HABAKKUK 1

                                         Figure 1: Proposed Structure of Habakkuk 1

O LORD (2a)

        A. Will you not save us? (2b)

                B. Why do you make me see wrongdoing? (3)

                        C. The wicked surround the righteous (4a)

                                D. Judgment is perverted (4b)

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

                                        E. They march (6a)

                                                F. the breadth of the earth (6b)

                                                        G. They seize dwellings (6c)

                                                                H. They make up their own justice (7)

                                        E'. They come swiftly (8)

                                                       G'. They gather captives (9)

                                                                H'. They scoff at rulers (10a)

                                                F'. They heap up earth (10b)

                                        E''. They sweep by (11a)

Their own might is their god (11b)

----------

 O LORD (12a)

                                D'. You have marked them for judgment (12b)

                B'. You cannot look upon wrongdoing. (13a)

                        C'. Why are you silent when the wicked swallow the righteous? (13b)

He sacrifices to his own net (16)

        A. Can he keep on destroying nations without mercy? (17)

The above organization is based on the three-part arrangement of Bullock and others in which the prophet's words in verses 2-4 and 12-17 cap both sides of the center section, in bold, in which God Himself speaks. Other scholars such as D.W. Baker, Herbert Marks and J.P. Payne would extend this section to include Habakkuk 2:1. For example, an anonymous author writing in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery on this subject justifies such a division by the inclusio formed by the idea of reproof of God found in both 1:2 and 2:1.

Payne, based on verse 6, places the setting of this prophecy around 605 B.C. after the Babylonian victory at Carchemish.”

Robertson notes some unusual features involving this book of prophecy: “The form of direct dialogue with God is distinctive in itself as a mode of prophetic revelation...The prophet speaks as an individual addressing God. But the Lord returns answer to a plurality of people rather than to the prophet himself. This divergence of addressees is appropriate to the perspective of both God and the prophet. Habakkuk suffers with a sense of aloneness as a consequence of the estrangement created by the violence God's people have experienced at the hands of one another. He addresses God as an isolated voice, although he speaks on behalf of others in his position as prophetic mediator. So the Lord returns answer, not in a way that bypasses his agonizing prophet, but only by including him among those others scattered throughout Israel that remain steadfast in faith despite their perplexity,”

Habakkuk 1:2-4 E. Achtemeier says, “In the first oracle., Habakkuk raises his initial lament. He sees in Judean society around him nothing but violence and evil – the oppression of the weak, endless strife and litigations, moral wrongs of every kind. And despite Habakkuk's continual pleading with God to end the wrong, God seems to ignore him and to leave the righteous helpless to correct it.”

Marks: “The violence here is evidently internal, a continuation of the abuses attacked by the classical prophets. YHWH's response, however, announces an imminent military invasion, a violence of a different order...”

Kaiser: “Whereas Zephaniah stressed Judah's idolatry and religious syncretism, Habakkuk was alarmed by the increase of lawlessness, injustice, wickedness, and rebellion. So sensitive was his own heart to these things that he cried to God for relief; he must either be changed or the people's sin had to be dealt with in judgment (1:2-4).”

Regarding verse 2, Stephens-Hodge replies, “The prophet speaks as the conscience of the nation. He is troubled at the presence of iniquity among God's people to the detriment of all religious institutions.”

“There may...be a resonance between Habakkuk and Romans. Habakkuk's complaint intimates the failure of the law to effect righteousness (Hab. 1:4).”

R.L. Smith notes that the three New Testament references to Habakkuk all agree with the Greek Septuagint form of the prophecy rather than the Hebrew text we possess (Hab. 1:4 // I Corinthians 15:54; Hab. 1:5 // Acts 13:41; and Hab. 2:4 // Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38).

Habakkuk 1:5-11

Note from Figure 1 how this central section ends with mention of the pagan's “gods” in contrast to the two sections which flank it beginning with YAHWEH, the true God..

Nute says, “Habakkuk's gaze needs a change of direction. It also requires to be focused as the imperative, look, implies. The answer he receives corresponds to the two-fold complaint he has made. God informs him that despite all appearances to the contrary He is not inactive...”

Stephens-Hodge explains regarding v. 5 that the Hebrew for 'among the nations' (baggoyyim) is rendered in the Greek Septuagint version as 'traitors,' probably derived from the Hebrew bogedim instead. That would also agree with the Dead Sea scroll reading. He concludes that “'you betrayers', the faithless Judahites of Habakkuk's day, may be the preferable reading.” Moffatt reached the same conclusion whereas Robertson states that making a choice between the two options is difficult.

Tsumura writes, “Note that in Hab. 1:8 the term parasaw means both 'his horses' and 'his horsemen [as in II Samuel 1:6].”

Beale and McConough see two echoes of Hab. 1 in Revelation 8-9. The first is found in 8:13 with the image of an eagle standing as a symbol of destruction and judgment (see Hab. 1:8). The second is the parallel between Hab. 1:8-9 with Rev. 9:14, both containing the fearful picture of attacking enemies who are on horseback.”

Robertson comments on verses 10-11 that “a fortified city not only represented a greater obstacle to be overcome by an invader. It also represented a positive threat. For the armed inhabitants of a well-stocked and well-fortified city would work havoc on an invader, while exposing themselves to little danger. An army must count carefully the cost of entering the territory of a fortified city. But this invading nation shall mock at the resistance implied in all such fortifications....[verse 11] contrasts the mild-mannered mockery of fortifications (v. 10b) with the deadly serious attention he turns to his task of murderous mutilation...in his brutal tormenting of his victims.”

Habakkuk 1:12-17

Payne speaks of “God's ordaining of Babylon for the corrective judgment (see 1:12, 'we shall not die') not only of the earth in general, as in v. 6, but now specifically of Judah: 'we.'''

“Especially significant for ethical modeling is the fact that God's holiness means he is free from the frailties and moral imperfections common to mankind (Hos. 11:9) and therefore can be counted on to be consistent in his dealings with people (Hab. 1:12)...Deities of other nations indulge in many, if not all, of the vices of their worshipers, but Yahweh's character is revealed in Habakkuk's prayer...(Hab. 1:13).” (Kaiser)

Silva: “The Lord responded that the Babylonians would destroy Judah, but that response raised an even more serious problem regarding divine justice, and thus we have a second complaint: How can God, who cannot look upon evil, be silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than they (1:13)? The answer is delayed by a verse that creates considerable suspense (2:1)...so the prophet must wait for its fulfillment (2:3).”

“Habakkuk could not see how a holy God could use such a vile tool (1:13a), a people [i.e. Babylon] who mercilessly piled atrocity upon atrocity, apparently for their own perverse enjoyment (1:15, 1:17). Did not Yahweh realize that these were pagan people (1:16)? Habakkuk was convinced that the answer to his original question [in 1:2-4] raised more problems than it solved.” (Baker)

Blue: “The prophet asked the fat fisherman Babylon if he was to keep on emptying his net, destroying nations (cf. 2:8, 17) without mercy? The action depicted signifies a seemingly perpetual operation. They emptied their net so they could fill it again, again, and again. When would God put a stop to the Babylonians' greed for conquest?..Habakkuk was [rightly] confused.”

“The seine (vv. 15, 16) is the dragnet. We are not to understand that the Chaldeans actually treated this as a religious object. The language is metaphorical: they 'idolized' their pitiless power of conquest.” (Stephens-Hodge)

Pao and Schnabel trace the well-known NT image of “fishers of men” back to OT passages such as Habakkuk 1:17. However, they also note that other commentators “have suggested that the use of the word zogron ('taking alive') emphasizes the instilling of new lives.”

 

PARABLES OF THE KINGDOM (MATTHEW 13:44-52)

 

Following two rather long parables to the crowds involving the sowing of seeds which begin this chapter, Jesus meets with his disciples and tells them four additional kingdom sayings which form a matched grouping in themselves. You can see this in Figure 1 below:

                                               Figure 1: Sayings in Matthew 13:44-52

    A. Man purchases a field in which a treasure has been hidden (v. 44)

            B. Merchant finds one pearl of great value among many (vv. 45-46)

            B'. Fisherman keeps the good fish and discards the bad ones (vv. 47-50)

    A'. Master of the house brings out of his treasures what is new and what is old. (vv. 51-52)

Note that A and A' both contain the key word “treasure” and involve something being revealed which had been kept from view. Likewise, tying together B and B' are the facts that both begin with the word “again” and involve discrimination between similar items in order to keep only the most valuable ones.

Perhaps the hardest of these four sayings (which may or may not be considered a real parable) to understand is the last one, but I will not discuss it here since I have already written a post titled “Matthew 13:52.”

Another possible chiastic scheme, which has met with much more approval from scholars, has been proposed by Fenton, this time encompassing more of the verses in the chapter:

                                        Figure 2: Symmetry in Matthew 13:34-52

    A. Speaking in parables as a fulfillment of prophecy (vv. 34-35)

            B. Explanation of the weeds (vv. 36-43)

                    C. Treasure (v. 44)

                    C'. Pearl (v. 45-46)

            B'. The Net and Explanation (vv. 47-50)

A'. Saying about the old and new (vv. 51-52)

In my own mind, this is a bit of a forced analysis, probably designed primarily to pair up the parables of the treasure and the pearl. But I must admit that most other commentators (see below) are also insistent in seeing these two short sayings as parallels.

For example, Overman calls verses 44-50 “Three more brief parables of the kingdom. The first two – the treasure and the pearl – depict the inestimable value of the kingdom. The third is another apocalyptic parable.”

Also considering these two parables as a matched pair is Tilden, who states, “44: Some men respond in whole-hearted dedication to Jesus' message without any other thought than to have what it yields. 45-46: Some men dedicate themselves to God's kingdom because, being able to judge the value of other claims being made on them, they value it more.”

The Jerusalem Bible lumps verses 44-46 together under the title 'Parables of the Treasure and of the Pearl' with the comment: “If a man discovers the kingdom of heaven he cannot enter unless he leaves all behind, cf. 19:21. ”Albright and Mann say regarding these two parables: “These sayings may refer to the mission of Jesus seeking men for his Kingdom, with a plain statement of the price which must be paid for that Kingdom's inauguration. Similarly, they may indicate the sacrifice demanded of those who come to the Messianic Kingdom. In the context in which they were first spoken, they may have reference back to vs. 11: the disciples are in present possession of a secret, that of the identity of the Messiah and his impending reign. Certainly there is a call here for sacrifice and detachment, a steadfast regard for the treasure which the disciples already possess, and alongside which all else is counted for nothing.”

“Another pair of short similes or analogies follows (as in vv. 31-33). Again each contains one character and teaches one point, namely, that the kingdom is so valuable that it is worth sacrificing anything to gain it.” (Blomberg)

Then there is also the question as to whether parables B and B' of Figure 2 are indeed paired up. Hendricksen for one does feel that they have strong affinities to one another. He states, “Even on the surface and especially in the interpretation the parable resembles that of The Tares among the Wheat. Just as in the field the wheat and the tares were allowed to grow to maturity intermingled, and were not separated until the time of the harvest, so also fish of every variety, both good and bad, are caught in the net, and are not divided into two categories until the net has been drawn ashore.”

France agrees with this assessment: “The similarity of the parable of the net to that of the weeds strongly suggests that the two are designed for the same audience.”

David Hill parrots this opinion by writing that the parable of the Net “naturally follows on the parable of the Weeds and its interpretation by reason of its message and the remarkable similarity of its language. The interpretation of the Net (verses 49-50) is almost a mechanical repetition of verses 40b-42 from the interpretation of the Weeds, and it is not a suitable ending, for the furnace is hardly the place for bad fish.” Elsewhere, Hill also brings up another contraindication that would put the analysis of Figure 2 in doubt. He expresses his reservations regarding the parallel nature of C and C', adding that the change of tense raises a question regarding their belonging together.” He also notes that “their main point does not fit the themes of the preceding parables...”

Kistemaker adheres to the analysis of Figure 1, but is at the same time is a little hesitant: “These parables [i.e. the treasure and the pearl] occur only in Matthew's Gospel and form a pair. Whether Jesus taught the two parables in sequence or whether Matthew in arranging his material topically placed them together is unknown; the fact remains that the two belong together.” However, even Kistemaker admits that “the introductory sentences of the two parables are not quite balanced. In the one the kingdom of heaven is like a treasure, and in the other it is like a merchant [not the pearl itself, as one would have expected].”

Also Snodgrass, who tends to pair up the two parables, explains that the verb tenses utilized in the two are entirely different from one another.

In conclusion, and personally speaking, I remain quite unconvinced that literary symmetries such as in Figure 2 are any superior to those in Figure 1. Perhaps we should keep both in mind at the same time, somewhat like the situation of light, which can be considered to be both a form of energy and matter simultaneously..

The Treasure in the Field (Matthew 13:44)

Snodgrass in his almost encyclopedic treatment of the parables in Stories with Intent provides page after page of other stories in ancient literature involving a buried treasure in a field. It was obviously a very common theme. We could even bring the examples forward a number of centuries to include Joseph Smith's supposed discovery of the golden tablets on which the whole Book of Mormon was written in “reformed Egyptian hieroglyphs,” whatever in the world those might be.

“Attention is not being drawn to the morality of the man's hiding the treasure until he can buy the field where he has put it, but only to the enormous worth of what he has found.” (D. Hill)

This idea is echoed by Blomberg, who says, “One should not worry about the man's ethics in hiding the treasure. We need neither justify his behavior nor imitate it. This is simply part of the story line that helps to make sense of the plot. Jesus frequently tells parables in which unscrupulous characters nevertheless display some virtue from which Christians can learn (cf. esp. Luke 16:10-8; 18:1-8). Similarly, one must not interpret the buying of the treasure as an allegory for the atonement, as if Jesus were the treasure hunter purchasing our redemption.”

Hendricksen: “The point of the parable is that the kingdom of heaven, the glad recognition of God's rule over heart and life, including salvation for the present and for the future, for soul and ultimately also for the body, the great privilege of being thereby made a blessing to others to the glory of God, all this is a treasure so inestimably precious that one who obtains it is willing to surrender for it whatever could interfere with having it. It is the supreme treasure because it fully satisfies the needs of the heart. It brings inner peace and satisfaction (Acts 7:54-60). An excellent commentary on this parable is Paul's experience as recorded in...Phil. 3:8,9a.”

The Pearl of Great Price (Matthew 13:45-46)

Hill: “The point is the same as in the previous verse. That the merchant 'seeks' pearls should not be construed as praise for religious effort: like the first man, he too finds his treasure.”

“Sometimes God calls would-be disciples literally to sell all (19:21), but they must always abandon anything that would stand in the way of wholehearted allegiance to Christ and the priorities of the kingdom.” ((Blomberg)

“The literal wealth represented by jewels here becomes metaphoric of the value of God's spiritual kingdom. A companion parable pictures the kingdom as a 'treasure hidden in a field...(Matt 13:44). These two statements about the kingdom of heaven, both expressed in images of treasure, are reciprocal, showing the mutual worth that the kingdom of heaven has for both God and his redeemed people.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

“Overall, the pearl is an ambivalent image in the Bible. Its beauty and value are positive when it is associated with God's wisdom or heavenly kingdom. But its beauty and value actually become reprehensible when people use it to make an extravagant external impression.” (DBI)

Again, as an aside, Joseph Smith must have been quite fixated on this portion of Scripture, since his only other major writing utilized this title for its own.

The Fisherman's Catch (Matthew 13:47-50)

Blomberg sees strong parallels in form between these verses and 13:24-30, which could possibly give rise to even another symmetrical arrangement in Matthew 13 than found in Figures 1 and 2 above.

“Two groups will emerge [at judgment], testifying to the bipolar character of all human history (Ezek 20:33-37; Mt 13:24-30; 47-50).” (DBI)

Another article in DBI expresses the opinion that v. 47 continues the fishing metaphor of Matt. 4:18-19: “Thus the fishing metaphor conveys selectivity. It also, however, conveys the necessity of God's miraculous involvement in the process.”

Albright and Mann: “This parable re-emphasizes the theme of the weeds in vss. 24-30, of separation at the end of the Messianic age.” They feel that usable and unusable “may refer to good or bad fish simply, or – symbolically -- to ritually 'clean' and 'unclean' fish (cf. Lev xi 9ff.). Mark and Luke have no parallel to this saying, though commentators sometimes refer to John xxi 11, in which connection it is thought that the ancients found the total number of different varieties of fish to be 153.”

“The comparison of the kingdom of heaven to a fishing scene reminds us of the calling of the disciples to 'fish for people' in 4:19. We noted there that the focus seems to be on catching people for salvation rather than, as in Jer 16:16, for punishment; but insofar as the disciples' ' 'fishing' ministry belongs to the establishment of God's kingship, this parable adds the thought that there is a negative as well as a positive aspect to it. Their net is cast over a wide cross-section of people and while the message saves some, it will leave others unconvinced; those who have failed to respond to it are presumably among the 'bad fish' of this parable. The fishermen of v. 48 are of course identified as the angels, not as the disciples, but it is the prior announcement of the kingdom of heaven (with which the disciples have been entrusted, 10:7) which forms the basis of the separation between good and bad.” (France)

HEBREWS 10:37-38

Most casual readers of a book like Hebrews would probably just skim right through these two verses with absolutely no conception of the fact that a whole book could probably be written by squeezing out every morsel of information in them. I am certainly not going to write that book right now, but I would like to give you a mere taste of how a Bible scholar might approach them. Much of what follows falls under the general category of CONTEXT, a short word that encompasses quite a bit. By contrast, the sermons I was subjected to while growing up tended to be totally devoid of any understanding of context and usually treated each individual verse or two as a stand-alone “sound bite” which might be quoted to make any of a number of points that the preacher wanted to make at the time, whether or not they happened to reflect what the author himself had in mind. By the way, there is no “accepted order” in which the bolded sections below must be discussed and the order below is somewhat random, but one will certainly be missing out on all the richness in Scripture if any of these categories are totally omitted from consideration.

I once visited a Sunday school in another church where the “teacher” took each individual verse in the larger passage for the day only one at a time and polled each of us as to what we thought it meant. He chastised me when I dared to refer to an adjacent verse for clarification. He told me that was not according of the rules adopted by their church. Needless to say, I didn't even bother sticking around for the church service the following hour.

Position in the Bible

It may seem hard to believe, but if you ask any random group of people who consider themselves Christians where the book of Hebrews is located, there will always be at least one who thinks from the title alone that it is probably found in the Old Testament. And there are others who might even believe that “Hebrews” is the name of the author or is addressed to those in some city named “Hebrews.” In either case it is probably an honest mistake made by those who know that New Testament books generally derive their titles in one of those two manners.

Audience

But once located properly within the NT, we can see that it is sandwiched in between the last of the Pauline letters and the set of “General Letters” intended for less specifically identified audiences. In such a position, one might expect that Hebrews would share some characteristics of both these groupings, and that turns out to be the case. Thus, some commentators, but by no means all, are convinced that the letter is by Paul himself. In addition, the absence of a specific geographic location for the audience puts it into the General Letter category.

Author

It is of course very helpful in interpreting any book of the Bible to know a little bit about who wrote it so that we can know where he is coming from and whether we should trust him (or her). But we should always keep in mind that not all books in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, have a designated author. And the same is also certainly true of the book of Hebrews. So as much as we would like to have absolute proof that Hebrews has a “kosher” pedigree so that it can properly be considered part and parcel of Scripture, we will always fall short of certainty in this case.

I realize that there are those fundamentalist Christians who treat any hint that Paul may not have written Hebrews as smacking of rank heresy. They go to great lengths to show correspondences between Paul's authentic writings and Hebrews. But it should also be pointed out that scholars such as David L. Allen, in his book Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, make an even more compelling case for Luke to be the anonymous author, and that is certainly not a heretical suggestion by any means.

Literary Context

This is in itself quite an extensive category to consider and may encompass anything as small as an individual figure of speech (hyperbole, simile, etc.) to an analysis of the overall literary structure. In the case of these two specific verses in particular, I have earlier demonstrated that the structure can be shown, as in Figure 1, to fit into an overall construction of two parallel sets of statements encompassing a rather large section of Scripture.

                                   Figure 1: Literary Structure of Hebrews 10:26-11:40

A. Sin Leads to God's Judgment (10:26-27)

        B. Prospect of Judgment for Disobedience (10:28-31)

                C. Believers' Past Behavior Under Trial (10:32-34)

                        D. Promise for Those Who Endure (10:35-39)

A'. Faith Leads to God's Approval (11:1-3)

        B'. Faithful Ones who did not Receive the Promise (11:4-16)

                C'. Believers' Past Faith Under Trial (11:17-31)

                        D'. Promise for Those Who have Faith (11:32-40)

If this analysis is true, then any interpretation one gives for 10:37-38 should be expected to have a close relationship to that expressed in 11:32-40.

But getting back to the specific verses in question, one thing stands out clearly in most English renderings. They are not printed as prose but indented in poetic lines instead. As such, that alone often, but not particularly in this case, may dictate a completely different way of understanding what the author has in mind since poetic passages may utilize literary techniques found only rarely in prose (parallelism of sound or meter and widespread use of non-literal language such as metaphors, similes, puns, etc.).

Old Testament Allusions

Another thing is made obvious in most English rendering, namely, Hebrews 10:37-38 is capped on either end by quotation marks. In this case, it obviously does not indicate any sort of dialogue between different participants. Instead it indicates a quotation from some other source. And as such, that source must be located in order to comprehend its importance in this new setting. In fact, the phrase “a little while” comes from Isaiah 26:20 while the remainder can be traced back to Habakkuk 2:3-4. Thus, these original passages must be considered in there own unique setting in order to get a better idea of how the author of Hebrews utilized them much later in time.

One extremely useful resource for this sort of study for those who wish to delve a little more deeply into the subject is Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by Beale and Carson. The chapter on Hebrews by George Guthrie expends three large pages just discussing the use of Old Testament sources in Hebrews 10:37-38. I will not even attempt to summarize his findings here except to say that he divides his discussion into separate sections dealing respectively with both the OT and NT immediate contexts, other putative Jewish sources, the textual background, and the theological perspective of the author of Hebrews as expressed in this short passage.

Textual Considerations

Behind the scenes of any translation of the Bible into another language is another crucial step of which most readers are not aware, namely, making sure one has a definitive Greek or Hebrew text from which to work. That step is necessary because in no case do we possess the originally dictated scroll from the author himself. However, instead we have a wealth of early handwritten copies of most New Testament books which we can compare with one another in order to derive a “master text” which can then be translated into any other language. In the case of our two verses in Hebrews, only the text of one is somewhat in question.

Two textual scholars, Comfort and Metzger, have weighed in on v. 38 specifically. Comfort feels the manuscript evidence is evenly divided between those which say “my righteous one” and those which read “the righteous one.” But Metzger goes into even more detail and adds the evidence of Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11, both of which also quote from Habakkuk. Metzger feels that some early scribes were unduly influenced by these Pauline passage which read “the” instead of “my.” Metzger's judgment, however, is that the word 'my' “undoubtedly belongs in the text, being strongly supported by early and reliable witnesses [i.e. manuscripts].” In this particular case, the end result in the two cases is quite different in that one reading seems to refer to the Messiah while the other one talks about the believers instead. And these differences in readings may be reflected in the various modern translations.

Translations

That last comment segues neatly into this next section since those who do not have easy access to some of the scholarly sources given above can still consult and compare modern renderings in their language of choice. Regarding the controversy between “the” and “my” mentioned above, those translations opting for “my” include just about all English versions, although Jerusalem Bible reads “the” and NIV footnotes this an an alternative reading.

Turning to some English paraphrases, it is interesting that TEV reads “my righteous people” in place of the singular “one.” And The Message feels it should read “anyone.”

Commentaries

Sometimes the court of last appeal is the scholarly commentary. However, here the reader must be warned that (1) the opinions expressed may or may not represent the last word on the subject and (2) the theological background (anywhere from fundamentalist to liberal) of the authors must sometimes also be taken into account. I also fully recognize that exceedingly few practicing Christians go to the trouble of purchasing even one commentary on the Bible to use as a reference source. And consulting the Internet to give its omnipotent opinion will generally just give you a generic AI sort of answer to your questions unless you happen to search further and come across some highly prejudiced source, such as the one you are now reading, whose pronouncements should be taken with a large dose of salt.

Here are some short quotations from commentaries on the passage in question so that you can get a rough idea of the sort of information one might glean from them or similar writings of a more scholarly than devotional nature.

F.F. Bruce: “Here it is not simply for the fulfillment of the vision that the prophet is told to wait, but for a person, presumably an expected deliverer. When this deliverer appears, he will vindicate the righteousness of God and put down the oppressor; if, however, he draws back, that will indicate that he is not God's chosen agent. But if he does not draw back, but shows himself to be indeed God's chosen agent, His 'righteous one', then by his faithfulness he will win his life. The deliverer in question is not called 'the Lord's anointed' in so many words, but the Septuagint interpretation of this passage is essentially messianic.”

G.W. Buchanan: “The text quoted from Isaiah [in v. 37] was 26:30. Isaiah urged the people to hide themselves for a little while...until the wrath would pass over. The wrath came when God visited his people to punish them for their iniquity (Isa 26:20-21). The people's fortunes were believed to reflect God's attitude toward them. If they suffered, God was angry; if they prospered, God was pleased with them. The author of Hebrews lived under the same belief. He used this passage to encourage his people to endure the wrath they now faced, because it would soon pass away when God came to visit them with blessing, fulfilling his promise to them.”

“With a slight variation, the author of Hebrews [in v. 38] masterfully spliced a passage from Habakkuk to the one from Isaiah, as if they initially constituted one Old Testament quotation...The author of Hebrews omitted just one syllable (ti) to change the meaning to suit his needs: 'because coming, he will come' (LXX Hab 2:3) became 'the coming one will come'...This type of change is typical of pesher exegesis. In Habakkuk, that which would come was the vision (Hab 2:3), but in Hebrews, 'the coming one' would be the Lord or his Messiah.”

O. Michel: “Heb. represents an independent tradition of teaching. It makes extensive use of OT motifs, and draws upon the history of the patriarchs in connection with words of the pistis-group [i.e. relating to faith]. In its exhortation, Heb. takes up the promise of faith and the warning against unbelief (Heb. 10:37f. = Hab. 2:3f.). Above all, Heb. 11:1 presents an instructive definition which combines OT and Hel[lenistic] motifs.”

Ellingworth discusses the placement of mou ('my') in the various manuscripts which contain this word in v. 37. He concludes that if it occurs after dichaios ('righteous') then the meaning is “my righteous one will live by (his) faith.” However, those manuscripts which place it after pisteos ('faith') give rise to the reading “the righteous one will live by faith in me.”

 

WHO WROTE ECCLESIASTES?

                        Much Study (2010) collage

This is perhaps the most contentious issue regarding biblical authorship that one is likely to run into, and the opinions of scholars range all over the map. Some otherwise conservative scholars are found to be surprisingly open-minded on this subject, while there is also the rare liberal commentator who is unexpectedly non-committal regarding authorship. So the best I can do is to quote from some of these sources and let you decide for yourself whether Solomon wrote the book. I will wait till the end before quoting from those few scholars who still feel King Solomon was the sole author of Ecclesiastes.

Pseudonymous Authorship

Longman states, “Even conservative commentators...reject the tradition of Solomonic authorship. The connection between Qohelet and Solomon is instead recognized as a literary fiction on the part of the writer of the book...” And elsewhere Longman says, “Increasingly, commentators have recognized two voices in the book. In Ecclesiastes 1:12-12:7, Qohelet speaks in the first person; In Ecclesiastes 1:1-11; 12:8-14 someone else (often called the frame narrator or second wise teacher) speaks about Qohelet to his son...”

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

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

J.G. Williams points out that the meaning of the Hebrew title of the book, Qohelet, is not quite clear. But interestingly, it “is a feminine participle, a form of the root that occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament. The odd use of the feminine gender, together with the fact that the term is associated with Solomon (though without naming him; see 1:1, 12), suggests the author wanted his work to be recognized as part of Israel's Wisdom tradition but not taken literally as the wisdom of Solomon.”

“In reconstructing his moral vision., Qoheleth critically engages traditional sources: wisdom teachings, Torah, Solomonic traditions, as well as other ancient Near Eastern literature...Under the guise of the wise king par excellence, he sets out on an ambitious program to investigate 'all that is done under heaven' (1:13).” (E.P. Lee)

Childs states, “Commentators have made much of the superscription's belonging to a final redactional stage and being dependent upon 1.12. ...Still the more difficult question, and of primary importance, is to determine the function of the title. Why is the author identified with Koheleth, and yet immediately described in a way which is only appropriate to Solomon?...The traditional biblical profile of Solomon is clearly reflected which is portrayed in such passages as I Kings 5.26ff; 10.23.ff., II Chron. 1.7ff., and Song of Songs 8.12ff. To suggest that the book is actually pseudegraphic and that an attempt was made to acquire an authoritative status by ascribing it to Solomon runs into a variety of problems. First, the name of Solomon is never used, which is without parallel if a claim for authorship were intended. Secondly, the fiction of Koheleth as a pseudonym for Solomon is clearly abandoned within the book itself (8.22ff.; 10.16f.; 12.9ff.). It seems much more likely, therefore, to suppose that the picture of Koheleth as Solomon served another purpose. In its canonical form the identification assures the reader that the attack on wisdom which Ecclesiastes contains is not to be regarded as the personal idiosyncrasy of a nameless teacher. Rather, by his speaking in the guise of Solomon.., his attack on wisdom was assigned an authoritative role as the final reflections of Solomon. As the source of Israel's wisdom, his words serve as a official corrective from within the wisdom tradition itself. Once this point was made, the literary fiction of Solomon was dropped.”

Bullock: “Although the name Solomon does not appear anywhere in the book, he was the only son of David who was also king in Jerusalem...three times he referred to his position in Jerusalem in relation to his predecessors (1:16; 2:7,9). The implication is that he had been preceded by a relatively large group of kings, which was certainly not true of Solomon. W.F. Albright proposed that melek might be emended to molek or mallok ('counselor'), necessitating only vowel changes. This would, of course, alleviate the problem of Solomonic authorship, since it would mean that the author was possibly a descendant of David who was an official in Jerusalem but not king.”

Bullock goes on with additional arguments:

1. Even Martin Luther attributed the book to the later sage Jesus Ben Sirach.

2. “Although injustice and oppressive politics were evident in Solomon's reign (I Kings 12:2-4), Qoheleth, if he were Solomon, seemed impotent to do anything about the injustice (e.g., 3:16; 4:1; 5:8).”

3. “The phrase 'king in Jerusalem' (1:1) does not occur elsewhere as a designation for Solomon.”

Bullock concludes by pointing out, “We should distinguish between impersonation as literary form and literary forgery. The latter occurs when the author makes a conscious effort to conceal his own identity and write under the name of an ancient worthy in order to win an immediate hearing and esteem for his work. Impersonation as a literary form, in comparison, has no such motivation, but seeks to recapture a certain spirit represented by a historical person and to speak through his spirit...What he had to say, and the context from which he said it, both qualified for representation by a man of such wealth and opportunity as Solomon.”

Solomonic Authorship

Despite the above arguments, there are still some scholars who staunchly defend King Solomon as the author of Ecclesiastes. For example, Walter Kaiser, Jr. has this to say: “The well-known conservative scholar of the nineteenth century, Franz Delitzsch, declared in a much-quoted opinion, 'If the book of Koheleth were of old Solomonic origin, then there is no history to the Hebrew language.' However, Fredericks devoted a careful inspection of all the linguistic arguments for dating the book late and concluded that they were all unpersuasive.The other approach to show that the book is late is to try to show affinities in thought between Hellenistic thought and Ecclesiastes....but this method also has been beset by problems.”

Ellul attacks one key argument of critics, namely the presence of contradictory voices which betrays the hand of multiple authorship of the book. These critics say, “How could a king criticize royal power?” But Ellul's reply is, “These scholars betray their ignorance of the many historical writings of those who exercised power and yet attacked it energetically.”

Kaiser notes that many evangelical scholars have challenged the view that Solomon wrote the book (see above as a sampling]. “But much of that was on the strength of the allegedly late language and concepts.” However, due to Fredericks' study, “it is worth looking at the idea of Solomonic authorship one more time.” And as far as the objection mentioned by others that the author compared himself in Ecclesiastes 1:16 favorably to all other kings of Jerusalem preceding him, Kaiser responds that there were at least two earlier Canaanite kings over that city (see Genesis 14:18 and Joshua 10:1). His cinching argument is to compare five passages in Ecclesiastes where the author's life parallels that of Solomon as described in I Kings.

David George Moore (who happens to be a friend of mine) presents a fair view of the arguments adduced by opponents of Solomonic authorship before giving his own judgment on the matter. “Some argue that an anonymous preacher (Qoheleth) wrote the book. Various reasons are given to bolster this claim. One is that the Bible does not record Solomon as having repented. Also, using the word teacher was a literary device of ancient Jewish authors to call themselves 'Solomon' in order to preserve their own anonymity and to declare their 'indebtedness to their teacher and model, the ideal wise man' (Kreeft). There is also some textual evidence for someone other than Solomon authoring Ecclesiastes in 1:12. In this verse the perfect tense is used which would suggest that Solomon was no longer king. This would make room for a later writer to have compiled the book. Tremper Longman offers a number of other compelling reasons for the non-Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes.”
But despite the above, Moore still feels that Solomon is likely to be the author of the book. He says, besides citing Kaiser approvingly: “First, the notion that the Scriptures do not record Solomon as having repented can certainly be contested. Specifically, Ecclesiastes 2:1-11 could possibly be viewed as a statement of repentance. Second, the requirements of being 'son of David, king in Jerusalem' (1:1) points to Solomon. Third, parallels between 1 Kings and Ecclesiastes fit the life of Solomon... Furthermore, ancient Jewish tradition held to Solomonic authorship...as did Patristic tradition.”

Moore also offers some valuable cautions to those investigating this matter, including:

    “More humility is called for when it comes to the tools of biblical scholarship.”

    “We must always keep in mind that all of us are 'subjects,' so it is impossible to be totally objective!”

    “Not surprisingly, modern scholars are many times guilty of making the text of Scripture say what they want it to say.”

    “The idea of editors (redactors) working on Ecclesiastes before reaching its final form is also a popular notion. Some claim that Ecclesiastes contains much contradictory material – but wouldn't redactors smooth those over?”

    “The ambiguity of the evidence suggests that the wise conclusion is a healthy dose of agnosticism when it comes to dating Ecclesiastes.”

 

TOHU WABOHU (GENESIS 1:2)

 

Tohu wabohu (Genesis 1:2)

There is an interesting rhyming pair found in this second verse of the Bible. It is a combination of two Hebrew words: (1) bohu, meaning emptiness and only found in Genesis 1:2; Jeremiah 4:23; and Isaiah 34:11 where it is always paired with (2) tohu, which can be variously translated as confusion, empty, nothing, nought, vanity, waste, wilderness, vain, or without form. That latter Hebrew word is much more common in the Bible, appearing some twenty times.

The problem with English translations is to somehow convey both the idea of a wordplay while accurately preserving the meaning of both words. Calling the world 'topsy-turvy' or 'uniformly unformed” might give an idea of the former while not really accomplishing the latter.

Schnittjer alludes to this word pair several times in his book on intertextual references within the Old Testament:

“He labels Jeremiah 4:23-28 as 'anti-creation' and says, “Both Jeremiah and his contemporary Zephaniah in different ways rewind the narrative tradition regarding the days of creation. The direct veerbal relationship and reversed storyline by these two prophets suggest they know of the narrative in the opening of Genesis.”

“Jeremiah excels at interpretive theological inversion. He uses scriptural allusions to reverse creation and divine omniscience and to make even the most famous intercessors ineffective (4:23-28; 12:4; 15:1).”

“The term tohu only appears twice in Torah. It has the sense of 'formless' in Gen 1:2 and 'barrren' in Deut 32:10. Elsewhere the term shows up eighteen times, including once in an anti-creational judgment context (Jer 4:23).”

Michael Coogan says, “The Hebrew word tohu is generally translated in two ways. It can denote the arid wilderness, where wadis disappear (Job 6.18), the deranged wander (Job 12.24; cf. Isa. 40.23), and Israel was found (Deut 32.10). It can also mean the chaotic state before creation (Job 26.7); in this sense it can be paired with bohu (Gen.1.2; Isa. 34:11; Jer. 4.23) and by extension can mean any empty, formless reality, especially other gods (1 Sam. 12.21; Isa. 41.29; 44.9), or defeated nations (Isa. 24.10; 34.11; 40.17). These two concepts are linked in biblical tradition (Isa. 45.18) and in underlying mythology.”

Konkel goes into more detail in discussing these two related words. Below are just a few of his comments:

“An attempt has been made to trace tohu and bohu to an Egyptian derivation; as in the Egyptian concept, Chaos would indicate the unending existence of the original divinities. The nom. bohu may also be compared to the Phoen. goddess Baau or to the Babylonian mother goddess Bau. The derivation of both bohu and tohu is unknown.”

“Isaiah juxtaposes the two in the judgment against Edom (Isa 34:11) to describe the total depopulation and destruction of the land so it is a waste fit only for desert animals. The measuring line of tohu will be stretched over Edom, and the stone of bohu. Unfortunately the text of the last line is corrupt, as it lacks a vb., and the last word (its nobles) in the MT [i.e. Hebrew text] is wrongly assigned to v. 12. As a result the second metaphor is not clear; the stone could be that used to cast lots or used as a level. The general sense of the metaphors is not in doubt. Stretching a measuring line over the land means that as an ownerless plot of ground, the land is to be resurveyed and reassigned; the threat of judgment against Jerusalem is that the measuring line of Samaria will be cast over it (2 Kgs 21:13), meaning that it will be taken over by foreigners.”

“The term tohu is common in the vocabulary of creation. Its function is to indicate chaos in contrast to the order of creation. So Isaiah says that the world was not made a wasteland, God made it to be inhabited (Isa 45:18). The reversal of this creation is announced in the opening of the 'little apocalypse' (Isa 24-27), in which the 'city of chaos' is described as shattered (24:10). The devastation of the earth is described in terms reminiscent of those of the prophet Hosea over Israel (cf. 24:4; Hos 4:3). It is only natural that the material originally used to describe the judgment of Israel should be transferred, with little alteration, to that of universal judgment. This same type of terminology is found in Jer 4:28, in a passage that is a self-conscious reversal of the original description of creation (Jer 4:23-28). Both these passages state that creation will return to the state of precreation chaos. The expression tohu wabohu is used to describe the precreation chaos in Gen 1:2 and Jer 2:23. It is clear, however, that the nom. tohu has its origin in creation terminology; it does not originate in mythical concepts, as is much more likely for bohu...It seems more likely this was the term suitable to describe the original chaos.”

“The language of the Genesis account of creation can be described as a demythologization of ancient creation accounts...in Genesis the writer has excised the mythical elements radically; he has written an explicit polemic against the creation myth. Polytheism is removed...chaos or void is not a sea monster but is a desolation of waters; the expression tohu wabohu in Gen 1:2 is a hendiadys [i.e. one thought out of two] meaning an unearthly or indescribable emptiness. This would seem to be a creative application of the concept of an uninhabitable empty wilderness to the disordered state before creation.”

And finally, Konkel argues against Tsumura'a attempt to deny that there is any reference at all to pagan deities in these passages. Instead Konkel states: “such a polemic does not mean the account in Genesis is derived as such from mythology, but it does mean that the terminology is written with reference to the common understanding of the battle against the waters to show they have no personal powers as in the myths.”

Ross, who has written much on Genesis, states, “The clauses in verse 2 are apparently circumstantial to verse 3, telling the world's condition when God began to renovate it. It was a chaos of wasteness, emptiness, and darkness. Such conditions would not result from God's creative work (bara'); rather in the Bible they are symptomatic of sin and are coordinate with judgment. Moreover, God's Creation by decree begins in verse 3, and the elements found in verse 2 are corrected in Creation, beginning with lght to dispel the darkness. The expression 'formless and empty' (tohu wabohu) seems also to provide an outline for chapter 1, which describes God's bringing shape and then fullness to the formless and empty earth. Some have seen a middle stage of Creation here, that is, an unfinished work of Creation (v. 2) that was later developed (vv. 3-25) into the present form. But this cannot be sustained by the syntax of the vocabulary. Others have seen a 'gap' between the first two verses, allowing for the fall of Satan and entrance of sin into the world that caused the chaos. It is more likely that verse 1 refers to a relative beginning, rather than the absolute beginning...The chapter would then be accounting for the Creation of the universe as man knows it, not the beginning of everything, and verses 1-2 would provide the introduction to it.”

Below are some additional comments taken from the literature relating to the parallel passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah specifically:

Isaiah 34:11

“D.N. Freedman points out that 11b exhibits a common feature of Hebrew verse only recently noticed, the division of natural pairs in order to secure poetic variation and balance. The line and the stones (plummets, here translated measure) go together, as do desolation and waste (tohu wabohu; see Gen I 2). The line in prose would read, 'He will stretch over it the line and plummet of desolation and waste.' The line and plummet were used by builders of walls; here by paradox, Yahweh uses them to plan destruction.” (McKenzie)

Blenkinsopp goes into quite a bit of detail speculating where the original inspiration for chapter 34 might have come from; quotes from putative pagan sources in the ancient Near East; tries to pin down the time frame in Israel's history which might fit the best the writing; detects a Jewish belief in supernatural creatures such as Lilith; and utilizes much later Talmudic literature as proof of some of his speculations. But through it all, not once does Blenkinsopp even allude to the vision here of a reversal of creation including the tip-off given by the rare conjunction of the words tohu and bohu. Unfortunately, this trend among liberal Bible professors in academia to ignore the quite obvious and concentrate instead on the highly unlikely is all too common.

By contrast, more conservative scholars such as Wolf, Bullock, J.A. Martin and Chisholm at least stress the eschatological judgment that Isaiah 34 portrays even if they don't specifically point to the reversal of the creation highlighted by the tell-tale presence of tohu and bohu in v. 11. However, that fact is brought up in Oswalt's extensive, two-volume commentary on Isaiah. In addition, Oswalt recognizes that although the judgment of Edom is particularly stressed here, a more universal judgment on all rebellious nations lies behind these words.

D.F. Payne writes: “Verse 11 again uses the language of earlier Scripture; the words chaos and desolation are the 'without form and void' of Gen. 1:2. The verse is a clever paradox, depicting God as taking building instruments and careful measurements in order to produce – desolation.'”

“Confusion and chaos are the 'without form' and 'void' of Gn. 1:2; they imply here and in Je. 4:23 an undoing of the very work of creation. The mention of line and plummet gives this demolition a disquieting air of precision, matched only by the care with which the ruins are furnished with appropriate monsters.” (D. Kidner)

And an anonymous author writing in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery says concerning this verse, “Like many images of judgment, chaos is seen as a temporary reversal of the creation order, a reversal ultimately calculated to secure redemption.”

Jeremiah 4:23

Similarly, we read elsewhere in DBI, “Jeremiah 4:23-28 portrays the 'un-creation' of the world that reverses the creation story of Genesis 1.”

D.R. Jones says, “The picture is explicitly a return to the chaos before creation...Indeed the oracle seems to be composed in relation to the sequence of creation in Gen 1, perhaps freely recollected...

The words are those used in Gen i 2 to describe the formless void that existed before creation. Indeed, in this poem, which is one of the most powerful descriptions of the Day of Yahweh in all prophetic literature, one might say that the story of Genesis i has been reversed: men, beasts, and growing things are gone, the dry land itself totters, the heavens cease to give their light, and primeval chaos returns. It is as if the earth had been 'uncreated'; it is, if one cares to put it so, a ruin o f' 'atomic' proportions.” (Bright)

But Thompson stops far short of feeling that this is an actual apocalyptic vision. He says, “In a passage filled with striking imagery, the judgment that is to fall on Judah takes on the aspect of a cosmic conflagration. Jeremiah experiences a dramatic glimpse into the outpouring of divine anger upon Judah...To a degree the language is Oriental hyperbole [i.e. exaggeration], but Jeremiah uses imagery and phraseology which his predecessors used in their references to the divine judgment...The range of disturbance was thus so great that it seemed to represent a return to primeval chaos. Little wonder that Jeremiah was filled with anguish and amazement. None of the other contemporary prophets spoke of the coming doom in such powerful terms.”

Finally, another article in DBI states: “The cosmos is kept intact only by the governing power of God, and one way in which the prophets envision a coming apocalyptic judgment is to picture it as a return to the primeval chaos in which the earth is 'waste and void' and the heavens have 'no light' (Jer 4:23; cf. Is 5:30).”

HEBREWS 9:1-22

Hebrews 9:1-22

My previous analysis of chapters 8-10 of Hebrews (see below) indicates that 9:1-22 should be considered as a discrete literary unit.

                                               The Structure of Hebrews 8-10

A. Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary (8:1-5)

        B. Fault with the First Covenant (8:6-7)

                C. Jeremiah 38 (8:8-13)

                        D. Paraphernalia of Tabernacle Described (9:1-5)

                                E. High Priest's Yearly Offering (9:6-10)

                                E'. Christ's One-Time Sacrifice (9:11-15)

                        D'. Offerings in Tabernacle Described (9:16-22)

A'. Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary (9:23-28)

        B'. Fault with Old Sacrificial System (10:1-14)

                C'. Jeremiah 38 (10:15-18)

9:1 Bruce: “The inadequacy of the old order as compared with the new is now set forth with reference first to the arrangements of the sanctuary under the old covenant and then to the sacrificial ritual associated with that sanctuary. Provision was made under the old covenant for the people of God to worship Him, but the sanctuary erected for this worship was a material one. The particular sanctuary which our author has in mind is plainly the wilderness tent described in detail in the book of Exodus.”

9:2 Although most early manuscripts read “the holy place,” there is also a variant reading “the holy of 

holies.” (Comfort)

9:3 Ellingworth: “The language of this verse remains predominantly spatial. It reproduces features of v. 

2...There is no direct OT evidence for a 'second curtain'; the author's language appears to be imprecise.”

 He presents three earlier offered explanations for this problem.

9:4-5 Bruce discusses in detail the confusion regarding the placement of the items in the temple and 

then states, “In any case, our author does not stay to answer the questions which his passing reference 

to the incense-altar may raise in his readers' minds; this is not the feature of the tabernacle to which he 

wishes to draw their attention more particularly, any more than the contents of the ark of the covenant, 

which he also passes over quickly. The ark of the covenant was the principal, if not the only, article of 

furniture in the holy of holies in the tabernacle and in Solomon's temple.”

9:6-7 Buchanan: “'These things having been thus prepared' refers to the furniture and required objects 

in the holy and the holy of holies, the proper things for worship (9:1), made ready for priestly function. 

'The first tent was '[the] holy' place on the other side of the first curtain from the court where the large 

altar for burnt offerings was. No laymen were permitted in that holy place, but 'priests enter 

continually' as they perform the various 'ritualistic services' required by the law. 'The second [tent] ' 

excludes admission, not only of all laymen, but of all priests except 'the high priest,' and he used it 

'[only] once during the year,' on the Day of Atoneement. This evidently means 'one occasion' during 

the year, rather than one specific entrance.”

9:8 “Holy Spirit indicates” usually refers to a specific quotation in the OT; here it refers to general regulations given in Leviticus, etc. This doesn't mean that the temple needs to be destroyed in order for us to have forgiveness. It probably indicates that the Holy of Holies was veiled from worshipers until the time when Christ opened the veil (Hebrews 10:19-20).

9:9 Comfort notes: “This verse indicates that the writer of Hebrews is addressing a current situation; priests in the Temple offering sacrifices...”

Also see note below on Hebrews 9:12.

9:10 baptisms = ritual washings, and probably doesn't refer to Christian baptism.

9:11-14 “This dismissal of the old priestly ritual is of course part of something larger, of a view of the Old Testament as having to do with mere externals and revealing confusion and perfection, while Christ reveals to us the inner man and brings clarity and perfection, an end to doubt and the fulfillment of what had been promised.” (Josipovici)

Pratt explains, “The New Testament confirms that...Messianic expectations were fulfilled in Christ. With His coming the theocratic ideal did not disappear; it was enlarged and lifted to a higher plane. The land of Canaan, the Jerusalem throne, and the temple were but foreshadowings of a new world introduced by Christ – small matters in comparison with the new state of the theocracy He introduced. The New Testament teaches that salvation came through the blood of Christ sprinkled on the heavenly mercy seat (Hebrews 9:11-14; 10:19;1 Peter 1:1-2), not through animal sacrifices...The theocratic ideal of the Old Testament explodes into its fullest expression in Christ. All types and shadows disappear, and heavenly realities replace them. The tiny, failing national theocracy is transformed into a universal, victorious theocracy through the intervention of Christ.”

9:11-12 Jesus is not only the High Priest offering the sacrifice for us; he actually is the sacrifice.

9:12 In support of his thesis that Luke wrote the book of Hebrews, D.L. Allen notes the similar vocabulary occurring in Hebrews, Luke's Gospel, and Acts. Two examples he cites are eiseimi ('go into') in Hebrews 9:9 and Luke 1:68; 23:38 and lutrosis ('redemption') in Hebrews 9:12 and Luke 1:68; 2:38.

9:13-14 This is an argument from the lesser to the greater. Dead works may refer either to the works of the law which did not save anyone, or is a reference to sins which lead ultimately to death.

Hodges says, “Old-Covenant rituals served for the ceremonially unclean and only made them outwardly clean. But the blood of Christ can do much more. His was a sacrifice of infinite value because through the eternal Spirit He offered Himself unblemished to God. With this lovely assertion, the writer of Hebrews involved all three Persons of the Godhead in the sacrifice of Christ, which magnifies the greatness of His redemptive offering.”

9:14 “The word 'spirit' is written in full...in two early MSS.., pointing to Christ's eternal spirit. This indicates that Christ entered into eternity by virtue of being made alive in his spirit (see 1 Pet 3:18), and then resurrecting and ascending. The word 'Spirit' is written as a nomen sacrum (sacred name) in two early MSS.., suggesting the eternal Spirit of God working in Jesus to bring about his resurrection and ascension.” (Comfort)

9:15 “There is general agreement that this verse marks the beginning of a new paragraph or section...Yet as usual the transition is not abrupt.” (Ellingworth)

9:16-18 Stibbs: “In the references here to the necessity for death to take place in connection with a testament or covenant, two or three different ideas are probably combined. According to ancient practice, covenants were sealed in blood (v. 18) by the symbolic introduction of the death of the party or parties making it. So vv. 16, 17...speak of 'death' being 'brought in; and of a covenant having validity only 'over dead bodies', i.e. probably over the divided pieces of the sacrificed victims between which such covenant-makers passed. See Gn. 15:7-21; Je. 34:18, 19. This gave visible confirmation to a vow of faithfulness unto death...Once the transgression of a covenant obligation had been committed.., death became necessary for a second reason, to pay the penalty of such failure.”

9:18-20 Newman says, “The old covenant contained the sacrificial blood of animals (Heb 9:18-20); under the new covenant Jesus offers his own blood (Heb 9:12, 26).”

9:19 “The author of Hebrews uses the word commandment occasionally (Heb 7:5,16,18; 9:19). All of these references when considered in context indicate that the Mosaic law was no longer considered to be in force, for the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices have been superseded by the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ.” (Schreiner)

9:20 This verse may sound familiar. See Mark 14:24, etc.

9:21 Ellingworth: “This verse takes up again the enumeration of v. 19, but also points towards a wider application in v. 22. As in v. 19, the author probably paints a composite picture, based on Ex. 24:3-8, but attracting features from other OT passages.”

9:22 Although almost everything is required to be ceremonially cleansed by blood under the Old Testament law, Bruce notes exceptions in Leviticus 5:11 and Numbers 16:46; 31:22f.; 31:50.

 

EPHESIANS 2:11-13

In reviewing my past posts, I found that I have yet to address these three little verses. I will try to redress that omission in this post. However, just to recap a bit before proceeding, I had previously come up with a symmetrical literary structure for Ephesians 2:11-22 based solely on key repeated words. The result, shown below in Figure 1 turned out to be practically identical to the proposal of Giavini, which is rejected by Hoehner due to its combination of mirror image and parallel elements. The latter scholar states, “It seems highly unlikely that any author would have purposely constructed such a complicated chiastic structure in mind.” But in rebuttal it should be pointed out that such mixed structures are actually found throughout the OT and NT.

                                           Figure 1: Verbal Repetitions in Ephesians 2:11-22

in the flesh (11)

        aliens (12a)

                strangers (12b)

                       Christ Jesus (13a)

                                far off...near (13b)

                                        peace (14a)

                                                   both groups (14b)

                                                           hostility (14c)

                                        peace (15)

                                                    both groups (16a)

                                                           hostility (16b)

                                        peace (17a)

                                far off (17b)

                                       peace (17c)

                                near (17d)

                strangers 19a)

        aliens (19b)

                        Christ Jesus (20)

in the Spirit (22)

In the first place, one can easily see that the presence of vv. 11-13 is quite necessary in achieving such symmetry. However, what is there to say concerning these particular three verses themselves?

Ephesians 2:11

“The uncircumcision [is] a derogatory label for Gentiles. The circumcision [denotes] the Jews, but often Jewish Christians who required all to obey the Mosaic law (Acts 10.45; Gal 2:.12; Col 4.11; cf. Phil 3.3).” (Maclean)

“In2:11 Paul may first have intended to speak only of the physical act and the visible bodily mark of circumcision, cf. Rom 2:28 – without meaning to give a depreciative or ironic undertone to his mention of the external physical rite. But just as in the OT and often in Paul, the comparison of the effect of the 'Spirit' (2:18) with the reality present in the 'flesh' (2:11) reveals that not all is well with the 'flesh.' Thus 'flesh' receives in 2:11 the same evil meaning as it has e.g. in Gal 3:3, 6:13; Eph 2:3.”

Ephesians 2:11-12

“Harpur writes: “Their deficiencies as Gentiles are marked in three pairs of statements. Physically they lacked the ancient sign of the covenant, and family ties with the promised Messiah. Politically they had no part in Israel's national or religious life. Spiritually they had no prospect or knowledge of the true God.”

Ephesians2:12

K. Barth continues: “It is possible that the Greek conjunction hoti, here translated by 'that' and treated as a resumption of the hoti in vs. 11, should be translated by 'because'; vs. 12 may not be a simple parallel or continuation of vs. 11, but rather a parenthesis interrupting (though supporting) the thought expressed in vss. 11 and 13; remember that you ex-Gentiles have now been brought near. In this case, the subject matter to be 'remembered' is the incorporation of the former aliens into Israel, rather than their past uncircumcision and strangership as such.”

Ephesians 2:12-13

Maclean points out that “You were...But now... [is] another contrast of old and new, forcused on the Gentiles' plight (cf. 2.1-5).”

Ephesians 2:13

“Recent English translations use the term near between 250 and 300 times. In the Bible the quality of being near is variously spatial, temporal and spiritual, and it is predominantly positive in meaning...The most evocative uses of the image of nearness are metaphoric and spiritual...The notion of physical / spiritual distance from God is...developed in several ways...To be far off can...signal being removed from God's blessing (Lk 16:23). But the reverse of being far from God becomes one of the Bible's most endearing images of redemption...This is what excited Paul as he wrote to the Gentile Ephesians: 'But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ' (Eph 2:13 RSV).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Thielman: “First, since virtually everyone who has examined Eph. 2:17 closely agrees that Paul alludes to Isa. 57:19 when he speaks of 'peace' to 'the far' and 'peace' to 'the near,' it seems most reasonable to see this text behind Paul's earlier use of the terms 'far' and 'near' in 2:13....If Paul already alludes to Isa. 57:19 in 2:13, ..then this prophetic text stands like a set of matching bookends at the beginning and the end of his claim in 2:14-16 that Christ, through his death, reconciled Gentiles and Jews to one another...Second, Paul's concern in 2:13, 17 for the coming of Gentiles into the boundaries of God's people captures a thought that is characteristic of Isaiah's theology...Isaiah frequently refers to a future influx of Gentiles to Jerusalem and to the temple to worship God...Although scholars frequently claim that the terms 'far' and 'near' in this passage [in Isaiah] refer to Jews within geographical Israel and to Jews of the Diaspora respectively,.' the broader context of of the passage indicates that a reference to the Gentiles probably at least stands in the background and may be the primary meaning of the text.”