 10:18..The expression in Rev. 9:1 may be another way of saying that 'Satan...was cast to the earth, and his angels with him were cast' (12:9; cf. 12:13).” The rest of his detailed exposition is spent defending that thesis.

As a final aside, several places in C.S. Lewis' writings he reiterates in different ways his understanding that, as he expressed himself in The Problem of Pain, "I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the gates of hell are locked on the inside." It is certainly an interesting perspective to consider.

"LIKEWISE" IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

 There are two reasons why it is almost impossible to account for all the NT passages in which the word “likewise” appears. In the first place, there are several Greek words which can be translated in this manner. Secondly, translators into English can render any of these words as “so,” “in like manner,” “similarly,” “in the same way,” etc. Therefore the passages listed below should not be taken as a necessarily exhaustive compilation. But in each case, we are confronted with a comparison of sorts, of which the Bible is full, where a spiritual truth is explained by its similarity to something more readily observable in the physical world. I have limited the passages below to those which can be taken as some sort of command.

Matthew 7:12 // Luke 6:31

Whole books have been written concerning the Golden Rule and all of its implications. Boice makes some good points when he says: “It is clear above all else that to express the Rule in a positive form is to make it extremely more difficult. In fact, it makes it impossible for normal human beings to keep. It always has been possible for men to keep the negative of this saying. In its negative form the Rule is a legal principle, and the law always has self as center...On the other hand, if a man is trying to keep the positive form of this saying, it becomes evident early that this is precisely what he cannot do. And he cannot do it precisely because he is taking himself as the starting point.”

Matthew 18:35

Snodgrass, in his detailed analysis of the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt. 18:23-35), points out the following: “This parable, which appears only in Matthew, is a two-stage double indirect narrative parable with a plot development. It has a balanced three-part structure presenting the three scenes of the narrative followed by a nimshal (an explanation)...Regarding that explanation (v. 35), he states first that some scholars wish to separate verses 34-35 from the rest of the parable. However, his own opinion is expressed as follows:
“At the narrative level the master's rhetorical question (v. 33) requires an answer, and every reader wants to know what will happen to the servant. The nimshal in v. 35 only does the necessary job of explaining the referent of the parable...The attempts to reconstruct the parable without the closing verses seem to be clear attempts to distance Jesus from the idea of judgment...As the nimshal in 18:35 shows, the concern of the story is twofold: the necessity of mercy and forgiveness and the seriousness of any failure to show mercy and forgiveness..”

Matthew 24:32-44 // Mark 13:28-32 // Luke 21:31

Of these three parallel passages, Matthew uses “likewise” twice, in vv. 33 and 37; Mark only mentions the first of these occurrences; and Luke does not contain the word at all. The signs of Second Coming in Matthew are first compared to a natural event (the leafing out of a fig tree) and then with the suddenness of the flood in Noah's time. The conclusion after citing both these examples is stated in Matthew 24: “Therefore you also must be ready; for the Son of man is also coming at an hour you do not expect.”

Luke 10:37

This command comes at the end of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Marshall summarizes this verse with the words: “with authority Jesus commands the lawyer to go away and begin to follow the Samaritan's example; the command in v. 28 [to love your neighbor as (you love) yourself] cannot be evaded.”

Luke 13:3-5

We have two parallel short historical happenings recounted by Jesus in which people died unexpectedly. Verse 3 ends up with the words you shall all perish in similar ways. “Prima facie this refers to a form of natural death, which will come unexpectedly; but in the context of judgment, which has been running through this part of the Lucan travel account, a broader sense of perishing must be envisaged.” (Fitzmyer)

Craddock adds: “Surely it is not coincidental that the tragedies affected both Galileans and Jerusalemites and that the one is an act of human evil, the other what we term natural evil. Jesus is as inclusive in his comments as the problem is universal. Why did this tragedy happen to these people?... And so they come to Jesus and want to know if violence and suffering are random or according to divine law. Jesus rejects such attempts at calculation, not only because they are futile but also because they deflect attention from the primary issue: the obligation of every person to live in penitence and trust before God, and that penitent trust is not to be linked to life's sorrows or life's joys.”

Luke 15:3-10

These twin stories of something valuable being found each end with a comparison between the joy of the person involved at that happening and the similar joy in heaven when a sinner is saved. Tilden notes that the second story “intensifies the picture of human helplessness and divine concern.”

Luke 17:10

In this story by Jesus, he points out that a servant expects no particular word of gratitude from his master for simply doing the job he is required to do. By analogy, as Tilden says, “Man's relation to God makes obedience to God a duty to be fulfilled and not an occasion for reward.”

Romans 6:11

Morris: “Paul goes on to Jesus' risen life...The resurrection marks the victory, the end of conflict with sin...His life is beyond the reach of death and every evil...This has consequences; In the same way points to the similarity...Believers must act in the same way...Christ's death and resurrection has altered their position, and they should live in accordance with the new reality.”

I Corinthians 7:2-4

Fee diagrams these teachings regarding the mutual care husband and wife should show for one another as follows:

    A. Each man should love his own wife (v. 2a)

                B. and each woman should should love her own husband (v. 2b)

    A. The husband should give the wife her due (v. 3a)

likewise

                B. the wife to her husband (v. 3b)

…...............

                B. The wife does not have control over her own body (4a)

    A. but her husband does (4b)

likewise

    A. the husband does not have control over his own body (4c)

                B. but the wife does (4d)

He states: “The way to correct an abuse of mutual relations [indicated by the double reference to 'likewise'] is not to make demands on the offending party only, but to emphasize the mutual responsibility of each.”

I Corinthians 14:9

“Paul illustrates the need for 'tongues' in public to be interpreted [with the two examples in v. 8]...Intelligible communication is vital, however highly the Corinthians may prize the gift of 'tongues.'” (Hillyer) Thus, the form of this 'likewise' saying resembles Christ's parables in first describing some easily observable phenomenon and following it with a spiritual analogue.

I Timothy 2:9

Demonstrating the interchangeablility of Greek words conveying the same meaning of comparison, Towner notes regarding this verse that “Gk. hosautos (3:8,11; 5:25; Titus 2:3,6 [is] equivalent to homoios in 1 Pet. 3:1,7, 5:5).”

Knight discusses in some detail the ambiguity regarding exactly of what the similarity in action between the women and men in the congregation is supposed to consist. It may indicate (a) that Paul has instructions for both groups, (b) both possess certain qualifications, or (c) that both men and women are to pray. Knight opts for the last meaning.

I Timothy 3:8

Guthrie points out: “The list of qualities specified [for deacons] is closely akin to the preceding [for elders] but there are significant variations.” According to Guthrie, these appear to be related to specific duties to be carried out by the deacons which might be accompanied by special temptations.

I Timothy 5:25

This verse relates to the ordination of those for the ministry. Ward notes that this is the reverse of the previous verse. “Just as hasty ordinations are to be avoided, so candidates for the ministry, even when unprepossessing, should not be rejected without allowing plenty of time to find out their worth. There is no reference here to judgment...Other good deeds which do not strike the eye may have been done in secret without fanfare...Sooner or later, Paul implied, the story would come out.”

Titus 2:3,6

“The connecting adverb 'in the same way' (hosautos …) relates this command to the preceding one and is typical of this type of parenesis [i.e.a formal rhetorical term for moral exhortation, advice, or counsel]. (Towner)

I Peter 3:1,7

Here, as in I Corinthians 7, we again have a tabulation of Household Codes in which the necessary relationships between different groups of people need to be spelled out for believers.

I Peter 5:5

Quanbeck points out that “humility is not natural to anyone; it must be put on like clothing. The quotation is from Pr. 3.34.”

THE NUMBER SEVENTEEN IN THE BIBLE

Numbers in the Bible are often used in the same manner as we would, as literal realities. But in addition, there can be occasions when they serve a symbolic or figurative purpose. And almost all of these latter examples involve numbers which can be derived mathematically from only three key numerals: three, four, and powers of ten. Therefore, we see many Scripture passages in which 3-1/2, seven, twelve, six, eight, twelve, forty, seventy, 666, or 144,000 appear with more than a mere literal meaning attached.

But in this post I would like to concentrate just on the number 17. It would seem to be an ideal number to represent completeness since it is the addition of two symbolically perfect numerals, seven and ten.

Genesis 

In the flood narrative of Genesis 7-8, God's action in 7:11 in initiating the flooding of the earth is matched with the subsidence of the water in 8:4. Interestingly, both events take place on the 17^th days of their respective months.

In Hamilton's commentary on this book, he says the following regarding Genesis 47:28, “Genesis is as silent on Jacob's last seventeen years as it was on Joseph's first seventeen years (37:2). The reference to seventeen years advances the Joseph narrative into a more distant time frame. The famine is over by now. Joseph is even further consolidated in his position of authority, and the text is now ready to describe Jacob's last days.”

It seems too much of a coincidence that these two key missing time periods happen to be exactly the same in length. More likely is that the actual expired periods were both rounded off in the text somewhat so that the time frames could symbolically stand for a “sufficient” or “perfect” amount of time to accomplish God's plan.

Historical Books

This ubiquitous number also pops up in this portion of the Old Testament as part of the descriptions of key kings over Judah and Israel, especially in the introductions to the reigns of each one. Thus, we have the following verses:

I Kings 14:21 // II Chronicles 12:13 These parallel passages state that Rehoboam reigned for seventeen years. But the first thing to note is that the Greek Septuagint version reduced that time period to only twelve years. And according to W.F. Albright, that time period only makes sense if it is truncated even further.

I Kings 22:51 Ahaziah reigned over Israel starting in the seventeenth year of King Jehoshaphat of Judah.

II Kings 13:1 Jehoahaz reigned over Israel for seventeen years according to this verse. However, Cogan and Tadmor state: “The synchronisms with Joash of Judah in vv. 1 and 10 show that Jehoahaz reigned only fourteen years.”

II Kings 16:1 In the seventeenth year of Pekah, Ahaz began his reign over Judah. But again, as Waite says, “His age at the time of accession and the length of his reign (2 Ki. xvi. 2; 2 Ch. xxvii. 1) both give rise to chronological problems.”

The generally conservative commentator Scot McKnight concludes regarding the above: “The 'histories' of 1-2 Kings and 1-2 Chronicles are more fundamentally shaped by theological and political concerns ['than chronological synchronomy of two sets of kings, and historical flow'].”

Thus, we can see that in several cases, the historical data has been changed somewhat in order to insert the symbolic “seventeen” into the text, as an indication that it is God, and God alone, who determines the fate of rulers. Of course another way in which that goal can be accomplished is to choose between the various dating formulas [i.e. age of the ruler when coming to rule, number of years served as king, or by reference to the Northern or Southern Kingdom rulers at the time] so that the number 17 arises.

Jeremiah 32:9 “The prophet buys a plot of land for seventeen shekels. Jeremiah's purchase illustrates his confidence in the future of Judah.” (Biddle) The number seventeen here can also be figuratively the prophet's way of assuring the people of his perfect or complete assurance from God on that point.

John's Gospel John is a prime example of an author who utilizes 17 in a figurative manner. In his Gospel, there are 17 quotations having an introductory formula; exactly 17 occurrences in the text of the words “sign(s)” and “see/believe” (blepein) and the phrases “eternal life/life eternal” and “Simon Peter.” In addition, there are 17 references in the Gospel to the “hour / time coming” (erchomai). It is also stated 17 times in the Gospel that God “sent” Jesus. Taken together, these references practically define the major themes of the book. To these examples can perhaps be added, at least by one count, the 68 (i.e., 4x17) appearances of the designation “the Jews” in the Gospel, especially since the idea of Jesus replacing the Jewish institutions is one of the more pervasive themes of the book.

Romans 8 But perhaps the most subtle appearance of “17” in the Bible appears in this chapter. Commentators note the extremely high concentration of reference to pneuma (“spirit”) here, twenty times by count, compared to the chapters that precede and follow it..

At this point, it is necessary to back up and explain that Bible manuscripts can be divided into two basic types: uncials written in capital letters and produced in the 4th-8th centuries AD and minuscules (from the 9^th Century on) which were written in lower-case letters, often connected to one another. Thus, in neither case was it possible to tell whether a word was meant to be capitalized or not.

This could pose a major problem in trying to distinguish between words such as Lord and lord, Spirit and spirit, and God and god. Sometimes the context is enough to distinguish which was intended by the author. But there is a reasonable consensus among English translations that the lower-case designation 'spirit' is only appropriate to the word's occurrence in vv. 15a-b and 16. That leaves exactly 17 times in the chapter that the Holy Spirit appears.

Thus, we might conclude that whereas the places in the Old Testament mentioning “17” refer to actions of God the Father, John's Gospel uses the number 17 mainly in relation to Christ while Romans 8 does the same thing regarding the Holy Spirit.

ROMANS 8 TEXTUAL PROBLEMS

Fitzmyer considers this chapter to form “a certain peak in Paul's whole discussion, because it seeks to bring out the reality of the new aeon and of the new life that human beings can now lead in union with Christ and through his Spirit. It also stresses how God's love is poured out on his human creatures. Divine love is seen as the counterpart of divine uprightness.”

“Until now Paul has used pneuma five times only and some of these do not refer to the Holy Spirit. But in this chapter the term occurs 20 times, the most in any one chapter in the New Testament.” (Morris)

1 Fitzmyer notes regarding this verse that a number of Greek manuscripts, as well as the Latin Vulgate, add 'who walk not according to the flesh.' But that is not the reading in the best MSS...and is clearly derived from 8:4. Still other MSS...add the same phrase, but also alla kata pneuma, 'but according to the Spirit.'”

Metzger agrees: “The shorter text, which makes the more general statement without the qualification that is appropriate enough at ver. 4, is strongly supported by early representatives of both the Alexandrian and the Western types of text...”

Murray's opinion is that “the external evidence is such that we cannot assume the genuineness of this addition in whole or in part. It is most likely that it was inserted from the end of vs. 4 in the course of transcription. In the later case there is no textual question.”

2 “Me” = “you” or “us” in other manuscripts. Fitzmyer weighs the evidence on each side, but concludes, “It is not easy to say which fits the context better...In any case, Paul clearly means the justified Christian.” Murray similarly states, “The sense is not affected.” And adding to this consensus is Morris: “Not much depends on the point because either way Paul clearly means the term to apply to any believer.”

NRSV: Here the Greek word you is singular in number; other ancient authorities read me or us.”

3 The Greek reads literally “For sin.” But NIV has “as a sin offering,” echoing the Septuagint's use of the phrase applied to sacrifices for sin.

11a Morris explains, “The Spirit is not usually linked with resurrection, but here he seems to be. It is not clear whether Paul is saying that the Spirit is to be the agent in the raising us or the guarantee that we will be raised. Both are true, and it does not seem to matter greatly which way we resolve the textual problem.” He adds: “There seems no compelling reason for choosing either [of the two textual possibilities].”

Comfort agrees with Morris' assessment: “Either reading could be original. The first indicates agency (God will resurrect believers through the indwelling Spirit); the second indicates cause (God will resurrect believers because they have the Spirit).”

11b NRSV “Other ancient authorities read the Christ or Christ Jesus or Jesus Christ” for the second mention of him in the verse.

12 The sentence here breaks off in the middle and implies that we are debtors to the Spirit. It starts out with a strong expression which in the Greek is literally “wherefore therefore.” It is a deduction from the theological truths that preceded in order to give an application in living.

13 “Paul uses soma, 'body,' as the synonym for sarx, 'flesh,' which some MSS even introduce as a correction...” (Fitzmyer)

15-16 The Greek word for spirit appears four times in these verses. Since there was no capitalization in the original Greek to distinguish spirit from Spirit, this causes some uncertainty in how to translate and understand the text. Thus, in contrast to the obvious references to the Holy Spirit in vv. 13-14, the two occurrences in v. 15 and the second appearance in v. 16 more likely have the meaning of a disposition or frame of mind (8:15) and a component of man's make-up (8:16).

21 Fitzmyer explains that there are two different readings in the existing manuscripts: either hoti ('that') or dioti ('because'). He opts for the first since, “The reading dioti...probably developed by dittography (elpidi hoti becoming elpidi dioti). This verse explains the hope.” Note: dittography is an accidental error made by a scribe in which he repeated a word or some letters in the text, di in this particular case.

Murray points out, “Notable editors follow the latter reading [i.e. dioti].” By contrast, Morris feels that hoti is to be preferred.

23 NEB note “Some witnesses [i.e. manuscripts] omit 'make us his sons and'.” “The textual variants in this verse do not materially change the sense.” (Murray) Morris admits that “there is textual uncertainty” but concludes that “Paul is clearly emphasizing the truth that none less than believers join in the groaning.”

“Several witnesses, chiefly Western...omit huiothesian [ i.e. 'adoption'], a word which copyists doubtless found to be both clumsy in the context and dispensable, as well as seeming to contradict ver. 15.” (Metzger)

24a NEB note: Some witnesses read “why should a man hope...” Fitzmyer comments: “In the long run the sense is little affected.” 24b NRSV note “Other ancient authorities read 'Who awaits' in place of 'who hopes.'” Again, as Murray points out, “The sense is not materially affected.”

25 JB note: alternative reading in the Latin Vulgate “The Spirit bears witness to our spirit.”

26 NRSV note: Other ancient authorities add for us after intercedes.Fitzmyer expresses the opinion that “It may be a copyist's added phrase.” Comfort aggrees with that view in that “for us” is only supported by one 7^th cent. manuscript.

28 RSV note: “Other ancient authorities read in everything he works for good, or everything works for good.” Fitzmyer feels, “Any one of them would suit the context.” Comfort adds, “It is God who turns everything to good; it is not just that everything works out for the good.”

Morris says, “A few MSS read 'God works all things...' This gives a excellent sense and is accepted by RSV. But it is hard to understand why it is read by so few MSS if it is correct and involves us in a problem with the Greek construction.” To explain this issue, he notes that the Greek of this variation really indicates that God works together with all things, and states, “But God is sovereign, not a partner, working 'with' the things he has made.”

31 “Most MS read hos ge (which is emphatic, 'he who' or 'the same one who,' even with a causal nuance, 'seeing that he')...but MSS D, F, and G read hos oude tou idiou huiou, 'who did not spare even his own Son.'” (Fitzmyer)

34a Both Murray and Comfort point out that the manuscript evidence is pretty much divided here over the issue of whether the verse should read “Christ Jesus” or just “Christ” alone.

34b Fitzmyer rejects the addition of the words “from the dead,” saying “but that is almost certainly a copyist's explanatory addition.” The shorter reading is found in the better and older manuscripts.

35 Fitzmyer similarly rejects the reading '(the love) of God that is in Christ Jesus' as “almost certainly a copyist's harmonization with v 39...” Comfort finds confirmation in that view by taking into account the amount of space allotted to a missing text in two early manuscripts.

38 “Paul has ten items in his list. The manuscripts vary a little, but he seems to arrange them in four pairs, along with two single items.” (Morris)

Morris opts for the listing in which the last items mentioned are: “things present,” “things to come,” and “powers” in that order. The reason for that judgment is given as “the diversity of the [manuscript] evidence in its favor. It is also the more difficult reading.” That last reason may sound counterintuitive, but it makes actually good sense since it is highly unlikely for a scribe to purposely change a text to make it less understandable to the reader, while the reverse change is much more likely to take place.

ROMANS 13:11-14

I have previously analyzed the literary structure of Romans 12-13 as shown in Figure 1, in which 13:11-14 is parallel in thought to the introduction to chapter 12

                                     Figure 1: Organization of Romans 12-13

A. Be transformed (12:1-2)

B. Love within the body (12:3-13)

C. Attitude toward enemies (12:14-21)

                                    C'. Attitude toward authorities (13:1-7)

B'. Love for neighbor (13:8-10)

A'. Put on Christ (13:11-14)

We can thus view A' as an expansion of A in that it describes such a transformation in more detail in terms of a moving from the spiritual darkness into God's light. This movement is expressed over and over again in 13:11-14, as diagrammed below:

                                         Figure 2: Organization of Romans 13:11-14

wake from sleep (11)

        night is almost gone (12a)

day is near (12b)

        works of darkness (12c)

put on the armor of light (12d)

live as in the day (13a)

        not as in the night (13b)

Put on Christ (14a)

        make no provision for the flesh (14)

Below are some additional comments from scholars regarding these four verses:

Romans 13:11

“The return of Christ makes it urgent to wake to holy and honorable living (I Thess 5:1-11; Eph 5.8-18).” (Elliott)

As to what time period is being referred to, the note in the Jerusalem Bible explains, “The thought is a fundamental one in Paul's moral teaching. The 'time' (kairos) is apparently the eschatological era, called in the Bible the 'latter days', introduced by Christ's death and resurrection and coextensive with the age of the Church on earth, the age of salvation, 2 Co 6:2+. It is opposed to the era that preceded it by a difference not so much of time as of nature. The Christian, henceforward a 'child of the day' emancipated from the wicked world, Ga 1:4 and from the empire of darkness, belongs to the kingdom of God and of his Son, Col 1:13; he is already a citizen of heaven, Ph 3:20. This entirely new status dominates the whole moral outlook, cf. 6:3f.”

Romans 13:12

Morris: “Paul does not explain what the night is, but clearly he is referring to this present life as in some sense lived in darkness. But the consummation of which he has just spoken indicates that the night will not last forever; indeed, in view of what Christ has done in bringing light and salvation it is far advanced. 'The day has drawn near' does not mean that the parousia [i.e. second coming] is imminent but that after Christ all history 'must be of the nature of an epilogue' (Cranfield).”

Romans 13:13

And to drill into the organization of Figure 2 a little further, note that there are exactly six examples of sinful behavior listed in v. 13b. This is significant because in biblical symbology that number signifies something incomplete since it is one shy of the “perfect” number seven (as in the number of the beast as a trinity of imperfection, 666).

Note that these six sinful behaviors are further broken down into three pairs of similar activities:

    a. orgies and drunkenness

    b. sexual immorality and debauchery

    c. dissension and jealousy

Here are some selections from Barclay's definition of these six sins:

Revelry (komos) – “This is an interesting word. Originally a komos was the band of friends who accompanied a victor home from the games, singing his praises and celebrating his triumph as they went. Later it came to mean a noisy band of revellers who swept their way through the city streets at night...It describes the kind of revelry which lowers a man's self and is a disturbance and nuisance to others.”

Drunkenness (methe) – “Especially to the Greeks, drunkenness was a particularly disgraceful thing...This was a vice which not only a Christian but any respectable heathen would also have condemned.” And my personal experiences in college indicate that these first two activities usually go hand in hand.

Immorality (koite) – “The word has in it the meaning of the desire for the forbidden bed. This was the typical heathen sin. It is true to say that chastity was unknown; it is almost true today that it had not begun to be thought of as a virtue. The word brings to mind the man who sets no value on fidelity, and who takes his pleasure when and where he will.”

Shamelessness (aselgeia) – “Aselgeia is one of the ugliest words in the Greek language. It does not describe only immorality; it describes the man who is lost to shame. Most people seek to conceal their evil deeds, and try to sin in secret; but the man in whose heart there is aselgeia is long past that. He does not care who sees him.”

Contention (eris) – “Eris is the spirit that is born of unbridled and unholy competition. It comes from the desire for place and power and prestige, from the hatred of being surpassed, from the inability and unwillingness to take the second place.”

Romans 13:14

As often occurs in New Testament documents, there is some disagreement between different manuscripts regarding the exact wording when referring to the names of God or Christ. In this case, the preferred reading, according to Metzger and others, is that found in the earliest text, “Jesus Christ our Lord.” Other variations in some later manuscripts include “Lord Jesus” and “Christ Jesus.” Whichever option one chooses does not really change the meaning of the verse at all.

Elliott states that the reference to putting on Christ was “an early Christian metaphor for baptism (Gal 3.27).” And Knox adds, “To put on the Lord Jesus Christ is to enter fully into the new order of existence which God has created through Christ...”

 

DEUTERONOMY 8 AS A WORD PICTURE

A little over a quarter of a century ago, Bruce Wilkinson published a runaway Christian best seller titled The Prayer of Jabez: Breaking Through to the Blessed Life. It attempted to show that one of the greatest principles of the whole Bible was contained in the obscure two-verse passage I Chronicles 4:9-10 buried in the midst of an extended genealogical listing. At that time, it came to the attention of the elder board of the church I was attending. The members of the board were almost exclusively chosen for their reputation as independent businessmen in the community rather than for any special spiritual qualities they may or may not have possessed. In fact, to my knowledge, not a one of them ever bothered to attend a single adult Sunday school class.

But somehow the elders found out about this book and so were wildly enthusiastic about sharing this hitherto hidden secret that they summarily co-opted one of the larger teaching rooms for themselves, leaving the class regularly meeting there to scramble for another spot. They also advertised their class to the point where many in the congregation who had been attending their own class for years abandoned them for what promised to be a unique opportunity to be let into that hidden secret themselves.

The elders managed to scrape together a little over a month's worth of teaching on Wilkinson's book and then promptly abandoned that class without any prior warning, leaving all those attending wandering around the following week wondering where their teachers had disappeared to.

Subsequently, our associate pastor of adult education, who did know quite a bit more than a little theology, came out with a scathing critique of Jabez and the whole thing died down. So with that salutary warning in mind, I will attempt with only a slight tongue-in-cheek approach to make another mountain out of a molehill.

It begins with a reconsideration of the semi-symmetrical structure for Deuteronomy 8 I had previously developed based solely on parallels in thoughts and themes within the chapter (see Figure 1 below): .

                                            Figure 1: Earlier Proposed Organization

    A. Obey and Prosper (1)

                    B. Disciplining in the Wilderness (2-5)

                                [Keep the Commandments (6)]

                                        C. Prospering in the Promised Land (7-10)

                                [Keep the Commandments (11)]

                                        C'. Prospering in the Promised Land (12-13)

                                [Do not Forget God (14a)]

                B'. Testing in the Wilderness (14b-16)

                                [Do not Forget God (17-19a)]

    A'. Disobey and Perish (19b-20)

But if instead one goes more with actual verbal parallels, the following more detailed picture emerges:

                                          Figure 2: Key Words in Deuteronomy 8

commandment I command you you must observe

        that you may occupy the land

                your ancestors

                        remember the LORD you God

                                   has led you 40 years

                                                to humble you

                                                He humbled you

                                                            by feeding you manna

                                                The LORD God disciplines you

keep the commandments of the LORD

                                the LORD your God is leading you

        to a good land

                                                         with good food

                                                                and iron and copper 

                                                         eat your fill

                                bless the LORD your God for

        the good land

                        do not forget the LORD your God

by failing to keep his commands

                                                        when you have eaten your fill

                                                                silver and gold are multiplied

                        forgetting the LORD your God

                                who led you out of Egypt and led you*

        through the wilderness

                                                        He fed you manna

                                        to humble you 

                        remember the LORD you God

                your ancestors

                        do not forget the LORD you God

did not obey the voice of the LORD your God

Notice that this set of repetitions does not neatly fit into any of the more common structures utilized in Scripture such as parallelism or chiasm. Instead (especially if one ignores the four references to keeping God's commands which punctuate the text at regular intervals) one can see that it winds back and forth just as a snake slithers on the ground in order to get enough traction, especially in sand or dirt, to move forward. And therefore, at least in my mind, it is a word picture appropriate to the highly circuitous route by which God led the people around the wilderness for 40 years in order to test and purify them to the point where they were prepared to enter the Holy Land at last after their now dead ancestors had turned back at its border the first time for fear of its inhabitants.

But that does not by any means exhaust the meaning of the picture. By visually representing a snake, we are powerfully reminded of other key points in Scripture in which a snake appears:

First as the tempter in the Garden of Eden who led Adam and Eve astray and was punished by being forced to “eat dirt” while it moved.

This was followed by the biting serpents in the wilderness (see Numbers 21) whose poisonous bite could only be cured by gazing at the bronze effigy on a pole that was set up.

The above incident is recalled in our passage under present consideration (see v. 8:15)

Then II Kings 18 represents one of the high points in the historical books in that it describes the many purifying acts carried out under the righteous King Hezekiah's reign, including the destruction of the bronze serpent which had apparently become a spiritual trap for the people who had begun to worship it in place of God.

But the serpent makes yet further appearances in the New Testament:

Luke 10:13 has Jesus proclaiming that He saw Satan fall from the sky.

In a clearly prophetic passage in John 3:14-15, Jesus compares the serpent being lifted up in the wilderness with Himself being lifted up (on a cross) so that all who look on him might be cured of their sins and also lifted up.

Satan appears as a dragon/serpent in Revelation 12 who is about to devour the woman's baby as soon as it is born, but God transports her to the wilderness where she can be nourished.

The identity of Satan with the serpent of Genesis is again spelled out in Revelation 20:2-3 as God throws him down even further into the pit.     

Kostenberger comments that “the primary analogy established in the present passage [John 3:14-15] is not that of the raised bronze serpent and the lifted up Son of Man; rather Jesus [or John, since the lack of punctuation in the Greek makes the point ambiguous] likens the restoration of the people's physical lives as a result of looking at the bronze serpent to the people's reception of eternal life as a result of 'looking' in faith at the Son of Man. Yet, as in the case of wilderness Israel, it is ultimately not a person's faith, but rather the God in whom the faith is placed, that is the source of salvation (cf. Wis. 16:6-7).”

I would agree with Kostenberger wholeheartedly except for one point. I think that the direct comparison between the serpent and the lifted-up Jesus on the cross is quite germane to the whole meaning of the OT passage. Jesus on the cross took on all our sins and the associated death penalty so that we could also equate him very well symbolically with the death of the evil snake. And just as the snake was lifted up, so too were Jesus and all who gaze on him lifted up to glory.

SIMILIES IN EPHESIANS 5

In attempting to follow the logic in this chapter, it is helpful to trace the various similies indicated by the tenfold repetition of the word “as.” In that manner one can recognize that there are two major subsections, the second one is similarly divided into two parts, each organized a little differently.

Introduction: Walking wisely (5:1-20)

                                        Ephesians 5:1-20 (Walking in the Light)

A Be imitators of God as beloved children (5:1)

B. Live                         as children of light (5:8)

C. Live not as unwise, but as wise (5:15)

500. Specific examples of wise and unwise living (5:16-20)

In these verses we see a straightforward progression of thought in which first believers are called children A, followed by further clarification in B as to what kind of children they are. And since “light” is a metaphorical term, it is next explained as being wise in C. And if any further doubt is in the mind of the reader at this point, Paul in D provides concrete examples of what he is talking about. This logical exposition approaches the way we would attempt to explain a concept to someone else today, but you may be surprised to learn that it is actually fairly rare in biblical writings. Much more common are the sorts of arrangements we see in the next two sub-sections of Ephesians 5.

2 The image of a fragrant offering also appears in II Corinthians 2:15-16 and Philippians 4:18.

4. Hoehner: “Paul was not intimating that humor itself is sin, but that it is wrong when it is used to destroy or tear down others.”

8. Maclean notes that darkness and light are used as “apocalyptic imagery for the domains of the hostile spiritual powers and of God and Christ.”

11-12. An anonymous contributor to Dictionary of Biblical Imagery says that “darkness keeps some very bad company, made all the more devious by virtue of the concealment of evil activity from ordinary view.”

14. The source of this quotation is unknown. Metzger attributes it to an early Christian hymn based on Isaiah 60:1.

15-17. Banks says,that “there is a need to avoid ways of using time that divert us from our main priorities. We should identify when and where evil is active, how it seeks to tempt us, and what we can do to defend ourselves. This entails 'redeeming' time that would otherwise be spent unfruitfully (Eph. 5:15-17). This is a call not to busyness, as some modern translations suggest.., but to a judicious use of time, one that 'seeks first the kingdom of God' rather than an anxious quest for material security (Matt. 6:33).”

18. Duff: “Almost all negative texts regarding alcohol warn against its abuse and condemn drunkenness (e.g., Isa. 28:1; Eph. 5:18). One NT passage, however, speaks of abstaining from wine in order to prevent a brother or sister from stumbling (Rom 14:21)..”

-----

Introduction: Be subject to one another (5:21)

                                          Ephesians 5:22-24 (Instructions to Wives)

A. Wives, be subject to your husbands (5:22a)

        B. as you are to the Lord (5:22b)

                C. Husband is the head of the wife (5:23a)

                C'.as Christ is the head of the church (5:23b)

        B'. as the church is subject to Christ, (5:24a)

A'. wives ought to be (subject) to their husband (5:24b)

Now we come to a much more common arrangement of ideas, at least in biblical terms. Note how these three verses present teachings in a mirror-image manner (technically called a chiasm) so that they present three teachings which are then repeated in reverse order, ending up where they started.

21. “The biblical text...speaks first of mutual subordination (5.21), never of submission, and only of married persons. It controls and qualifies the husband's headship by making it clear that only an unselfish and self-giving love characterizes such a 'head.'” (M; Barth)

22-24. Hoehner states, “'As to the Lord' does not mean that a wife is to submit to her husband in the same way she submits to the Lord, but rather that her submission to her husband is her service rendered 'to the Lord' (cf. Col. 3:18).”

-----

                                        Ephesians 5:25-33 (Instructions to Husbands)

    A. Husbands, Love your wives (5:25a)

            B. as Christ loved the church (5:25b)

    A'. Husbands, love your wives (5:28a)

            B'.as you do your own bodies (5:28b)

   A''. One cares for his body (5:29a)

            B''. as Christ does for the church (5:29b)

    A'''. Each one love his wife

            B'''.as himself (5:33)

Now finally in the last sub-section we see a prime example of another common way biblical writers express themselves, in parallel statements which are organized in the same manner and ring all the changes to reinforce each thought with another similar one.

25-27. “The lyric language of 5:25-27 (sometimes thought to come from a baptismal hymn) brings Christ and the church into the relationship of husband and wife, so that respectively the subjection and the love are given a uniquely Christian stamp.” (R.E. Brown)

25. “Baptism is compared to the Jewish custom of a bride's prenuptial bath.” (Maclean) The annotation in the Jerusalem Bible adds, “As applied mystically to the Church, Christ washes his bride himself in the bath of baptism, and makes her immaculate...”

26. “The marriage metaphor in Eph 5 is...a mixed one; for the duty of presenting the bride to the bridegroom would normally be that of the bridegroom's friend. Cf. II Cor 11:2, where Paul regards himself in this light. Here Christ is both the one who presents and the one who receives.” (Payne)

28-30 “Weddings are public professions of loyal devotion. The first joyful profession is given by Adam before God to Eve (Gen 2:22-24); his commitment resounds in Paul's command that husbands love their wives as themselves (Eph 5:28-30). The promised union of Adam and Eve as 'one flesh' before God is echoed and imitated in every wedding by these mutual professions.”(DBI)

31-32. “Verse 31 is a free rendering of Genesis 2:24, indicating that the bond between husband and wife is greater than that between parent and child. The greatness of the mystery refers to the two becoming one flesh. But then Paul returned to mention the wonderful bond between Christ and the church, which illustrates the love of a husband for his wife.” (Hoehner)

33. Keener: “Because Paul's instructions specifically address institutions as they existed in Paul's day, interpreters of Paul who do not insist on reinstituting slavery or the monarchy should not insist on patriarchal marriages which subordinate wives, either. Indeed, given Paul's weak definition of the wife's submission as 'respect'.., it appears that Paul advocated her submission in only a limited manner even for his own social situation.”.

DOES GOD EVER REPENT?

I know that it sounds almost heretical to even suggest such an idea. However, if one reads the Old Testament carefully, especially in the King James Version, it soon becomes obvious that indeed He does repent (nacham in Hebrew). But the story is really not so clear since that same verb is used of God repenting almost twenty times vs. the six times it is said that He doesn't repent. This certainly sounds like a blatant contradiction, but appearances can be deceiving, as many Bible scholars are quick to point out.

Murray puts it this way: “In the AV (i.e. King James Version) the terms 'repent' and 'repentance' are seldom used in the Old Testament with reference to men...As translations of the root naham, they are applied most frequently to God...The negative with reference to God also appears with equal emphasis...The term used most frequently to denote human repentance is not naham, but sub, which means to turn or return and applied to turning from sin to God. When repentance is predicated of God,either in the direction of judgment or mercy, there is reference to the change that takes place in His relations to men. God is immutable in His being, perfections, and purposes. But He changes His relationship and attitude, in judgment upon sin from complacency to wrath, in mercy from wrath to favor and blessing.”

Vine says, “ In the O.T., repentance with reference to sin is not so prominent as that change of mind or purpose, out of pity for those who have been affected by one's actions, or in whom the results of the action have not fulfilled expectations, a repentance attributed both to God and to man, e.g. Gen. 6:6; Ex. 32:14 (that this does not imply anything contrary to God's immutability, but that the aspect of His mind is changed toward an object that has itself changed...”

Soza puts it this way: “God repented of his creation, responding to the sinful actions of human beings by sending a flood. This can pose a problem in English terminology because of the rather restricted use of 'repent' as meaning solely to turn from sin. However, the Hebrew can be understood as 'to be sorry' or 'to change one's mind.' There is certainly an emotional dimension of remorse that connotes a grieving in changing one's mind. Yet in some sense, in 'repenting' in this context, the creator God became the destroying God. His repentance is expressed in an action opposite to the action he had become pained over.”

Kaiser elaborates in some detail on this seeming quandary: “Many have taken offense because Genesis 6:6 said, 'The LORD was grieved [repented] that he had made man on the earth.' How could God appear to regret having made a decision once it was made?...Interestingly enough, Numbers 23:19 represents repentance as an impossibility for God...But lest this be thought to be an obvious contradiction, we must call the reader's attention to another place in the Old Testament where in the scope of one and the same chapter both affirmations are made about God...The chapter is 1 Samuel 15 [compare vv. 11 and 29]...The basic idea is that God can and does change in his actions and emotions towards men so as not to change in his basic character. God's repentance does not prove him to be fickle, mutable, and variable in his nature or purpose...God's repentance, then, is a form of anthropomorphism that dares to picture the God-man relationship in terms of our everyday lives...To deny any humanness to God would be to underinterpret these figures of speech; but to reduce God to the common failures and quirks of human inconsistency would be to overinterpret these anthropopathisms. The exalted state of God also embraces within himself a variety of emotions including regret, grief, and change in response (repentance) to mortals when they have changed against his divine purpose or nature.”

Finally, I will not even attempt to capture all that David Noel Freedman says on the subject of God repenting in his 30-page essay included in the compilation of his writings found in Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Volume 1. He systematically investigates all those instances in the Bible in which God changes His mind. It will suffice for the purposes of the present post to say that Freedman's study is prefaced by the following words: “Throughout and in every case, it should be understood that the divine repentance is real, that the meaning and value of the story depend on the transaction between God and prophet or God and people; and that if it is not real on the part of God (i.e. that he does not and cannot change his mind), then the story is a charade without significance. Admittedly we are using a metaphor, involving stories and persons that include God and humans; but within the metaphor – and we believe that nobody can get closer to the reality behind the metaphor – we must be faithful to the data. Once it is understood that Yahweh enters into the drama as fully and wholeheartedly as the other participants, then we can proceed with the analysis.”

I will close with one warning here. For some, the Bible passages demonstrating God's “repentance” have led them to embrace what has been labeled Open Theism. This is the theology that describes God experiencing time alongside humanity, adapting, and genuinely "learning" as events unfold. Most Bible scholars and theologians would rightly label this concept as a heresy or near-heresy.