LAMENTATIONS 3:22-23

These are favorite verses for many Christians to cite or sing, so I decided to make sure that I really understood what it meant to say that God's mercies “are new every morning.”

For such a positive teaching, it is a little bit surprising to find them in the Book of Lamentations, the gloomy reflection on the destruction of Jerusalem. It is mainly in these verses located at the very center of the center chapter of the book that hope begins to shine in the midst of catastrophe. Bullock cites Naegelsback as talking about 3:19-40 as the peak of the mountain jutting out of the darkness into the sunlight. (Also see my post “Lamentations: Introduction to the Literary Structure.”)

Actually these two verses are themselves by hope:
    “But this I call to mind and therefore I have hope.” (v. 21) 

    “...therefore I will hope in him.” (v. 24b)

Provan notes that since there are no grounds for hope given in vv. 19-20, the “this” in v. 21 must refer to what follows in vv. 22ff. He also points out that verses 22-23 are actually missing in the ancient Septuagint translation into Greek. But that does not indicate that they were not an authentic part of Lamentations. The absence was more likely due to the translator's eyes accidentally skipping down from v. 21 to v. 24 in view of the similar wording in those verses, as shown above.

The best commentary on these verses is actually found in the previous verse, which declares “Yahweh's mercy is surely not at an end, nor is his pity exhausted.” (AB) Thus, these verses in Lamentations expand on that idea that God has not ceased pouring out his blessings on the people, despite appearances to the contrary.

    Hillyers says that God's steadfast love (hesed) “is not a passing phase with God, but an enduring part of his nature, always being renewed toward mankind, and an ancient part of Israel's faith.”

    Chisholm concurs: “The Lord spared a remnant, demonstrating that he was still committed to his people and capable of showing them compassion when they deserved none.”

    Osborne puts it this way: “God's anger is the passing phase, His mercy is always available.”

These comments above certainly convey the main idea of God's continuing faithfulness to his people. However, I was still wanting a little more information concerning the idea of the daily newness of these mercies. Schnittjer took one approach in answering my question:

    “The reality of renewing mercies reawakens with each day...the use of the daily inevitability of new mornings demonstrates the versatility of the use of cosmic realities. In support of the new covenant's dependability Jeremiah evokes the sun and moon giving light day and night in order to show the enduring permanence of Yahweh's covenantal promise...Lam 3 refers to the same basic cosmic structure but not merely to speak to the enduring qualities of Yahweh's attributes. Instead, [it] emphasizes the daily routine of Yahweh's compassions in the 'now'...confidence renews every day. As the day breaks the enduring covenantal loyalty of Yahweh renews once again.”

Thus, to Schnittjer the reference to “every morning” is a phrase in support of both the reality of the continuing covenant of God with His people and as a concrete daily reminder of that reality to us.

All of the above satisfied me somewhat, but I felt that something was still lacking. Therefore I searched an analytical concordance to see if there were any other passages in Scripture with the same basic thought. One such passage was Isaiah 33:2 where the prophet prays: “O LORD, be gracious to us; we wait for you. Be our strong arm every morning, our salvation in the time of trouble.” Blenkinsopp explained these words by saying that “in the hymns the morning is the time of salvation and divine intervention.” But the reason why was given by Oswalt, who attributed the phrase to the simple fact that attacks typically began in the morning. So that verse didn't really look like a true parallel to Lamentations 3:22-23.

The next verse I came across was Zephaniah 3:5: “He gives His judgments morning by morning.” But at best that represents the converse side of God's daily mercies.

Then I looked at some additional commentaries on Lamentations and found this short note by Stephens-Hodge, who explained that the reference to God's mercies in Lamentations 3:23 means, “They are adapted to each day's requirements.” And that provided the key I had been looking for since it reminded me of passages in both the OT and NT in which it indicates that we should not just take God's abiding blessings for granted but realize that they are given on a day-by-basis. Thus, this message is another aspect found in Lamentations 3:22-23.

The first such passage is the story of the Jews wandering in the Wilderness and God provides them with manna each morning, but they are only to collect enough to last one day (except before the Sabbath, when a two-day provision is given). Some scholars state that God did this strictly as a test of their obedience to his word. But in addition, it is a powerful symbol of our daily dependence on Him to meet our needs.

This theme is clearly repeated in Jesus' words in the Lord's Prayer: “Give us this day our daily bread (or 'bread for tomorrow').” Notice that it does not say, “Provide us with bread every day.” (Matthew 6:11) This idea is echoed later in that same chapter (v. 34): “So do not worry about tomorrow for tomorrow will bring worries of its own.” And as he often did, James in his letter (4:14-15) repeats Jesus' teachings with these words: “You do not even know what tomorrow brings...so you should say, 'If the Lord wills, we will do such or such.'”

NOTES ON ISAIAH

Isaiah 2:9b-11 These verses are supposed to be later additions since they are in the standard Hebrew 

text but not in the Isaiah scroll at Qumran.

Is. 2:22 The scribe of the Qumran Isaiah scroll has appended these words after this verse: “Oh, cease to 

glorify man, who has only a breath in his nostrils. For by what does he merit esteem?”

Isaiah 3:18-21 A 1970's excavation of the Ketef Hinnom tomb area uncovered over 100 pieces of 

jewelry of the types mentioned here.

Isaiah 5:2 Field towers were rare but have been found by archeologists. Their exact use is not entirely 

known but may have provided defense against predators during harvest season, shade for workers, and 

a temporary storage place for juice. See Matthew 21:33 and Mark 12:1.

Is. 5:7 In the Hebrew, the words for justice, righteousness, and outcry sound similar.

Isaiah 6:2-7 See Genesis 3:1.

Is. 6:3 Moses is called the drawer of his people. This is a pun on Moses' name, which means "to draw"

(see Exodus 2:10).

Isaiah 22:16-17 In 1870, a partially destroyed tomb meeting this description was excavated by a 

French archeologist. The inscription was illegible but deciphered in 1953: “This is [the sepulcher of --] 

-yahu who is over the house. There is no silver and gold here but [his bones] and the bones of his slave-

wife with him. Cursed be the man who will open this.” Two bullae (impressions in clay), one found at 

Lachish and one which surfaced on the antiquities market in 2007, have been deciphered as 

“Shebnayahu, [serv]ant of the king.”

Isaiah 34:14 Lilith was a mythical figure known throughout the Near East. She flew at night, seduced 

men and killed pregnant women and babies. Hebrew myths treated her as Adam's first wife.

Isaiah 36-39 A Biblical Archaeology Today article reported that bullae for Hezekiah and Isaiah have 

been found together.

Isaiah 40:7 This verse is missing in both the Greek Septuagint and the Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah.

Isaiah 45:1 Terms in this chapter applied to the anointed one (Messiah) include man of God's choice, 

redemptive purpose, judgment on foes, and dominion over nations. The real agent is Yahweh.

Isaiah 49:15 appears to foretell Christ's crucifixion.

Isaiah 65:17-19  See Rev. 21:1-3.

PSALM 67: PROSAIC POETRY

Matthew Mullins has just written a book entitled Enjoying the Bible, which is really more specifically about how to read Hebrew poetry. A few of his chapter titles are: General Sense, Central Emotion, Reading with our Guts, Formal Means, and Delight and Instruction. His point is that there are various ways in which to approach the Bible.

In meditating on the Psalms, there are similarly a number of ways to do it. And by “meditating,” I am referring not to techniques of Eastern mysticism which involve an emptying of one's mind, but in the biblical sense of being fully engaged with the Word. One technique in approaching the Psalms is to first understand that generally in each individual verse there will be two or three lines of poetry which each express the same basic idea. So to comprehend what the Psalmist's meaning is, one should be able to capsulize each verse in one line of prose instead.

I chose for an example the short Psalm 67. I will demonstrate how each verse of poetry (quoted in the RSV) could be transformed into prose without losing the gist of the meaning:

Psalm 67:1 “May God be gracious to us and bless us

                             and make his face to shine upon us.”

This can become something like: “May God always have his eye on us to bless us in every way.”

Psalm 67:2 “that thy way may be known upon the earth,

                           thy saving power           among all nations.”

In prose, this end of the sentence begun in v. 1 could read “in order that everyone on earth could know who you truly are.”

Psalm 67:3 “Let      the peoples praise thee, O God;

                    Let all the peoples praise thee.”

Psalm 67:4a Let the nations     be glad and and sing for joy.”

In going through this sort of analysis, you will see that at this point whoever came up with the verse divisions hundreds of years ago should probably have added the first part of v. 4 to the end of v. 3 instead since all three lines express the same sentiment. The combined meaning of the three lines is something like “Let all the people of the earth praise thee in song, O God.”

Psalm 67:4b and 4c “for thou dost judge the peoples                      with equity

                                                and guide the nations upon the earth.”

A prose rendering of these lines is, “for you guide and judge all the people on earth equally.”

Psalm 67:5 This chorus is identical to 67:3 above.

Psalm 67:6 “The earth         has yielded its increase;

                    God, our God, has blessed us.”

This verse expresses a close relationship between our earthly blessing of food and their source as God. Thus, “Praise God for the ways in which he has provided for us here on earth.”

Psalm 67:7 “God has blessed us;

                                                   let all the ends of the earth fear him.”

This is practically prose as it stands. Thus, “Because God has blessed us, let all the ends of the earth fear him.”

If you attempt this sort of exercise on your own with other poetic passages in the Bible, you will find that it is not always so easy to identify the parallel thoughts.

For example, in the Proverbs, one can come across what is called antithetic parallelism in which the idea in the first verse is expressed in terms of its negative in the second verse.

Proverbs 24:16 “for a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again;

                           but the wicked        are overthrown by calamity.”

As prose, this becomes: “Unlike the righteous, the wicked are not kept free from disaster” or “God only preserves the righteous from harm.”

A final form of Hebrew poetry to consider is that of inverted, or chiastic, parallelism in which there is a different order to the similar elements found in the individual lines. As an example,

Job 15:15  “Behold, God      puts no trust in          his holy ones,

                                                     X

         and the heavens         are not clean             in his sight.”

In this verse, “put no trust in” is parallel to “are not clean.” However, “holy ones” in line 1 is parallel to “heavens” in line 2, and “God” and “his sight” are parallel. The combined thought is that “Even the angels in heaven are not free from sin in God's eyes.”

By playing with these poems in this manner, you can get a much better idea of their meaning even if the resulting sentences are not nearly as emotionally charged as the original.

 

CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND NEW TESTAMENT

The following pairs of conflicting Scripture passages were proposed by Aaron Wilson as a starting point for discussion. The first thing to note is that in comparing verses from the two testaments, one must always keep in mind that the early Jews were only given partial and veiled revelations from God. One must always look for the ways in which the veil is lifted during the New Testament dispensation. Nevertheless, there are some specific comments one can make concerning these paired passages.

“Everything is futile.” (Ecclesiastes 1:2)

Everything is meaningful – “Whatever you do, do all for the glory of God” (I Corinthians 10:31)

Understanding the book of Ecclesiastes presents its own special challenges. The most confusing aspect is that there appear to be two completely different voices talking to us. Some therefore feel that the bulk of the book gives us the cynical voice of Qoheleth (“the Teacher”) who is disillusioned concerning the whole meaning of existence. And then periodically, the editor steps in to give a more godly perspective on things.

But one does not have to hold to a two-voice theory in order to say that the Teacher first describes what life “under the sun” amounts to if the only thing that exists is what we can actually see. However, he then reminds us that there is much more to reality than that. In the case of Ecclesiastes 1:2, one needs to go all the way down to 2:24-26 to get this proper perspective. This passage contains the advice: “There is nothing better for mortals than to eat and drink, and find enjoyment in their God. This also is from God's hand, for without Him who can eat or have enjoyment.”

One can easily imagine how perfectly I Corinthians 10:31 would fit in directly after this verse as an apt conclusion since the whole passage reads, “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all for the glory of God.”

“Test me in this way.” (Malachi 3:10)

“Do not test the Lord your God.” (Luke 4:12)

In its context, Malachi 3:10 follows a rebuke not as much directed to individuals as to the nation of Israel as a whole. And it refers to one of the ways in which the people had been robbing God of what was his due. But he will bless the nation if they repent.

Luke 4:12 is part of Jesus' temptation by Satan in the wilderness. And the situation, at least superficially, seems the same in that both passages concern holding God to his promise. In the Malachi passage it is God himself who challenges Israel to return to him in their behavior and see if he won't bless them. In the NT case, Satan takes the passage Psalm 91:11-12 in which the Psalmist expresses his confidence that those who are close to God will suffer no earthly disasters for he will protect them.

Kidner says, “What it does assure us is that nothing can touch God's servant but by God's leave.” However, “Most of these dangers are of a kind which strike unseen...” Thus, they do not include those we purposely bring about ourselves,” such as Satan proposed.

We can also consider the Hebrew word translated “test” in this passage. It is bachan and it can mean either “prove” or “tempt.” Interestingly, this same word appears twice in Malachi 3. In v. 10, God tells the people to test him while in v. 15, those who tempt God are condemned.

Brensinger says, “Testing Yahweh, apart from those rare instances where he invites such testing as a means of demonstrating his faithfulness to a disbelieving audience (Mal 3:10), has no place in the covenant community.”

Moving to the NT, the key Greek word is (ek)peirazo, which can mean either tempt or test, just as its Hebrew equivalent. One main difference between tempting and testing lies in the sort of result one is hoping for. In temptation, the intent is usually to cause one to fail, while testing is a bit more neutral activity in which one just wants to see what will happen. But even if that is the meaning in Luke 4:12, to test God or Jesus (see Luke 10:25; I Corinthians 10:9; Matthew 22:18,35; Acts 15:10, and James 1:13) is highly inappropriate since it means that we expect there is a chance that he will fail.

“He will be called Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)

“Don't assume that I come to bring peace.” (Matthew 10:34)

There is certainly no disputing the fact that the Messiah of the OT and Jesus in the NT were firmly associated with the concept of a peace-bringer. Hendricksen cites sixteen Bible passages that make that point. But the whole idea of peace is a complex one, and I don't have time or space to write a book on the subject, even if I could. So I will just confine myself with the few pertinent citations and ideas below.

Concerning the messianic title in Isaiah 9:6, Kidner says, “Peace in Hebrew implies prosperity as well as tranquility.”Wolf explains, “'Prince of Peace' means that Christ will be a 'peaceful prince,' not a tyrant. His rule will bring a cessation of wars and a wholeness, or health, to society.” Blenkinsopp agrees with this assessment and goes a little further: “The term salom signifies more than the absence of hostilities, though that is its essential precondition, for it is also associated with public order founded on justice and righteousness.” But it is Oswalt who strikes at the heart of the matter when he states, “Somehow through him [the Messiah] will come the reconciliation between God and man that will then make possible reconciliation between man and man.”

Turning next to Matthew 10:34, Hendricksen says, “the natural reaction to the surprising statement would be: 'How can this saying be true?'” His answer is “Here 'on earth,' that is during the present dispensation, the followers of Christ must expect 'the sword.' This word is here used to symbolize the very opposite of peace; hence, 'division' (Luke 12:51), resulting in persecution.”

But how can one have peace on earth in the midst of persecution? The best solution to the quandary is to consider a third passage, John 14:27a, where Jesus states, “Peace I leave you, and give you my peace. I do not give you as the world gives.”

Morris comments on this statement that “the peace of which He speaks is not dependent on any outward circumstances, as any peace the world can give must necessarily be...It is worth noting that in the Bible 'peace' is given a wider and deeper meaning than in other Greek writings. For the Greek (and us) peace was essentially negative, the absence of war. But for the Hebrews it meant positive blessing, especially a right relationship with God...The word here has its fullest content.”

 

JUDAS ISCARIOT

We actually know very little concerning Judas outside of the fact of his betrayal of Jesus. Of course, in John 12:1-7 we learn that he was the treasurer of the group and used to steal from their common purse. This sets the stage for his approaching the Jewish authorities for money for the betrayal. I have wondered why Matthew was not the treasurer instead since he obviously was better suited for the position due to his previous occupation of tax-collector. One could even speculate that Judas jumped in to volunteer for the position before anyone else had the chance to say anything.

We know that Satan entered into Judas' heart at the Last Supper, and that Jesus told him, “What you have to do, do quickly.” But one certainly can't remove all blame from Judas himself for his actions, even if (a) Satan was guiding him, (b) the betrayal had been predicted in the Old Testament (Acts 1:15-20), and (c) the betrayal was necessary to bring about God's ultimate plan of redemption. The first of these “excuses” for his behavior is contradicted by Peter's comment in Acts 1:25 that Judas had turned away from their ministry and apostleship of his own volition. The next two excuses deal with the sovereignty of God over all events. But even there, we must keep in mind that Jesus in Matthew 26:24 states regarding the coming betrayal, “The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed.”

As to the primary motive behind Judas' actions, we will probably never know exactly in this life. But that certainly has not stopped scholarly and non-scholarly speculation regarding the matter. There must have been something in addition to greed since after Jesus' arrest, Judas gives back all the money he had gotten. And at that point, he told the chief priests and elders, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” (Matthew 27:4) It is impossible to know what Judas had thought Jesus was guilty of and what caused Judas to subsequently change his mind.

The most reasonable explanation I have heard was that Judas thought all along that Jesus was setting himself up to be an earthly king. But when Jesus seemed to make no moves in that direction, Judas thought he would force the issue with the betrayal. At that point, Jesus would have to strike with supernatural power against his enemies and set up his kingdom. When that didn't happen, Judas then realized that he had totally misunderstood Jesus' ministry on earth.

Whatever Judas' reasoning was, Matthew tells us that he “repented” of his actions. So the remaining question is: “What is the eternal fate of Judas?” I have heard two completely opposite answers to that question, neither of which was based on sound biblical grounds. One Sunday school teacher told our class with great certainty that Judas is in heaven right this very minute. His pronouncement was based on a total misunderstanding of the doctrine of eternal assurance by saying that all a person has to do is once in their life say that they believe in Christ as the Son of God and they are saved forever even if they totally deny Christ five minutes later.

The opposite opinion on Judas' fate is far more prevalent, but is sometimes based on equally shaky reasoning. The common explanation I had always heard was that suicide is the unforgivable sin since you can't go to heaven without asking forgiveness for every single sin you have committed, and there is obviously no way you can ask forgiveness for suicide after you have committed it. For more on this specious argument, see my post entitled “Suicide in the Bible.” Another variation on that theme that is similarly without biblical support is to say that despair is the unforgivable sin.

Despite the above poor arguments for Judas' damnation, the biblical evidence appears to agree with that final assessment. For one thing, although Judas did repent of his betrayal, the Greek word for “repent” can merely mean to rue your actions rather than expressing a total about-face in the direction of your life. Secondly, let's revisit two of the Scripture passages I mentioned earlier. In Acts 1:25, Peter goes on to say that Judas had turned from the ministry and “gone to his own place.” This is probably a reference to hell. And Jesus' own assessment of Judas in Matthew 26:24 is: “It would have been better for that person never to have been born,” apparently stating the same thing in more forceful terms.

The bottom line is that God is the ultimate Judge, and so I don't want to try and usurp His job. I am personally very glad that I am not in that position.

 

COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF JONAH

In another post entitled “Bible Commentaries and Dictionaries,” I presented several factors influencing what kind of Bible helps you may want to consider consulting and/or purchasing. I thought I would get a little more specific by looking at some commentaries on the short book of Jonah as an example of the differences between types of Bible aids, limited myself to books in my own library or available on-line. First to note is the fact that there are a huge number of commentaries available on this minor prophet – a search on the Christian Book Distributors site shows that they sell 126 different ones still in print.

Starting at one end of the spectrum, I first chose an example of a scholarly commentary on this two- page prophetic book. Those not familiar with scholarly Bible volumes will probably be astounded to learn that the commentary by Jack Sasson in the Anchor Bible series runs 350 pages long. This fact, however, is by no means an unusual case for scholarly works, especially if the author, in this case the chairman of the Religion Department at a major university, may have devoted a major part of his career researching this one subject.

The first 62 pages of this AB commentary are devoted to introductory material before even tackling the text verse by verse. These pages contain standard subjects such as authorship, text, translation, date of composition, and organization of material. And in addition, there is an extensive bibliography of earlier commentaries and scholarly articles on the book.

Often it is in this first section of a commentary that one can get a general feel for the author's approach to Scripture as a whole and one can gauge how broad- or narrow-minded he or she is, as well as whether leaning toward a conservative or liberal stance. As an example, here is quote from Sasson's comment on the composition of Jonah:

    “Traditional Jewish exegetes and 'conservative' Christians identify our protagonist with the prophet of Jeroboam II's reign (2 Kings 14). Because, however, Jonah is not a writing prophet but rather one about whom narratives are recorded, the dating of his book is not a test for religious or theological orthodoxy in the same way as is his survival in the fish's belly. Therefore, traditionalists can be free to decide whether Jonah himself or a later admirer wrote the book bearing his name, even when they do not question the historical accuracy of the activities reported in that book.”

Note that there are hints in the statement above that although Sasson may not classify himself in the “conservative” camp, he is sensitive to their concerns and willing to repeat their stance concerning the date and authorship of the book. But since he mentions the sticky issue of the historicity of the man-in-a-fish episode, let us turn to what he says about that. Sasson actually spends 15 pages on Jonah 2:1-3a during which he quotes from an Aldous Huxley poem and a Paul Simon song; discusses the various ways animals figure in other OT passages; explains the reasoning behind the chapter divisions at this point; looks at the various key words in these three verses and where they appear elsewhere in the book; considers the differences between the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin texts of Jonah; spends considerable time discussing the various ancient and modern attempts to pin down the exact identification of the fish; brings up historical accounts of other people being swallowed by large sea creatures; and concludes by discussing the overall religious message intended by the author.

Sasson manages to accomplish all of this without making any hard-and-fast judgments either way regarding the historical accuracy of the account. Such even-handedness is admirable in an author from an academic background, where often liberal biases and concerns can totally turn off most evangelical readers. The only remaining question is whether a general reader really wants to know all the minutia that Sasson has collected. That is always the issue when considering whether a scholarly tome is really what you are looking for. Personally, I enjoy reading about such things, but when I am called on to teach on a book of the Bible, I have to carefully cherry-pick a scholarly commentary for just those few items that might add interest to the lesson and perhaps provide spiritual insights that are not found in standard lesson guides and devotional material easily purchased on-line or in Bible book stores.

One compromise between the devotional and scholarly types of commentaries is to purchase a scholarly book written by an evangelical author. These are generally found among the Bible commentaries published by houses such as Eerdmans, Baker, InterVarsity Press, or Word Books. I happen to have a rather large commentary by Douglas Stuart (Professor of Old Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary) which covers the minor prophets from Hosea to Jonah as part of the Word Biblical Commentary Series. Almost ninety pages of this book are devoted to the book of Jonah, ten pages for the introduction.

The subjects treated within Stuart's introduction are probably of more interest to general readers than those within Sasson's book. Discussed are authorship, date of composition, what is known about the person of Jonah outside of the book, the general acceptance of the book into the Bible, the purpose behind the writing, how the book is organized, its style of writing, the overall unity of the book, and its historical accuracy. But what about the issue of Jonah being kept alive inside the fish for three days, which has served as one of the issues to divide religious liberals and conservatives? Here is what Stuart wisely says:

    “Yahweh can easily toss the wind around to make a storm when he wants to. Miraculously rescuing someone from drowning via a fish is no great feat, either. But it is not, also, a feat to be described analytically. A miracle is a divine act beyond human replication or explanation. The numerous attempts made in the past to identify the sort of fish that could have kept Jonah alive in it are misguided...What sorts of fish people can live inside is not an interest of the scripture.”

Such a statement by Stuart may be dismissed by liberals as an example of a scholar trading in his intellectual honesty for mere superstition or branded by fundamentalist Christians as another case demonstrating how Christians who go to Harvard for a PhD (as did Stuart) will lose their faith, assuming they even had any to begin with. But to my mind, Stuart strikes exactly the right note in regard to this issue.

Another book to discuss within the scholarly evangelical class is Leslie Allen's contribution on the minor prophets to the New International Commentary on the Old Testament series put out by Eerdmans Publishing Company. Of the sixty pages he devotes to discussion of Jonah, twenty-five are spent discussing introductory matters. And in this opening section, he includes four major topics not found in any of the other scholarly works above: literary genre, theology, “the sign of Jonah,” and structure. The first and last of these subjects reflect the more recent interest in the Bible by evangelicals as literature in addition to being history and theology. Those of you who have read any of my posts subtitled

“: Introduction to the Literary Structure,” will know that I share that interest. Note also the clear intention to treat all of the Bible as a unified whole by bringing up the NT usage of Jonah's story.

But how does Allen deal with the story of Jonah in the fish? At this point in his commentary, Allen confines himself mainly to a theological and devotional exegesis with comments such as:

    “The gracious gift of God is life. He does not abandon his servant to death, but snatches from its clutches the drowning man.”

    “The fish stands for the amazing grace of Yahweh, which came down to where he was and lifted him to new life.”

    “The Lord of the sea is Lord also of its creatures, and his providential control extends over both.”

    “He [Jonah] is spared the due reward of his sins.”

But Allen does not totally avoid more scholarly aspects of the text. Instead he cites an ancient Sumarian myth that might help explain the meaning behind the three days on the fish.

The next commentary I would like to discuss comes from Phillip Cary, and it is part of the relatively new series called Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. The introduction to the whole series states its basic purpose: “This series of biblical commentaries was born out of the conviction that dogma clarifies rather than obscures...and advances up on the assumption that the Nicene tradition, in all its diversity and controversy, provides the proper basis for the interpretation of the Bible as Christian Scripture...For this reason, the commentators in this series have not been chosen because of their historical or philological expertise. In the main, they are not biblical scholars in the conventional, modern sense of the term. Instead, the commentators were chosen because of their knowledge of and expertise in using the Christian doctrinal tradition.”

So how does that goal play out in Cary's commentary? For a start, there are two extremely interesting sections in the book that alone are almost worth the price of the book. The first discusses the subject of “Christian readers of a Jewish book,” and the second is an insightful comparison of the book of Jonah with Jesus' parable of the prodigal son. My own structural analysis of Jonah uses Cary's ideas in that latter chapter as a jumping-off point to show further similarities between this prophetic book and Jesus' words. See my post entitled “Book of Jonah: Introduction to the Literary Structure.”

The two chapters of Cary's book that are mentioned above plus an excursus on “the sign of Jonah,” clearly mark it as a commentary specifically geared toward Christian readers.

Then we move along to the episode of Jonah and the great fish. Cary does not concern himself at all with attempting scientific explanations of the event, but contents himself with drawing out its spiritual significance instead. This is witnessed by the following comments:

    “For even the waste places of the deep hide nothing from the God of Israel. Just as Jonah confessed, he is the God of heaven who made the sea as well as the dry land (1:9).”

    “So the LORD prepares a great beast from the deep to do his work. The word 'prepared' can also be translated 'appointed.' It is a verb for governing, arranging, and ordering rather than creating, but its use here presupposes that the LORD is the sovereign creator of all things, even of the denizens of the deep.”

    “The great fish is a comic version of an ancient nightmare, the great monster of the deep that represents chaos and destruction, the flooding and the undoing of the world.”

    “This is a reversal of the view of ancient Near Eastern mythology, which bases the ordering of the world on a primal battle between a god like Baal and the monsters of the watery chaos.”

    “So in completing the trajectory of descent that he began by going down to Joppa in Jonah 1:3, descending now to the bottom of the sea, Jonah ends up testing the limits of the power of the LORD his God, the God of heaven who makes the sea and the dry land.”

You can see that by confining himself mainly to the theological aspects of the story, Cary's work may strike some scholars as being too shallow in that it does not bombard the reader with the nuances of Hebrew word meanings or detailed parallels in ancient Near Eastern texts. At the same time, those more familiar with devotional commentaries that jump directly into modern day applications may be put off by the fact that Cary devotes too much time to such subjects as well as theology without immediately ministering to them by giving them advice and comfort. But I feel that he strikes just the right tone and has written a welcome supplement to both existing scholarly and devotional books on this “minor” prophet.   

And to demonstrate that there are many ways in which to approach Jonah, there is Jacques Ellul's 100-page book The Judgment of Jonah. I have already discussed this book briefly in the post “Jacques Ellul: An Introduction.” But it is really impossible to capture the flavor of Ellul's writing in a few words since it doesn't really fall into the category of a scholarly, theological, or devotional commentary. I will just repeat a few sentences from his comments regarding the fish episode to give you an example of his thoughts:

    “Thus, for Noah in the Flood, Moses in the Red Sea, and Joshua in the Jordan, the waters are the power of death and drowning. He who is plunged into them is plunged into death; he who traverses them transverses death.”

    “In Jewish thought, the realm of the dead was surrounded by a river called the River of Destruction. There are several examples of this in Scripture, for example Psalm 18:4; 2 Samuel 22:5.”

    “God brings a great fish. It is idle to seek its name or to consider zoological possibilities with a view to identifying its species...The real question is: Of what is this the sign?”

    “For some it is the sign of grace...But to argue thus is first of all to neglect the text...The fish was sent primarily to swallow up. The sea-monster, the dragon, or the beast that comes up out of the sea is a well-defined entity in Scripture.”

    “In every case, we have a power of destruction...We also know that this unleashed force is obliged to obey when God commands...We should know, too, that God will destroy this power, since it has no more place in the new creation.”

You can see that this is no mere devotional book. And yet it is not really a scholarly tome either or a dry book of theology. It is filled with sometimes controversial statements that cause one to spend time contemplating their meaning. It is in a class all by itself.

Turning lastly to resources on the internet, we come across this statement from Matthew Henry's Commentary regarding Jonah 2:1:

• I. When he prayed (v. 1): Then Jonah prayed; then when he was in trouble, under the sense of sin and the tokens of God's displeasure against him for sin, then he prayed. Note, When we are in affliction we must pray; then we have occasion to pray, then we have errands at the throne of grace and business there; then, if ever, we shall have a disposition to pray, when the heart is humbled, and softened, and made serious; then God expects it (in their affliction they will seek me early, seek me earnestly); and, though we bring our afflictions upon ourselves by our sins, yet, if we pray in humility and godly sincerity, we shall be welcome to the throne of grace, as Jonah was. Then when he was in a hopeful way of deliverance, being preserved alive by miracle, a plain indication that he was reserved for further mercy, then he prayed. An apprehension of God's good-will to us, notwithstanding our offences, gives us boldness of access to him, and opens the lips in prayer which were closed with the sense of guilt and dread of wrath.

Notice that Henry does not even allude to the historical accuracy or context of the text, but instead jumps in immediately with devotional thoughts regarding it. This is fairly typical of some of the older commentaries you can find on-line that are now in the public domain. I have nothing against devotional commentaries in general, but they should also wrestle with some of the practical questions concerning the text itself before attempting to apply it to a current audience. Another factor that is somewhat off-putting for modern readers is the rather stilted and archaic (to our way of thinking) manner in which they express their thoughts.

Also on-line are a few more modern commentators, who tend to be church pastors rather than seminary professors. These are generally a little more understandable than the older generation of commentaries and a little more likely to introduce facts relating to the history and context behind the passages being discussed. However, their emphasis remains on the devotional and practical applications of the Scripture, and many of these “commentaries” are in fact better described as sermon notes and summaries.

 

"GLORY TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST AND ON EARTH PEACE, GOOD WILL TO MEN" (LUKE 2:14)

We have all heard these familiar words words from the King James Version before, especially at Christmas time. Even those who have never read the Bible will recognize them from the Charlie Brown Christmas special. They appear to express the comfortable thought that God gave His Son to the earth so that everyone would be at peace and receive God's blessings. But that isn't exactly what has happened, which is understandable since the above words were not at all what Luke or the angels had in mind.

Let's jump ahead several hundred years and see what more modern translations have to say:

    “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.” (NASB, RSV, TEV)

    “Glory to God in the highest Heaven! Peace upon earth among men of goodwill!” (J.B. Phillips)

This second group of translations narrows the scope of God's blessings down to just those who do what God approves of. That could easily be understood to say that we need to earn salvation by our deeds. So consider lastly this third category of renderings below:

    “Glory to God in highest heaven, and on earth his peace for men on whom his favor rests.” (NEB, NIV)

    “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace among those whom he favors!” (NRSV)

    “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and peace to men who enjoy his favour.” (JB)

Here we have three translations that appear to teach the concept of salvation by God's grace alone. So who is correct?

It turns out that there are actually two issues to consider here: one is textual and the other is a matter of translation. In dealing with the textual question (i.e. which Greek text to use in the first place as the basis of translation), I always turn first to the standard work on this subject, Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. He discusses this issue in some depth, beginning with the observation that the different readings depend on whether the last word in this song of praise is eudokia (as reflected in KJV) or eudokias (as in most other translations). In the ancient manuscripts, the final “s” in the second word would have appeared as a very tiny sign little bigger than a dot. Thus, it could have been easily overlooked by copyists over the years.

So one next needs to consider how many manuscripts in our knowledge have which reading and the relative age of those manuscripts, considering that the earliest set of manuscripts are more likely to be correct. It turns out that the five earliest copies of Luke's Gospel have the “s” present, and this reading is also supported by the Latin Vulgate and citations from the early Church Fathers. (Fitzmyer)

That leaves us with the last two groups of translations to chose between. Metzger clearly opts for the final interpretation: “The meaning seems to be, not that divine peace can be bestowed only where human good will is already present, but that at the birth of the Saviour God's peace rests on those whom he has chosen in accord with his good pleasure.” Originally, the concept of “God's good pleasure” was rejected since it did not appear to be a valid Hebrew expression. Since that time, however, the phrase “of his [God's] good pleasure” or its equivalent has been recognized in the hymns of the Dead Sea community, Luke's own phrase in 10:21, and the Septuagint version of Psalm 51:18. (Fitzmyer)

Most other commentators come to the same conclusion, as attested by the following:

    “The important point is that the NT usage indicates that the good will originates from God and not from men.” (Porter)

    “God's peace is not given to men because they deserve it, but to the undeserving whom He has freely and graciously chosen to favour.” (Marshall)

    “The meaning is that peace on earth will in the highest instance become a reality among those who are blessed by the good-will and gracious favour of God, those redeemed in Christ, those ordained to full salvation as children of God.” (Geldenhuys)

So even if we cannot contemplate the universal salvation of all humanity as a surety, we can rest on the assured fact that we are not the ones ultimately responsible for earning our places in heaven.

 

AN UN-FACTUAL CHRISTMAS LESSON

At the risk of being considered a Scrooge, I am submitting this post.

Most Christians can almost recite all the details of Luke's nativity story by heart. Also, we are generally well aware of some of the legendary details that have been tacked on to the Christmas story as presented in the Gospels. These include such things as Jesus' birth happening at midnight and the wise men arriving soon after the birth. But recently, I got a real surprise when I became aware of a brand new slant on Luke 2:1-20 filled with details that I had never heard before in my literally 70-plus years of attending church. At first I was really intrigued to learn more, but then I started to become a little dubious the more I considered it. My further investigations convinced me that the author must have gotten most of his details from some rather unreliable sources. So as a cautionary tale showing that you need to be well-grounded in Scripture and not accept new teachings without checking them out at the source, here are some of the main points he presented as facts:

    A. Only the sheep raised in the area of Bethlehem were considered acceptable for sacrifice in the Temple.

    B. Thus, the shepherds that were present in Luke's story were actually called shepherd-priests.

    C. Each first-born lamb was taken soon after birth and swaddled in strips of cloth and placed in a manger to prevent it from moving around and blemishing itself.

    D. The lamb would then remain in the manger until a priest could arrive and inspect it to see if it had any blemishes that would render it unsuitable for sacrifice.

My first suspicions were aroused when I considered that since this formed such a perfect parallel with Christ's life and death, why hadn't more pastors used it as a sermon illustration before? As they say, “If something appears to be too good to be true, chances are that it is.”

Secondly, I considered the reasonableness of the four statements above:

    A. If only sheep raised in Bethlehem were considered acceptable sacrifices, how could Israelites outside of Bethlehem present the first-born of their own flocks as required?

    B. The term “priest” was a rather specific term not even used for the Levites who served in the temple. How in the world would it have been applied to a class of people like shepherds, who were widely considered to be not only among the “simple” (Geldenhuys), “poor” (Craddock), “lowly and ordinary” (Marshall), but also considered to be basically dishonest (Ellis and many others)? Actually, these descriptions fit perfectly the sort of people that Luke goes out of his way to include in his account of Jesus' life. The only motive I can think of for some well-meaning person turning the humble shepherds into noble priests is to eliminate the suspicion that a shepherd's witness would not be considered unreliable.

    C. Anyone who has ever watched a zoo or vet show on TV (and my wife and I are addicted to them) will know that it is vital that newborn herd animals be able to get up and walk by themselves and nurse within the first 24 hours of birth or they will either soon die or be extremely sickly. So to immediately wrap them up to “keep them safe” is a sure recipe for death. Of course, that wouldn't be a problem if they were to be sacrificed within a day or two (more of that below). The other illogical point is that mangers were usually made of stone (there is actually a picture of one in the Winter 2021 edition of Biblical Archaeology Review magazine), and there was far more likelihood of a lamb injuring itself by thrashing its head back and forth in the manger than if it were just left on the straw or hay where it was born.

    D. In respect to my comment above, I wondered how soon a priest could actually visit all the birthing places in the region of Bethlehem. In addition, I couldn't remember whether the biblical laws stated that it was really necessary for the first-born to be unblemished for sacrifice. Finally, as far as I knew, sacrificial animals for the temple were almost always examined in the temple environs, not out on the field.

Then I scrolled through the internet, where I readily came across a number of sites, Catholic and a range of Protestant sources, that repeated the same basic scenario described above. But none of them gave any supporting evidence at all. So I turned to some more reputable sources for a change. The vast majority of the roughly twenty scholarly books I consulted didn't mention even one of the four points above. To me, this was at least some powerful negative evidence that something was not quite right. But there were two or three commentaries that gave hints as to where the first two contentions above might have originally come from.

Items A and B: It apparently all stemmed from a misunderstanding of a Jewish writing called Mishnah Shekalim (section 7:4) dating from approximately 200-225 years after the birth of Christ. The text of this verse can be found on a Jewish internet site called Sefaria, and the portion of interest refers to sacrificial “beasts which are found in Jerusalem as far as Migdal Eder and within the same distance in any direction.” Concerning this relatively late document, Raymond Brown in his exhaustive study The Birth of the Messiah states that “we are told that animals found between Jerusalem and Migdal Eder were used for Temple sacrifice, and this tradition has been invoked as support for the idea that the Lucan shepherds in the region near Bethlehem were especially sacred shepherds. I see no hint of that...Shekelim may be speaking of strays (perhaps escaped from the Temple pens) rather than of regular flocks.”
Secondly, where exactly is this town of Migdal Eder (translated as Tower of the Flock) located? It turns out that no one really knows for sure, but here are some educated surmises:

Fitzmyer in his massive two-volume commentary on Luke's Gospel says, “Gen 35:21 makes it clear that Migdal Eder is at some distance from Bethlehem...and Mic 4:8 uses it as a parallel name for Zion / Jerusalem.” Wenham adds that later traditions place this town either 3 miles SE or one-and-a-half miles east of Bethlehem. Since Bethlehem was located 5 miles south of Jerusalem, application of the Shekalim document would mean that these “special” animals had to be chosen from either those in the immediate area of Jerusalem (which would exclude all those near Bethlehem) or from any area located within about a 6-8 mile radius from Jerusalem (which would include a large portion of all Judea, not just Bethlehem).

So where did we get the huge leap of logic between the above data and the determination of Bethlehem as the only place from which animal sacrifices could be obtained? Chad Bird, one of the more responsible Bible commentators posting on the internet, lays the responsibility at the feet of Alfred Edersheim in the classic 1883 study The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.

Item C: Next, what about the necessity of keeping the lamb swaddled in a cradle so that it wouldn't be blemished before being part of a First-Fruit Sacrifice? John Durham, in his commentary on Exodus, explains that “the firstborn animals were to be given on the eighth day, that is, only when the animal could safely be taken from its mother.” See Exodus 22:29-30. A swaddled lamb kept in a manger would have been long dead by that time.

Chad Bird calls this “the most audacious of the claims.” He goes on to say, “What is the evidence for this claim? There is none. Zero...What we have is the fictional creation of someone's mind.”

But, one might ask, couldn't the newborn lamb have been examined soon after birth by a priest for blemishes and then released to nurse for the eight days before being taken to the temple? The answer is “no,” since, as R.E. Reid explains in his helpful summary of temple sacrifice practices found in Dictionary of New Testament Background, lambs that needed to be blemish-free were to be examined by the priest in the temple the night before being sacrificed. The reason for this practice was that animals brought in from outside Jerusalem could be disqualified by even a small injury on the way there.

Item D: This brings up the larger issue as to whether first-born animal sacrifices even had to be blemish-free in the first place. Again, Reid in his summary of biblical injunctions regarding temple sacrifices shows that the only blemish-free sacrifices were those in the Morning and Evening Burnt sacrifices, Sabbath sacrifice, and Passover sacrifice. And in each of these cases, it was stipulated that a one-year old lamb was to be used, not a newborn one. When it comes to the regulations regarding the First-Fruit sacrifices (found in Exodus 22:29-30; 23:16,19; 34:22; and Numbers 18:12-19), there is no mention of the necessity for the animal to be free from blemishes. So the basic scenario that is circulating freely on the internet, and no doubt finding its way into numerous Christmas messages, is false from start to finish.

But does all of the above erase the picture of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb of God? Not at all. That identification is firmly established in NT passages such as I Corinthians 5:7; I Peter 1:19; and Revelation 5:9-13. The first of these scriptures makes it clear that Jesus' death was equivalent to the Passover sacrifice, not the First-Fruit sacrifice. In full keeping with that identification, Peter calls him free of defect and blemish, and the book of Revelation calls him “worthy.” These are apt descriptions of the OT Passover sacrifice, not the First-Fruits offerings at all. So commentators and preachers should save any Christ-lamb parallels for Easter, not bring them up at Christmas time.

 

CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE GOSPELS AND THE EPISTLES

In the following pairs of Scriptures, one might expect some differences in ideas since the authors of the epistles are addressing the church while the Gospel writers dealt with Jesus' own words in an earlier setting before the church was born. In the cases below, the best resolution usually relies on a complete understanding of the background behind each saying.

“We are worthless servants.” (Luke 17:10)

“We are his workmanship.” (Ephesians 2:10)

Luke 17:10 is Jesus' comment coming at the end of a short parable which is based on a comparison with the master-slave relationship in the Roman Empire at the time. Marshall explains that it is directed against the typical attitude of the Pharisees who said that they were going beyond what God required of them. And therefore they should obtain special rewards from Him. In contrast, Jesus says that all of us are but lowly servants of God who can never put Him under an obligation to us by our actions.

This scriptural mindset runs totally counter to that of a “name it, claim it” believer I knew who said that there were many promises in Scripture to which we could hold God accountable, and He would have no choice but to follow through with them.

Taken in its full context rather than in the truncated form above, Ephesians 2:10 actually confirms Luke 17:10 rather than contradicting it. In the first place, the previous verses 8 and 9 make it abundantly clear that there is nothing in ourselves to be boastful about since it is all God working in us. And what he created us for was nothing more or less than to serve him as a dutiful slave since “God has ordained those works for us to walk in” as the conclusion to Ephesians 2:10 states.

“Take up my yoke and learn from me.” (Matthew 11:29)

“Don't submit again to a yoke.” (Galatians 5:1)

Since the word “yoke” obviously appears in both these passages as a metaphor, I turned to The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery for its comment. There it was pointed out that there are more than fifty references to “yokes” in the Bible, most of them figurative, not literal. So keep in mind that a given word can actually have a number of figurative meanings depending on the context. In the cases above, the image in Matthew 11 is a positive one representing “legitimate discipline in a person's life” while in Galatians 5 it stands for “oppressive subservience” or “bondage.” Specifically, Paul is referring to those Christians who return to the ceremonial law of the OT. By contrast, those who take up Christ's light yoke are trading it for the heavy yoke of sin that hangs on their neck. As Bob Dylan sang, “You've gotta serve somebody; it may be the Devil and it may be the Lord, but you've gotta serve somebody.”

“The Father judges impartially according to each one's works.” (I Peter 1:17)

“The Father, in fact, judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son.” (John 5:22)

The simple answer to this quandary is resolved by what Ellis calls “a delegation of authority.” Other commentators elaborate this theme:

Morris: “This was something new to Jews. They held that the Father was the judge of all men...Jesus tells them now that the Father will exercise his prerogative of judging through the Son.” This same fact is also taught in Acts 17:31 where Paul tells the Greeks that God “has fixed a day one which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed...”

Brown: “Jesus is the judge, for the Father has turned over the power of judgment to the Son.”

Borchert: “The absolute dependence of the Son upon the Father means that the decision-making process or evaluation has been given to the Son. As a result, the Father does not need to judge.”

Seifrid: “The book of Revelation stressed that it is supremely right that Jesus, who suffered innocently and thereby secured salvation, should be the agent of divine judgment (e.g. Rev 1:4-7; 5:9-10). Jesus' resurrection and ascension signify God's vindication of his messianic claims and place him in a role that otherwise was reserved for God alone (Acts 10:42; 17:30-31).”

In fact, one can take this idea of delegation even one step further since in Matthew 19:28, Jesus promises the apostles that they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. In addition, Paul tells us in I Corinthians 6

 

THOMAS: PESSIMISTIC BUT FEARLESS BELIEVER

Thomas figures in three passages found in the Gospel of John, all relating to death in one way to another. Unfortunately for his lasting reputation, Thomas is only known for the last episode, which has earned him the totally undeserved reputation as being a doubter. I will try to correct that mistake in the few words below.

In John 10, we learn that the Jews in Jerusalem had tried unsuccessfully to stone Jesus, and so he had withdrawn to the other side of the Jordan. However, in John 11 Jesus learns of Lazarus' death and announces his intention to go to Bethany. At this point, the apostles try to dissuade him due to the dangers involved. It is only when Thomas stands up and rallies the others by saying, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.” It is not exactly the sort of pep talk that most people would chose for that situation, but it was effective nevertheless. I think we can see two characteristics clearly from those few words. Thomas expects the absolute worst to happen, but he doesn't care since he is fully prepared to die in order to follow Jesus wherever He goes. In other words, he is pessimistic by nature but it does not at all impede him from believing in Jesus with all his heart.

In John 14, we hear from Thomas again. Jesus says that he is going to his Father's house to prepare a place for the apostles. Thomas becomes worried because he doesn't know how they are to follow him if they don't know the way. Thomas' question is consistent with his willingness to die with Christ; he just wants to know how he is to go about it.

Finally we come to the notorious episode (John 20) where Thomas “doubts” that Christ has indeed risen. The first point to make is that Thomas was by no means alone in doubting the resurrection; the apostles in general refused to believe the women's story of the empty tomb.

Verse 19 tells us that when the resurrected Jesus appeared to the apostles, they are in Jerusalem, but behind locked doors since they were afraid of dying at the hands of the hostile Jews. Verse 24 informs us that all but Thomas were present at that time. Have you ever asked yourself where Thomas was at the time? It is sheer speculation on my part, but I believe it was entirely possible that he was the one who had volunteered to risk going out and buying provisions for the others and gathering the latest news from the outside. We know that he had not fled town since a week later he is found with the others (v. 26). If so, then it would be perfectly consistent with the actions of one who had talked the others into going to Jerusalem on an earlier occasion despite the dangers.

Lastly, there is his doubt that the others truly saw the resurrected Jesus. This has been attributed to his total lack of faith, but I prefer to see it as the natural reaction of the classic pessimist who always thinks the worst so that he will never be disappointed. Note that when Jesus really does appear, Thomas never does need to feel the wounds to be convinced. And Jesus doesn't really bawl him out for his lack of belief, but uses Thomas as an object lesson for those of us who believe even though we haven't seen.

As a final example of Thomas' faith, there is his pronouncement: “My Lord and my God.” Other apostles had called Jesus their Lord or the Son of God, but it took Thomas to confess that the risen Christ was God Himself. I hardly think that “doubter” adequately describes Thomas at all.

 

SIMON PETER: TRAILBLAZER WITH SECOND THOUGHTS

There is much to say regarding Peter as the obvious choice to be the leader of the apostles that has already been said before. So I would just like to point out a few of his characteristics that have been somewhat neglected.

There are at least two things needed to make a good leader. Peter had only one of these. The first requirement is that a good leader must be a good follower. This is a lesson that many leaders and would-be leaders never learn to master. And it was obviously a problem that Peter wrestled with. Just to mention a few occasions when Peter clearly overstepped his bounds and went marching ahead of his true leader, Jesus:

Of course, there is the famous “Get thee behind me, Satan” episode where Peter actually argued with Jesus against His future death that would bring salvation to the world. (Matthew 16) I wonder whether Peter later in life ever thought back to his actions at that point and reflected what would have happened if he had had his way instead of Jesus having God's way.

At the Mount of Transfiguration, it is Peter who blurts out his intention to build three booths, one each for Elijah, Moses and Jesus. Peter totally misses the spiritual significance of what he has just witnessed as well as being totally off-base concerning the duration of the vision and the superior position that Jesus held in relation to the other two personages. (Mark 9)

Then there is the time when Jesus proceeds to wash the apostles' feet and Peter roundly pronounces that he will never let his feet be washed by him. (John 13)

At Jesus' arrest at the Garden of Gethsemane it is Peter who cuts off the ear of Malchus, which easily could have led to the arrest and probable death of all the apostles if Jesus had not intervened. (John 18:10-11)

You would think that Peter would have learned his lesson by this time, but in Acts 10 we see him again arguing directly with God when in a vision he was told to eat the unclean animals lowered down in a sheet. The only other biblical character that I know of who had such similar nerve was the prophet Ezekiel who refused to eat food cooked over a fire of dung, even though God was the one commanding it. In that particular case, God actually compromised in the face of the prophet's sensibilities. (Ezekiel 4) In Acts, it was Peter who eventually gave in and discerned the spiritual lesson God was teaching him regarding the way he had been viewing the Gentiles.

And that story points to a second important qualification for a good leader: recognizing when you are wrong and being able to admit it to others. When one does not have this ability, you end up with an egotistical dictator instead of a true leader. In regard to admitting your errors, Peter passed with flying colors. It is most evident in the foot-washing episode where Peter refuses to let Jesus wash his feet. But after Jesus' comment that in that case Peter will have no part in him, Peter replies, “Then Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and head.” (John 13:3-9)

It has often been said that a moving vehicle is easier to steer than a stationary one, and Peter certainly was a mover. And he was also willing, if somewhat reluctantly, to be steered by Jesus. There are two other interesting cases when Peter actually started off in the right direction, but then made an about face.

Of course, there is the time when Peter sees Jesus walking on the water, and then steps off the boat to try it himself. He begins full of faith, but soon loses it and starts to sink until Jesus rescues him.

After Jesus' arrest and during his trial, it was Peter along with one other disciple who followed right into the courtyard of the high priest when the other apostles had all scattered in order to save themselves. But Peter soon became afraid that his own identity as one of Jesus' followers would be exposed, causing him to deny the Lord three times. (Mark 14:66-72) But then he flip-flopped again by sincerely repenting and demonstrating it with his subsequent life devoted to Christ.

This inconsistent behavior that at least ended up well is repeated after Jesus' resurrection when Peter becomes one of the first Jewish Christians to carry out a ministry to the Gentiles and converts Cornelius and his family. (Acts 10) Peter actually becomes a prime spokesman for the Gentiles in front of the Jerusalem church. (Acts 11) However, later Peter withdraws from table fellowship with the Gentile Christians for fear of what the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem will think and Paul has to chastise him. (Galatians 2:11-14)

Concerning this inconsistency, Frank Goodwin notes: “This is the same Peter who could vow undying loyalty to his Lord, deny him, and repent, all in a few hours, who here forgets his boasted liberality and under the influence of the bigoted followers of James becomes a narrow Jew again for fear...The impetuous, vacillating, blundering, cowardly Peter is rebuked face to face by the righteously indignant Paul, that when he is 'converted,' if he is not not able to strengthen his brethren, he at least may not prove a hindrance to the cause of liberty.”

I actually think that the most accurate portrait of Peter outside of the Bible is when he appears in the guise of a tiny sword-carrying mouse named Reepicheep (try reading in backwards, leaving out some of the mouse squeaks) in C.S. Lewis' Prince Caspian and The Voyage of the Dawn Treader – part of the Narnia Chronicles. He is always charging out ahead against all odds, and in the final book in the series, The Last Battle, he is the one at the gates of “heaven” greeting the other characters in the books.

 

I CORINTHIANS 6:3 - JUDGING ANGELS

“Do you not know that the saints will judge angels?”

This verse is one of Paul's most obscure statements and appears to come out of the clear blue with no prior antecedent. And to make it worse, he says that the Corinthians already know this fact. Since it doesn't appear in the Old Testament or the Gospels, it must be something that Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, had told them earlier. The only hints we get of this revelation outside of this passage are found in Jude 6 and II Peter 2:4 where we are informed that the angels who sinned will be judged on “the great day.”

A few things can be said for certain concerning this verse if we look at the surrounding context of Paul's words. He has been criticizing the Corinthians for resorting to the civil courts to decide disputes among themselves. He then uses an argument from the greater to the lesser – If they are considered capable of judging the world and the angels, shouldn't they be competent enough to settle their own disputes? But beyond this point, there is a mystery hanging over I Corinthians 6:3 concerning the nature of the judging, the identity of the angels involved, and the timing of this event. I was hopeful that knowledgeable commentators would be able to shed more light on the situation, but what I found was not exactly definitive.

    Horsely says, without reference or further clarification, that this is “Paul's variation on a Jewish apocalyptic belief that the faithful righteous would participate in the divine judgment at the end of days.”

    Hillyer suggests that this “is based perhaps on Dn. 7:18, where sharing the kingdom would involve sharing the king's authority.” That particular passage reads, “The holy ones of the Most High will receive the kingdom and possess it forever and ever.” But the phrase “holy ones” could conceivably refer to the angels themselves rather than believers.

    Fee notes that the apocalyptic book I Enoch is sometimes claimed to be the basis for Paul's belief. However, he adds that “the text in I Enoch 91:15 that is often cited here is corrupt: it is not clear whether the angels are being judged or doing the judging.”

    Hodge: As kings were always judges...to rule and to judge are in Scripture often convertible terms. So the case before us may mean to be exalted above the angels, and preside over them...This explanation avoids the difficulty of supposing that good angels are to be called into judgment and is consistent with what the Bible teaches of the subordination of angels to Christ and to the church in him.” This explanation may possibly eliminate one problem, but even there Paul is not saying that we will judge all angels good and bad. But Hodge's reasoning involves at least two big assumptions and must remain unproven.

The above does, however, bring up the question as to which category of angels will be judged. And the jury is still out on that question, as you can see from the comments below:

Orr and Walther say that the whole background to this passage comes from “the Jewish apocalyptic notion that some angels rebelled against God and were cast out of heaven along with Satan.” On the other hand, Grosheide states, “These must be the good angels for Paul always means them when he speaks of angels without qualification.” And finally, we have Reid's non-committal reading: “While it is not certain whether the angels to be judged are good or evil, the more likely interpretation is that Paul was referring to the judgment of evil powers.” Elsewhere, Reid notes that the angels “appear to be in some sense culpable.”

As to our qualification to serve as judges over angels, whether good or bad, this has been expressed variously by different scholars, who, however, are in basic agreement with one another:

    Orr and Walther: “Paul elevates the saints to a position that is of almost the same dignity as that of Christ undoubtedly because the church is the habitation of the Spirit. The community of believers is therefore no mere human society.”

    Grosheide: “Believers will participate in that judgment. That implies that they are above the angels, they will have been acquitted already and participate in the judgment of angels.”

    Concerning when this judging will take place, Payne places the event in either the millennium, as part of the final judgment, or after it. Walvoord is more certain and confidently places it within the millennial period on earth. Much depends on one's particular eschatological view.

    Hockema issues a final warning to the reader: “Herman Bavinck, in commenting on this passage, says that we must not weaken this statement to mean a mere approval by the saints of the judgment of Christ, but must understand it as teaching that the saints shall indeed take part in judging the world and the angels.”

 

IDIOMS IN THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL

Each language and culture has its own unique set of figurative idioms, which are sometimes incomprehensible to those outside that background. For example, it has been said that England and America are two countries divided by a common language. I have heard the English expression “sticky wicket” before but don't really know what it means other than the fact that it originally was a cricket term. On the other hand, just consider all the American expressions that came from baseball parlance but are often applied to entirely different situations: hit a home run, couldn't even get to first base, knocked it out of the park, threw him a curve ball, three strikes against her, home free, etc. Unless an Englishman was familiar with the Great American Pastime, he might be totally confused by these expressions.

The Hebrew language is no exception, and I thumbed through the first part of Ezekiel noting a number of expressions that I suspected might be idiomatic. However, after consulting commentaries on Ezekiel I was able to eliminate some from further consideration.

For example, Ezek. 27:10 talks about warriors hanging up their shields and helmets in Tyre. It turns out that this may or may not have been a literal event, but the gist of the meaning can be readily discerned by looking at the following phrase in that poetic verse. It gives the literal implication of the hanging of shields and helmets, i.e. to endow the city with splendor. This poetic construction is called emblematic parallelism. The same basic image appears in Song of Songs 4:4 as a symbol of beauty.

Another case was Ezek. 29:18, which talks about every head being made bald and every shoulder rubbed bare. The context for this verse was the conquest of Tyre by Babylon accomplished by the Babylonian soldiers building a causeway from the mainland to the island fortress of Tyre by carrying rocks and sand by hand. So there is no idiomatic expression at all here as I had suspected, only a case of slight hyperbole (exaggeration). While most commentators agree with this interpretation, the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery disagrees and feels that here “the shaving of the head is...evidence of God's judgment...on their enemies.” That certainly may be true elsewhere in Scripture, but probably not in this particular case.

In Ezekiel 24:22 one finds the command “You shall not cover your lips (or mustache).” I assumed that this was some obscure idiom, but what little that commentators had to say on the subject makes me think that this was in fact some actual Jewish practice, perhaps during times of mourning.

A final interesting case is that of Ezek. 22:7. Every translation besides KJV explains that the people had despised, dishonored, or treated with contempt their parents. But the King James Version says that “they set light by father and mother.” I thought that perhaps KJV was rendering an original Hebrew idiom in a literal manner. However, it turns out that those translators replaced the literal “despised” with their own English idiom in use in 1611. This is a good demonstration of the point I made at the start of this post: idioms differ from country to country and can also change with time.

You may note that in some cases below, the apparent surface meaning is the actually exact opposite of the intended one. And in other cases, even if the phrase's meaning is rather obscure, you can often deduce what it means by parallel expressions that follow it or by the context of the verse.

Ezekiel 3:7-9 – “a hard forehead”

Let's start out with an easy one. This one appears to present no problem in understanding since we have an equivalent phrase: “hard-headed,” meaning someone who is stubborn. But in fact, Greenberg explains it as describing one who is “brazen” and feels no shame.

Ezekiel 4:16; 5:16 – “break your staff of bread”

Interestingly, although all commentators agree that this basically means to cut off their food supply, most scholars appear to evade the question as to the origin of the idiom, which also appears in Leviticus 26:26. Block helpfully says, “The derivation of the idiom matteh lehem (lit. 'staff of bread') is not clear. Some derive the idiom from the practice of placing ring-shaped loaves around staves and suspending them to preserve them from mice.”

Ezekiel 6:11 – “clap your hands and stamp your feet”

My immediate thought on reading this was to think that it was the beginning of some sort of dance. I was surprised to learn that Block raised the same thought. But he adds that the truth is “These gestures are instead “nonverbal and verbal exclamation marks, respectively...The common interpretation of the present gesture as an expression of delight [as in Beasley-Murray's assessment] is unlikely for several reasons.” The first one he offers is that elsewhere in Ezekiel (21:14,17; 22:13) clapping the hands denotes an expression of anger. Secondly, in the very next verse is a reference to God's wrath.

F.F. Bruce basically agrees with Block when he states that “these actions express malicious joy in 25:6, but here they express confirmation of the divine oracles,like...the sword-brandishing, thigh-smiting and hand-clapping of 21:8-17.” Bruce's comments well illustrate that the same idiom can have quite different meanings depending on the context in which it is used.

Ezekiel 7:17 – “knees turn to water”

In fact, the literal translation of the Hebrew words reads “knees run with water.” So translators and commentators take one of two approaches to rendering this into understandable English. One approach is that above, in which case our modern equivalent would be something like “knees shake with fear” or knees buckle.” However, looking back at the literal meaning of the phrase, another possibility suggests itself, namely, “knees run with urine.” We would say “so scared that he wet his pants.” If this is the meaning of the idiom then it falls into the category of a euphemism – replacing a concept felt to be too crude or unacceptable to the intended audience with a more polite phrase. Both Block and Greenberg go with the second meaning. In either case, it definitely refers to a physiological reaction to a grave danger.

Ezekiel 11:3,7,11 – “This city is the pot and we/you are the meat.”

This is a really strange comment and can have two diametrically opposed meanings. Block asks the same question that I had: “Is this a cooking pot containing choice cuts of meat, the newly emergent leaders? If so, it is difficult to see how the pot symbolizes the security that the city offers. Or is the pot a storage vessel, a crock, with a tightly fastened lid in which meat was stored securely...? The context supports the latter.”

In fact, this is another example of the flexibility in the meanings that the same idiom can have. Thus, Bruce comments here that the phrase probably means that “we are as safe as meat in a cooking pot. In another context, the proverb might mean 'we are in danger of being cooked alive', but that would not be appropriate here.”

Greenberg brings out another nuance to this expression. Those left in Jerusalem after the first Babylonian attack act as if they are the choice meat left after the gristle and bone has been discarded. Whereas in fact, they are the offal who will be cast out of the pot while the exiles are really the choice meat. The same figure of a cooking pot appears again in Ezekiel 24 in an even more ominous context.

Ezekiel 11:19 – “heart of stone”

This idiom really needs no explanation. “A heart of flesh, unlike a heart of stone, is responsive to the will of God.” (Bruce)

Ezekiel 13:17 – “set your/my face against”

Is this equivalent to dancing cheek to cheek? Probably not, according to all commentators. Block explains that this is actually a “hostile orientation formula...This idiom derives from the common gesture of turning toward the person whom one is addressing.”

Ezekiel 14:8 – “I will make him a sign and a proverb”

The NIV translates this as “an example and a byword.” This phrase reappears elsewhere in the Bible as well. Block expands on its meaning by explaining that “when used negatively, an ot ['sign'] serves as a warning to onlookers. In this instance Israel's fate will provide evidence of God's disposition toward idolaters, and motivate observers to recognize his presence and activity.” Concerning the word “proverb,” he remarks that “the name 'Israel' would become proverbial for divinely imposed disaster.”

Ezekiel 16:21 – “pass through the fire”

To us, this expression might convey the idea of escape from imminent danger, but nothing could be further from the truth. It refers to child immolation – sacrifice by burning. Beasley-Murray explains that though “Josiah stamped out this evil practice for a time, it is likely that it was revived in the desperate days of the siege.” Block says that it means “to submerge it completely in flames, causing it to be consumed.”

Ezekiel 18:6,11,15 – “he that has not eaten on the mountains”

This may sound like a criticism of those who go on outdoor picnics, but it is not. Block calls it “cryptic in nature, alluding to practices that are obviously idolatrous but whose precise natures are not specified.” Greenberg attempts to get more specific: “Mountains are mentioned in 6:13 as the site of idolatrous sacrifices from which meals were eaten.” Such pagan practices were forbidden in passages such as Deuteronomy 12:2-28.

Ezekiel 20:5-6 – God “lifted up his hand to Israel”

To today's audience this would be interpreted as a gesture of greeting. But there is one other context in which one raises a hand – to swear an oath in a court of law. Thus, Greenberg labels it “solemnly swearing.”

Ezekiel 20:37 – “I will cause you to pass under the staff/rod.”

This expression sounds rather ominous, especially after understanding the meaning of “pass through the fire.” But in fact, it is a more ambiguous idiom based on the practice of shepherds counting the sheep by touching them with the staff as they entered the fold. This has been interpreted in a purely positive way as indicating “comfort, protection and security.” (DBI) But Greenberg notes, “The phrase signifies not mere counting...but selection – in Leviticus [27:32f] for dedication, here for destruction.” Bruce also stresses this negative implication and says that the nation will be purged by God from its rebels.

Ezekiel 21:6 – “sigh with the breaking of your loins”

“This acted prophecy is intended to show the way the news of the prophecy will be received.” (Beasley-Murray) The translation above is a good representation of the literal meaning of the Hebrew. But what precisely does it indicate? Block translates it as “with trembling loins,” an indication of total physical collapse. And Greenberg concurs by explaining that the Hebrew word “denotes the the strong musculature that links the upper part of the body with the lower.”

Ezekiel 21:14,17 – “strike my/thy hands together”

We would probably interpret this as clapping with applause. Again, that is the exact opposite of the intent of the author. Block lists seven ways this idiomatic phrase has been interpreted, including such opposites as a gesture of victory after battle and a call for the battle to begin. Greenberg calls it “a

Ezekiel 23:29 – “they shall...take away all your labor”

This literal rendering of the Hebrew sound like a description of paradise in which no one has to work any longer. Again, the idiomatic meaning of the phrase, as all modern translators and commentators agree, is that they will take away all the fruit of your labor – not as pleasant a fate.

Ezekiel 26:20 – “those who descent into the pit”

Anyone who is at all familiar with the Scriptures would have no trouble distinguishing this phrase from a reference to miners. Equivalent phrases found in the Bible are to go down to the earth, to the dust, to the nether abyss, or to Sheol. All mean to die and go to the realm of the dead.

Ezekiel 28:2,17 – “your heart is lifted up”

This phrase certainly implies to us something like a feeling of joy and encouragement, but that is not at all what the Hebrew idiom means. Beasley-Murray explains that the king's “self-exaltation to the status of deity is typical of the pride of the people.” The Anchor Bible translation reads, “Your heart has grown haughty.”