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.

JONAH AS A DOVE

One of the many problematic issues regarding the book of Jonah is whether the prophet's name, which means 'dove' in Hebrew, has any symbolic significance. It is certainly related to the overall question as to the genre of the book. Is it to be understood as straightforward history, an extended allegory, or perhaps something in between? Thus, if it is completely historical, then it is doubtful that the name Jonah's parents happened to give him at birth has any further significance. On the other hand, if the whole book is fictional, then we should consider every detail in it to be of importance to the meaning intended by the author.

Commentators are quite divided on this issue, with the more conservative ones tending to be skeptical of any underlying feature of this reluctant prophet's name. You can see this in the quotes below:

Stuart: “Jonah's name means 'dove' or 'pigeon' in Hebrew, one of many biblical names taken from animals and not symbolic in any way of Jonah's character.” And Stuart reiterates this opinion in another of his writings when he states that “there is no evidence whatever that this name bears any special significance in the book (e.g. allegorical), any more than...Simon Peter's father (Jonah) does in Matt. 16:17.”

Bullock states, “The OT has several examples of allegory. All of them are rather brief and contain clear evidence that they are allegories. Those who propound this interpretation of Jonah make the point that his name means 'dove,' a word that later (much later!) became the symbol for Israel. So Jonah becomes the figure to represent Israel, and the fish becomes the world power (Babylon) that swallowed up Israel,..However,no OT allegory is written so straightforwardly as historical narrative as Jonah.”

Then there is Leslie Allen, who appears to hedge his bets somewhat in allowing the presence of some symbolic significance in Jonah 1:1, but he draws the line at the name 'Jonah' itself. “'Jonah' means 'dove' in Hebrew, a symbol for Israel. He is son of truth, faithfulness (Heb. 'emet), satirically an orthodox son of the faith...In any event, it is doubtful whether 'dove' is a symbolic name for Israel in the OT. If Amittai had been intended as allegorical, the author missed a golden opportunity to reveal that fact...It is best to confine the definition of the literary form of the book to that of a parable with certain allegorical features.”

On the other hand, additional authors coming from both conservative and liberal viewpoints have no problem at all with seeing symbolic meaning to Jonah's name, that of his father, and the events in the narrative as well:

“Jonah's name means 'dove,' It is a name for someone you love...We must not forget that through all his troubles and failings, flight and disobedience, Jonah is the beloved of God...Jonah is also a sign of peace, like the dove who comes back to Noah with an olive branch...When the Holy Spirit descends upon the Lord Jesus coming up from the waters of baptism, it takes the form of a dove as a reminder of this Noachic sign of peace on earth to the one in whom God is well pleased...Jonah the dove stands midway between these two signs, both of which signify a renewal of the earth protected from destructive waters:...Despite himself, Jonah becomes a sign of peace to those voyaging on dangerous waters and to those within the evil city who one might have thought, had no prospect but destruction on the last day...Despite appearances, the book of Jonah – this book of the dove – is in the end a comedy of peace, like the history of the world. The name 'Amittai' is related to the word 'amen' and means 'truth.' So Jonah is the dove of truth, sign of a love that is not just warm and soft like a dove, but also faithful and reliable as a rock, founded on the truth. One could hardly choose a better name for a prophet of the LORD than 'Jonah son of Amittai.” (Cary)

Kiuchi: “The name of the prophet Jonah (yona ben amittay) has often been associated with the message of the book of Jonah. It is suggested that yona (dove) symbolizes Israel and amittay means truth or faithfulness, and that this gives an ironic significance to the message of the book. However, there is strong opposition to this approach..While it seems a litle far-fetched to assume that yona in the book of Jonah symbolizes Israel, it is not entirely unlikely that the dove as the symbol of loveliness and gracefulness is in the consciousness of the author, given the presence of rich irony in the book.”

Sasson reviews several interpretations of verse 1:1 as well as offering his own reading: “Although 'Dove' is a perfectly legitimate choice for Hebrew parents to bestow upon a male son...many scholars have sought symbolic or even esoteric reasons for its assignment to a prophet. For example, Koenig...finds it significant that the Northern Kingdom prophet Hosea twice alludes to a 'dove' that runs to and from Assyria (Nineveh): 7:11, 'Ephrayin [Israel] is becoming a silly, aimless dove: its people appeal to Egypt, but run to Assyria.' The simile is completed in 11:11, with the return of the dove from Assyria.”

Lastly are some comments from Ackerman: “'Jonah son of Amittai' (1:1) is surely a reference to the eighth-century Northern Kingdom prophet briefly described in 2 Kings 14:25 as a popular prophet who, in the context of the Israelite king's sin, proclaims divine mercy and support for that kingdom. The name means 'Dove son of truth,' and the dove has two major characteristics in the Hebrew Bible: it is easily put to flight and seeks secure refuge in the mountains (Ezek. 7:16, Ps. 55:6-8), and it moans and laments when in distress (Nahum 2:7; Isaiah 38:14, 59:11). Will these characteristics, we wonder, also apply to our hero? And what meaning will the story give to 'son of truth'?” The answer to the first question is apparently yes, and ultimately Ackerman concludes that this book is best characterized as a satire.

The Genre of Jonah

As you can see from the above comments, much depends on the literary genre of this book. And here most modern scholars are agreed that it is meant to be taken not as historical fact, at least not in all its unrealistic details, but as another some sort of book. But, unfortunately, there is no strong consensus as to exactly into what form of literature to place it:

Crenshaw: “The choice of this prophet as the target of didactic satire is doubly appropriate, first because he proclaimed nationalistic oracles on behalf of Israel and second because his name means 'dove [of faithfulness or truthfulness].' The author wrote a short parable characterized by fantastic events to poke fun indirectly at a little man whose inner thoughts remain virtually hidden.”

Patterson states, “While whole books can be analyzed in terms of satire (e.g., Amos, Jonah), satire is found within other genres such as lament or woe (e.g. Ezek. 19:1-14; 24:3-5).”

Woodard asks, “Is satire the only, even the primary genre present? Commentators who answer in the affirmative offer many valuable insights, but the thesis of the discussion that follows is that the book more thoroughly resembles another genre, Hebrew tragedy. The text of Jonah, examined on its own terms and in relation to various earlier sources known to its author, is a tragic narrative, the structured plot enlivening Jonah's character in a way that satire never could...The latter is said to pervade the Jonah story highlighting the seemingly outlandish events and Jonah's ridiculous actions. This reading with its impressive display of rhetorical analysis, proceeds as follows. Jonah, so of 'truth' ('Amittai'), wishes to avoid truth at all costs – including the loss of his own life.” But Woodard argues instead that Jonah contains “the six phases of OT tragedy – dilemma, choice, catastrophe, suffering, perception or realization of one's error, and death.” One could certainly argue against those last two elements being present in the story.     

Childs recognizes the quandary regarding the exact genre of the book as he says, “The effort to specify the literary genre of the book of Jonah has been characterized as a fable, didactic novel, prophetic legend, and parable. Others have described the book as a midrash or even an allegory...In the end, many commentators opt for a mixed genre with the presence of many eclectic elements.” He concludes that it should be considered as “a parable-like story.” And so the controversy continues.

.

 

"HOPE" IN THE BIBLE

Sometimes the definition of a word such as “hope” can best be comprehended by a real example. Taking one out of the Old Testament,we should think of Jeremiah. He has often been characterized as a weeping or grieving prophet, but the utter despair of his situation actually lay behind all his actions and teachings. Recall that he was a prophet to the Jews for forty years, during which time God told him to do things which made him ridiculous in the eyes of the people; he was not allowed to marry; his life was threatened; he was imprisoned; all his writings were destroyed; he was called an enemy of the people for his teachings; he paid to purchase a plot of land that he knew he would soon lose; and finally he was carried away against his will, and died in a foreign land. Nonetheless, he continued to preach a message of hope to the people.

As an aside, the word “hope” appears exactly eight times in Jeremiah, a number symbolically indicating in the Bible a surfeit, “more than sufficient to meet the need, or a brand new beginning.”

Psalms 39:7-8

Jacobson: “The two terms for hope, qawa and tohelet, technically refer to 'waiting' and 'expecting,' which can be understood as two of the components of hope. To hope is first of all to wait, in the full sense of waiting. That is, to wait is to be stuck in the present moment without something or someone that one desires. But to wait is also to linger in the expectation that the something or someone will show up. This is the sense of qawa, especially as it is used in the Psalter.”

Psalms 71:5

“The pleas of vv. 2 and 4 give way [in vv. 3, 7-8] to a testimony of lifelong relationship. Each line except v. 7a contains the word you, telling over and over of a life of faith. God is this one's hope and trust and has been so since birth (v. 6). The poem stresses how this one has always had God as a constant (v. 3) place of safety (vv. 3-7), and the response is to be an example (v. 7) and to praise (v. 8). This section reminds all of God's sustaining grace, but as the next section opens, it also serves as a reminder to God to act again as God has acted in the past.” (Tanner)

Psalm 78:7

“Aseph called the people to hear his instruction about the Lord's deeds...that He would make known to his generation. These had been handed down from earlier generations as God had commanded. The LORD planned this so that the nation might trust Him and obey the Law (v. 7), not stumbling in unbelief and rebellion like their unfaithful forefathers (v. 8).” (Ross)

Psalm 146:5-7

As deClaisse-Walford points out, verse 5 begins with the wisdom word content ('asre), the same word with which Psalm opens and Psalm 2 closes. The word 'asre occurs eleven times in Book Five of the Psalter, almost half of all its occurrences in the Psalter...Content is the one whose help ('ezer) is the God of Jacob. “That last line stands in a parallel relationship with 5b: “whose hope is the LORD their God.”

Acts 23:6

Trenchard states: “The hope in the resurrection of the dead was not a theological sophism but the essence of the gospel. Paul stirred into life something real in some of his old companions [the Pharisees] when he reminded them that their most treasured possession was the messianic hope and the doctrine of the resurrection. This was true OT succession, and not the sterile formalism of the Sadducees and the legalists...”

Acts 26:6

This verse continues the thought of the above passage as Paul describes his early upbringing and points out the “absurd feature of the present dispute [with the Jews] that he was being prosecuted for his proclamation of this very hope – and prosecuted by Jews, of all people! But this hope was the hope that God would keep the promise which He made to the fathers of the nation long ago; it was the hope which gave life and meaning and purpose to the ordinances of divine worship, faithfully maintained by all twelve tribes of Israel generation after generation – the hope that God would one day come down to deliver His people as He had done when they were slaves in Egypt...” (Bruce)

Romans 5:1-5 “We are justified by faith and have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (v. 1)...we boast in our hope of sharing the glory of God (v. 2)...character produces hope (v. 4) and hope does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that was given us (v. 5).” Notice how the three members of the Trinity are woven into the concepts of faith, hope and love. This is but the first of a number of occurrences of that triad of characteristics in the New Testament.

Romans 8:24-25

The thought is not that he [Paul] will attain to the future salvation by the instrumentality of hope. And neither is the thought that the salvation in the believer's possession came to be his by the instrumentality of hope...'In hope' refers to the fact that the salvation bestowed in the past, the salvation now in possession, is characterized by hope. Hope is an ingredient inseparable from the salvation possessed; in that sense it is salvation conditioned by and oriented to hope. Hope is imbued with that same confidence which characterizes faith (cf. Heb. 11:1). As faith is contrasted with sight (II Cor. 5:7), so is hope, and hope is not dimmed although its object is not present to sense or attained in experience.”(Murray)

Romans 12:3-11

This appeal by Paul to believers begins with telling them “to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned them.” In v. 6 he reiterates that this is is a gift they have received from Him “in proportion to their faith.” We also have a two-fold mention of love in verses 9 and 10, first directed to what is good and secondly directed toward one another. The third member of the triad appears in v. 12 where they are told to rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, and persevere in in prayer. Those last two verbs are closely related to hope and can be said to arise out of it.

I Corinthians 13:13

Fee explains that “these words [i.e. faith, hope and love] embrace the whole of Christian existence, as believers live out the life of the Spirit in the present age awaiting the consummation. They have 'faith' toward God, that is, they trust him to forgive and accept them through Christ.., they trust in his goodness and mercies. They also have 'hope' for the future, which has been guaranteed for them through Christ.Through his resurrection and the gift of the Spirit, they have become a thoroughly future-oriented people...They are on their way 'home,' destined for an existence in the presence of God that is 'face to face.'”

Galatians 5:5-6

“For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision not uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is [faith working] through love.” Here Paul utilizes the most commonly recognized order of these three: faith-hope-love.

Colossians 1:1-8

This compact and organized passage begins with God and Christ (v. 1), repeats these two persons of the Trinity in the same order in vv. 6-7, and finishes with addition of the Spirit. At the same time, the other familiar triad appears as part of the following phrases: “your faith in Christ Jesus” (4a), “love that you have for all the saints (4b), “the hope laid up for you in heaven. You heard of this hope before” (5), “Epaphras, our beloved fellow servant” (7a), “He is a faithful minister of Christ” (7b), and “your love in the Spirit” (8).

I Timothy 6:11

Paul tells Timothy to pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. After faith and love we might expect to read 'hope,' but get endurance (hupomeno) instead. Vine notes that this word in Matthew 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13 is followed by the phrase 'unto the end.' Thus we can say that it alludes to the hope of heaven for those who persevere.

Titus 2:2

“Tell the older men to be temperate, serious, prudent, and sound in faith, in love, and in endurance.” That the last item in the list is equivalent to or arises from the hope of salvation is indicated by a consideration of 2:13, where Paul says, “...we wait for the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 10:22-24

Kittredge says, “For Hebrews, faith undergirds hope (see 2.6; 6.11,18; 7:19).” To this we could add: “and results in love.”

Ellingworth states that the “present passage becomes increasingly forward-looking, so that faith and hope are closely related, like faith and confession...”

Hebrews 11:1-12:6

Hebrews 11 is the great dissertation on faith and in the first verse it is coupled with hope: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” And this main theme continues into the following chapter, ending problematically at 12:6, which mentions the Lord's love for us. This is the same order we also noted in Hebrews 10:22-24 above.

I Peter 1

In this chapter, faith appears in verses 7, 9, and 21a and belief in 8; the theme of hope of eternal life runs throughout the chapter; and in v. 22 we finally are reminded of love.

And as Keener puts it, “Because the English word 'hope' is ambiguous, we might better render the underlying Greek term as 'expectation'...Believers' hope of future inheritance in Christ (1:4; 3:9) is secure because it is grounded in the already fulfilled resurrection of Christ (1:3, 21; 3:21) and believers' consequent experience of new birth (1:3, 23). This hope is also associated with eschatological glory (1:7; 2:12; 4:13; 5:1,4,10) and described as ultimate salvation (1:5,9,10; 2:2). Embracing such an expectation should affect how believers live (3:9; 4:7).”

 

ECCLESIASTES 8: COMMENTS FROM JACQUES ELLUL

Jacques Ellul WAs a Christian author that most of you have probably never heard of before. He was a leader in the French resistance during WWII and later a professor of history and sociology who died in 1994. Some terms that he used to describe himself or that others have attached to him include: Bible commentator, Calvinist, philosopher, existentialist, socialist, anarchist, and universalist. That last term means that he believed everyone would be saved in the end..

Despite his lack of solid evangelical credentials, or perhaps because of that fact, several of his books are definitely worth considering just to gain a different slant on things. Most of his writings in one way or another warn the reader against the evils of political power, economic power, materialism, technology, nationalism and scientism. And thus, Ellul is probably best known for his sociological and theological writings such as The Technological Bluff, The Subversion of Christianity, and Money & Power.

But I have personally gotten the most out of his Bible commentaries, the most prominent of which are The Meaning of the City and Apocalypse. That is not to say that I agree with everything he says, but he always has a unique slant on every text that he tackles. One of his lesser known works is a commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes titled Reason for Being, and below are some miscellaneous quotations in it relating to the eighth chapter of Ecclesiastes.

Ecclesiastes 8:1 – “Qohelet [i.e. The Teacher] shows us wisdom as the search for an explanation...(8:1). This view is utterly modern, since it has nothing to do with metaphysics or rhetoric. Rather, the idea of explanation suggests 'scientific' rigor and precision. After all, the term 'explanation' covers both of science's early objectives: the why and the how.”

We can see that same “scientific” approach even better in the earlier chapters of the book where the author sets out to “consider” and “test” one aspect of life after the other in an attempt to find out something he can state for sure. But he always ends up in a state of frustration, uncertainty and confusion. We are reminded somewhat of Job, who tried his best to do the same regarding his personal situation, but had to throw it all in God's lap in the end for an (at least partial) insight into His ways.

Ecclesiastes 8:5 – “Since life is fragile and finite, marked by death, respect it all the more by adopting modest and humble rules of behavior. 'The one who observes the precept knows nothing evil, and the heart of the sage knows time and judgment' (8:5). Accept that there are rules to follow, and when you obey God's commands, you will keep from committing any evil deed.”

“Qohelet does not refer to the Torah here, but I believe he has precepts based on it in mind. To live your life well, you need to observe certain times...and make certain necessary judgments and assessments. These things make life possible. Qohelet goes no further; for example, he does not say that life is marvelous. On the contrary, everything he teaches us points to the opposite! But he states that if we observe the Law, the times for things, and make certain judgments, we can live, and life is not so bad. But we must never claim to go beyond this humble possibility,”

Of course, Qohelet is writing strictly from an Old Testament perspective without the clear teachings in the New Testament regarding the possibility of a better life beyond this one.

Ecclesiastes 8:5b-6 – “I find three simple remarks necessary if we are to understand the meaning of 'judgment' in the texts we want to examine and such an introduction was necessary for the reader to understand why I place judgment within the gift of God. One of the texts concerning judgment does not refer to God: 'The heart of the sage knows time and judgment. Indeed, there is a time and a judgment for everything. For a person's evil is heavy upon him'. Thus there is not only a time for each thing, but also a judgment. In this text the judgment seems not to involve God, but rather the sage's capacity to bring judgment to bear on things.”

Ecclesiastes 8:12 – “Qohelet assures us that happiness will come to those who experience this fear of God: 'I myself know...that there will be happiness for those who fear God because they experience fear before him' (8:12) Thus the very fact that one is filled with this fear produces happiness. I do not believe a reward is involved; the meaning is not 'If you fear God, he will make you happy.' I believe Qohelet has sufficiently demonstrated the opposite! Rather, the person who fears God experiences happiness because this fear itself is the presence of God. For the person who experiences it, this fear gives assurance of the Lord's presence...Those who tremble in God's presence are in his presence. But their trembling stems from their 'fear' as much as from their emotion, 'enthusiasm,' bedazzlement, or fullness. They tremble at the approach of God. Here we see extreme joy and happiness – in the recognition of one's helplessness and unworthiness...”

Again, Ellul's interpretation reminds me powerfully of the passage at the end of Job where our protagonist says to God, “I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees thee; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:5-6)

Ecclesiastes 8:12b-13 – “Now we come up against a new obstacle: Qohelet presents the mechanism of retribution that Job criticized so much and rejected: 'Although I know that there will be happiness for those who fear God, because they fear before him. And there will be no happiness for the wicked person; like a shadow, he will not prolong his days, because he does not fear before God.' (8:12b-13). This is absolutely staggering! This man who questions everything, this antiestablishment person who goes to the bottom of things, now comes up with a platitude that flies in the face of reality. Qohelet must have known how Job protested, yet he offers precisely the arguments of Job's friends.”

Rather than falling back on what some commentators do (namely, assuming that a pious editor has added these words), Ellul responds that Qohelet “calls himself into question, and in an act typical of faith, he proclaims the opposite of what the evidence seems to show. Our experience indicates that the unjust reigns and lives on, and that the good person fails to be recognized. Faith rears up in the face of this evidence and declares: 'True, that is how things are, but I know...' making its appeal to another dimension – something qualitative and not observable. As I have often emphasized, faith like this, that stands in the face of all the evidence to the contrary is the very essence of hope.”

Ecclesiastes 8:14 – “Qohelet is not a book on morality! Although he declares certain situations 'evil,' our author says almost nothing about 'good.' ...All we see in Qohelet is that doing good, being just, etc., are useless and have no meaning in the long run.” After quoting 8:14, Ellul continues: “Of course Qohelet does not approve of the situation. He does not even state objectively 'that is how things are.' No, he finds in such events an evidence of vanity. This vanity takes many forms and turns up everywhere. The passage just quoted points to one of them: just and unjust people are treated in the same way. There is no justice – no reward we can expect if we do good and act justly. Everything is inverted, perverted, or muddled by the enormous effect of vanity.”

Concerning this 'vanity' with which we are surrounded here on earth, Ellul concludes, “Certainly Qohelet does not tell us we must not do good: just that we must not expect anything from it or be shocked by the triumph of the evil person and the defeat of the just person. We must not have blind faith in some triumphant future for humanity...This lesson on vanity does not constitute pessimism, but rather a warning. Qohelet shows us the reality of what surrounds us so we will not take it seriously, so we will not believe it. We must not attach our love, our truth, or our person to this reality. Do not devote yourself to all this, since that would amount to chasing after wind!”

The above message is a good one for some of the liberal mainline churches to keep in mind. Just manning a soup kitchen for the poor may be a good work for a Christian. Just don't expect that it will automatically give you any sort of lasting satisfaction, recognition here on earth, or save the world. Instead, you may be cursed by even those you are attempting to serve.

Ecclesiastes 8:15 – “Each happy day should move us to give thanks. This is what Qohelet says, repeating it like a refrain – at least as often as 'All is vanity': 'I praised joy!...And this accompanies a person in his work during all the days of his life that God has given him under the sun' (8:15). This passage brings out an attitude found frequently in the Old Testament and repeated in the New, but abandoned by theologians...Rather than saying bluntly 'this is a gift from God, Qohelet suggests 'I see [or I know] this to be a gift from God.' I believe we should understand in this same sense the texts where he makes such a statement directly...This basic understanding moves us from an ontological to an existential approach. Qohelet does not say that things 'are,' but that he sees or conceives them in a certain way. He interprets them...For the believer, the result is a confession of faith.”

Ecclesiastes 8:17a – “Fundamental reality, the relationship between the Creator and the world, remains unknowable and impenetrable. We can only 'know' that a given action of God exists – no more...Reality is as unknowable as the future, because of God's omnipotence. 'A person cannot manage to arrive at what God does..he seeks and seeks, but he does not understand' (8:17a)'. These words do not constitute a condemnation of trying and wanting to understand. But first we must realize that if God the Wholly Other, does things, we cannot expect to fathom them.

Ecclesiastes 8:17 – And as a fitting ending to this particular post, here is more of what Ellul has to say regarding the whole of verse 17: “Wisdom seems ultimately impossible: 'I saw...that a person cannot discover the work that is done under the sun, since he tires in the search and fails to find anything. And even if the sage says he knows, he cannot find.' As for us moderns, we have discovered a great many things. But, as we have already seen, the horizon continually moves farther from us. In this connection, Qohelet seems to posit a kind of absolute: no matter what he does, he cannot find the ultimate secret, the key that would enable him to understand everything. As little as I know, what strikes me most is that the further we advance, the more everything we know becomes complex and elusive.”

I remember when I was in high school and really thought that I knew everything there was to know in the Bible since I had literally attended church from the time I was a week old. Then as I began reading the Bible for myself, I realized that all our pastors tended to stick to a very narrow scope of Scripture passages and ignore those which might tend to confuse the congregation. There were huge chunks of material that I didn't even know were in the Bible. Then years later, when I was sure I knew everything there was to know in Scripture, I began purchasing and reading scholarly Bible commentaries and realized that there were many more nuances and ways of interpreting the Bible than I knew ever existed. That was over 50 years ago and I am still learning more every day.

I shouldn't have been surprised at that revelation, since my own chosen profession was chemical research, and I realized soon enough that every time a scholar solved one research problem, it generally brought up ten more questions that also needed pinning down or even opened up a whole new field of research for investigation. That fact, of course, guaranteed a certain amount of job security for a researcher, but on the other hand it could be frustrating for those who dearly desire to see the eventual end of the process.

As Paul writes in I Corinthians 13:12, “ For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.” (RSV)