I AND II TIMOTHY: INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERARY STRUCTURE

An unedited version of the analysis below will be sent to anyone requesting it. Just contact me at elmerphd21@hotmail.com.

Unity and Authorship

The initial impression left upon reading these epistles has been expressed as follows:

“There is a lack of studied order, some subjects being treated more than once in the same letter without apparent premeditation.” (Guthrie)

            “The Pastorals are made up of a miscellaneous collection of material. They have no unifying                 theme; there is no development of thought.” (Hanson)

The overall appearance of chaos in approaching the Pastorals is reinforced when one considers how to divide them into smaller literary segments. A survey of ten commentaries on I Timothy revealed no two of them to be in complete agreement on the boundaries of its subsections. The difficulty in precisely dividing the texts into component parts may lie with the style of writing, described by Hendricksen, for II Timothy, as follows:

“There are no sharp divisions. Rather, the emphasis gradually shifts from one point to another. When a new point is made, the old one is not entirely relinquished. The thoughts overlap like shingles on a roof.”

I Timothy

Overall Structure

Despite the above-mentioned problems, not all commentators have despaired of making order out of the diverse material present in these epistles. For example, Wallis takes as his starting point the three doxologies or hymns that punctuate the charges to Timothy in order to reconstruct “a literary pattern that is probably not accidental.” He understates his point again when he says, “The epistle summarized according to this pattern offers a greater unity than is generally recognized.” The present proposal, outlined in Fig. 1, is a variation on Wallis’ structure expanded to highlight the so-called “Household Codes.” Since the formal elements of this letter – a brief introduction (1:1-2) and even briefer conclusion (6:21b) – are practically nonexistent, they are merged with the body.

Figure 1: The Structure of I Timothy

I. Charges to Timothy (1:1-20)

A. “Charge” to Timothy (1:1-5)

B. “Certain persons” (1:6-11)

C. Thanksgiving (1:12-17) – ending “AMEN”

A'. “Charge” to Timothy (1:18-19a)

B'. “Certain persons” (1:19b-20)

II. Household Codes (2:1-3:13)

A. Men—All (2:1-8)

B. Women (2:9-15)

A'. Men–Bishops and Deacons (3:1-13)

III. Instructions to Timothy (3:14-4:16)

A. Instructions (3:14-15)

B. Hymn (3:16)

A'. Instructions (4:1-16)

II'. Household Codes (5:1-22)

A. Older Men (5:1-2)

B. Widows (5:3-16)

A'. Older Men (5:17-22)

I'. Charges to Timothy (5:23-6:21)

A. Advice to Timothy–true wisdom (5:23-25)

B. Servants (6:1-10)

C. False and true teachers (6:11-16) – ending “AMEN”

B'. The Rich (6:17-19)

A'. Advice to Timothy–false wisdom (6:20-21)

Sections I (1:1-20) and I' (5:23-6:21)

The beginning unit in Section I' poses a problem since its admonition in 5:23 to “take a little wine” seems to be a non sequitur. The key to understanding this verse, however, appears to be in its coupling with 5:24-25 as typical wisdom sayings in opposition to the false knowledge mentioned in the parallel section I'A' at 6:20. This so-called knowledge no doubt included aestheticism such as condemned by Paul in I Timothy 4:1-5.

The most prominent similarities between the paired sections I and I' are the doxologies that mark the conclusions of their respective center units, which also contain identical references to God's uniquely innate immortality and the rare designation of “king” for God.

“To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” (I Timothy 1:17)

            “...the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality and dwells in                                     unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal                     dominion. Amen.” (I Timothy 6:15-16)

In addition to the above examples, a number of other thematic and verbal parallels can be cited which appear within 1 Timothy exclusively in these two sections.

The bounds of the remaining sections and their parallel relationships can be similarly defined and defended. The comment of Wallis regarding his proposed organization for I Timothy holds equally for that shown in Fig. 1:

“[T]he whole structure of the epistle is designed to throw into prominence the great hymn of praise [3:16] at the center, which presents succinctly and beautifully the person and work of Christ.” (Wallis)

The centrality of this verse to the whole epistle has been recognized by others. 

II Timothy

There appear to have been few thoroughgoing attempts to find an overall organization for this second epistle to Timothy. The structure proposed in Fig. 2 is an attempt to correct this omission.

Figure 2: The Structure of II Timothy

I. Suffering (1:1-2:13)

Introductory Words (1:1-7)

A. Suffering (1:8-14)

B. Paul and acquaintances (1:15-18)

A'. Suffering (2:1-10)

Concluding Hymn (a faithful saying) (2:11-13)

II. Charges to Timothy (2:14-26)

A. Avoid Disputes (2:14-17a)

B. Paul and acquaintances (2:17b-19)

A'. Avoid Disputes (2:20-26)

II'. Charges to Timothy (3:1-4:8)

A. Last Days (3:1-9)

B. Paul and acquaintances (3:10-17)

A'. Last Days (4:1-8)

I'. Suffering (4:9-22)

B. Paul and acquaintances (4:9-16)

A. Suffering (4:17-18) – hymn ending in “Amen”

B'. Paul and acquaintances (4:19-21)

Final Blessing (4:22)

Note that this pattern results in part from a peculiarity of this letter that sets it apart from its companion epistle: the utilization of concrete examples of individual behaviors, both good and bad, to illustrate some of the general truths being set forth. II Timothy totally lacks those references to particular groups of people within the church that marked I Timothy and helped define its literary structure.

Implications of these Structures

The use of structural analysis as an aid to exegesis is demonstrated in I and II Timothy regarding several controversies surrounding these letters.

Faithful Sayings

Among the many questions involving the Pastorals, a few can be profitably addressed by consideration of structural parallels. One of the most interesting, and longstanding, controversies is the significance of the five denoted “faithful sayings” in the Pastoral Letters since that form of citation is not found in any other Pauline writings. Gundry says that the phrase “introduces early Christian confessions, slogans, and hymns.”  Attempts to encompass all of them around a common theme, such as salvation, have so far failed to be convincing.  A more promising approach is to investigate the structural importance of these marker phrases. By doing so, some direction can be given regarding the exact passages designated in this way in each occurrence.

Alexander

As a second issue to consider, is the Alexander of I Tim. 1:20 the same as Alexander the coppersmith of II Tim. 4:14? Some would answer with a probable “yes”; others are very doubtfu; and yet others feel that there is insufficient evidence to decide. As mentioned earlier, one of the differences in these two letters highlighted by their respective structures is that II Timothy contains more references to specific people. In fact, I Timothy contains, other than the title recipient, only the names of Hymenaeus and Alexander (at 1:20), both cast in a very negative light as having turned away from the faith. These two names occur also in II Timothy along with others concentrated within the five “B” sections of Fig. 2.

Figure 4: Individuals in II Timothy

             Section         Name(s)                                 Description 

            IB                Phygelus, Hermogenes         deserted Paul

            IB                Onesiphorus                         supported Paul

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

IIB              Hymaneus, Philetus              heretical teachers

II'B             Paul, Timothy                         teachers of the truth

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

            I'B               Demas                                      deserted Paul

            I'B               Crescens, Titus                                   news of location

            I'B                Luke, Mark                                              supported Paul

            I'B                Tychicus, Carpus                               news of location

I'B               Alexander the coppersmith    opposed Paul

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

            I'B'              Prisca, Aquila, Onesiphorus              Timothy should greet

            I'B'              Erastus, Trophimus                                      news of location

            I'B'              Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia       send greetings to Timothy

Note that within each division of Fig. 3 the names are arranged with a certain symmetry in mind, considering their individual contexts. If we take this symmetry seriously within the chiastic arrangement of names in I'B above, then Alexander the coppersmith becomes not merely a Jew or Greek who happened to disagree with Paul’s teachings, he is instead paired with Demas, an apparent believer who has deserted the faith. If so, then Alexander the coppersmith of II Timothy closely fits the description of the Alexander mentioned in I Timothy.

“Later Times”

A third controversial subject within the Pastorals involves the phrase “in later times” found in I Timothy 4:1. Several scholars understand this designation differently from “in the last days” of II Timothy 3:1. The former phrase perhaps denotes all events transpiring after Paul leaves while the latter designation has definite eschatological tones. Knight, however, calls these two phrases “virtually synonymous.” In this case, a comparison of the two epistles’ structures (see figs. 1 and 2) is quite enlightening. If one draws a midline to separate the mirror-image halves of each letter, the two particular verses given above fall exactly at the start of the second half of their respective epistles. This parallel placement is strongly indicative of a parallel meaning to the two phrases and reinforces the structural unity of the two letters.

 

"GOD: IS DIVINE EXISTENCE CREDIBLE?" BY DALLAS BURDETTE

First of all, I enjoyed this article if for no other reason than it exposed me to some of Alexander Campbell's thought. I was raised in the Campbellite tradition, but have to admit that I had never read any of his actual words before.

Secondly, I was pleased to see that several of the ideas in this paper echoed points that at the time I was planning to make in my series of talks on Answering Atheists (summarized in several earlier posts).  I spent a little time in that series on the question of where the belief in God came from. Freud attempted to explain that it was not created as a brand new concept outside of our natural senses, but came from the analogy of what we do know through our senses about human fathers. So although I will show that Freud did not have a foolproof argument, there certainly are ways to address Burdette's contention that there was no way mankind could have invented the idea. Another possibility is the more recent concept of the “God gene,” which could probably be used equally by atheists and Christians alike.

I did have a number of fundamental objections to the thrust of the paper. In the first place, it doesn't really concern the credibility of God's existence (as stated in the title) as much as it tries to PROVE His existence. All such attempts are doomed to failure, and I believe that was God's intent in the first place. As Peter Kreeft said (I'm paraphrasing), “God gave us just enough concrete evidence that we could turn to Him in faith, but not so much evidence that no faith was necessary.”

The major methodology used in the paper was the rightly criticized God of the Gaps argument. In other words, scientists can't presently explain A, B or C, therefore we can slip God into those holes in our present knowledge as proof of His existence. Here are two pertinent quotes regarding that approach, from an atheist and a Christian, respectively:

“If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then your God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on.” Neil deGrasse Tyson

“How wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of our knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer

As a concrete example, up to a few year ago, I thought I had a fool-proof argument against the first step of evolution, pre-biotic evolution. As an organic research chemist, the most puzzling thing about animal life is that it is based almost entirely around left-handed amino acids. But I could think of no conceivable way that naturally-occurring racemic mixtures of right- and left- forms could be separated without divine intervention. By the way, this same argument is advanced by Dr. Walter Bradley in Lee Strobel's 2000 book The Case for Christ. Then I decided to canvass the chemical literature since 2000 and found four technical papers demonstrating several astonishingly unexpected ways that such separations could perhaps occur naturally. There was another gap almost filled in.

The apparently old argument against evolution based on the need to simultaneously form a male and female of each species does sound convincing. But I must admit that I know next to nothing about biology. However, to me it is incredible that such a seemingly simple and foolproof argument would exist without biologists addressing it early on. And since Burdette's misunderstanding of basic chemistry (p.10) and the physics of astronomy is fairly obvious, I really have little confidence in his biological arguments either.

Burdette sets up an either/or argument in which one must either be a young earth creationist or an atheist. If one is a theistic evolutionist, then one has rejected the Bible. This is the fallacy of the excluded middle (p. 11, 16). And it is entirely misguided to label evolution as merely a theory, and therefore just a philosophical and political stance (p. 12). Burdette, as well as many other non-scientists, obviously has no conception of what the term “theory” means in a scientific context. To be advanced beyond the status of a hypothesis to that of a theory means that it has been tested again and again and still proves to be the best explanation of the data after many years.

The anthropic argument, including the existence or non-existence of other populated planets, falls short of any sort of proof of God's existence in light of the probably numerous other planets in the universe having the right conditions for life. Atheists can, and have, argued that we just happen to be on one of the planets that by chance does have those conditions.

To demand that scientists totally abandon one of the basic underpinnings of science (which has been described as practical atheism, meaning the working assumption that no supernatural forces will interfere with one's experimentation, whether or not that possibility exists in reality) and replace it with a science derived directly from a particular "literal" understanding of the Bible (i.e., the Hebrew word yom can only mean a 24-hour day), opens up the door to the worst types of pseudo-science such as Creation Science and Flood Geology (p. 14).

 

PARABLES OF THE LOST SHEEP AND LOST COIN (MATTHEW 18:12-14; LUKE 15:4-10)

These two parables along with the Parable of the Lost Son have been called “the heart of the Third Gospel.” (Fitzmyer) They could almost be called a three-part parable. Note that Luke 15:3 says that Jesus told them “this parable.” But Snodgrass points out that based on other NT passages, that is not necessarily so (Mark 12:1 uses the plural but has only one parable). He also sees a possible numerical progression in that they deal, respectively, with 100, 10, and 2 items – with the emphasis on the last. And Bengel feels that the three parables deal, respectively, with the stupid sinner, the sinner ignorant of himself, and the willful sinner. There may be an inclusio in Luke 15 formed by the similar grumblings of the Pharisees and scribes in vv. 1-2 and that of the older brother in vv. 29-30.

That the three obviously belong together is seen especially in their similar conclusions including the words “rejoice,” “lost,” and “found” and in the similar invitations to join in the rejoicing. Joy is because the acceptance of God's word by sinners is a sign that salvation has come, a presaging of God's heavenly banquet. Count von Zinzendorf says, “The essence of Christianity does not consist in being pious but in being joyous.”  The Dictionary of the NT: Jesus and the Gospels says that this emphasis on joy is a contrast to the joyless Pharisees and legal experts in vv. 1-2.  And Carson and Beale note, “The religious rulers of that and the following century spoke more about God's joy over the destruction of the unrighteous than over their salvation.” That attitude unfortunately continues today in some churches. 

The analysis below is heavily dependent on Kyne Snodgrass' excellent book on the parables, Stories With Intent.

The Lost Sheep (Luke 15:1-7)

A slight variation of this parable appears in Matthew 18:10-14. However, the setting is quite different 

in that it is given to his disciples, not to the Pharisees and scribes. This is not at all unusual, as stressed 

earlier since Jesus undoubtedly told the same stories to different audiences in order to make somewhat 

different points. In Matthew's account, Jesus' main point is that the church has a mandate to care for its 

weaker members. Kistemaker applies this to children and others who can be easily misled.

 

The Gospel of Thomas (Saying #107) presents a Gnostic version of this parable, with a different punch 

line. In it,  the shepherd goes after the one lost sheep because it is the biggest one in the flock. After he

has found it, he says to the sheep, “I love you more than the ninety-nine.” Notice how the parable has 

been totally perverted (and probably now hints that the Gnostics themselves represent the favored 

sheep). In Jesus' parable it is the straying sheep who is loved the most, not the best one. Another 

variation appears in the Gnostic writing "The Gospel of Truth." But in this version, the author 

concentrates on the fact that the shepherd counts the 99 on the fingers of his left hand and then moves 

to his right hand when the 100^th sheep has been found. This reflects the Gnostics' preoccupation with 

numerology. 

 

The early church treated it as an allegory with the shepherd representing Jesus coming down to earth to 

save lost humanity and the ninety-nine standing for the angels in heaven.

  

It bothers some readers that the ninety-nine are seemingly abandoned. Marshall says that there is no 

doubt that they were left under someone's charge before the shepherd left. And Bailey voices the 

opinion that a herd of 100 sheep would have had at least two shepherds. Alternatively, the shepherd, if 

he was close to home, could have safely locked the 99 in their pen before leaving. But other 

commentators actually feel that it shows that the shepherd is totally irresponsible or a symbol of risk-

taking. Snodgrass makes the point that “Interpretation based on elements not there is almost certainly 

wrong.” The form of the question in Greek makes it obvious that the expected answer is “Yes, he 

should go after the lost sheep.”

 

Righteousness in this setting is to be taken not as sinlessness but in the OT sense of being in a right 

standing with God or those who place their hope in Him. There is perhaps some irony here in indirectly 

referring to the Pharisees as righteous, although they were certainly righteous in their own minds.

 

Snodgrass sees two main points to this parable: (a) an indictment against the Pharisees and other 

religious authorities for not going after the lost ones and (b) the fact that Jesus will take over this role 

himself.

The Lost Coin (Luke 15:8-10)

This parable has been damned with faint praise as being homely and quaint. The missing coin may have been part of her dowry or attached to a headdress. It was equivalent to one day's wage.

The necessity for a light was because most houses had no windows, just a small hole for ventilation.

Floors were made of stones or packed earth. For example, a coin was found in the cracks between the stones in the remains of a home in Capernaum believed to be Peter's house.

The woman's (God's) diligence is one factor not seen in the two related parables.

The first two parables cover a range of society from a moderately wealthy sheep owner to a moderately poor woman. These parables have no hint of any sin committed or the need for repentance, and yet that point is made in their concluding words. On the other hand, this point would be expected at the end of the third parable, but it is not present. At the same time, the fact that neither the sheep or the coin can repent may indicate that even repentance is a gift of God in that it only occurs once God has sought a sinner out and found him. (International Bible Commentary) Similarly, Snodgrass summarizes, “Salvation is entirely the work of God, in which we are entirely involved.” There is a seeming tension between God's actions and man's response, but Snodgrass questions whether the three parables deal with either of these issues at all. 

The question in v. 8 also assumes a positive answer. The logic is from the lesser to the greater – Even more will God seek to save the lost. Conversely, Snodgrass argues from the greater to the lesser that “If that is the character of our God, it should be our own character as well.”

 

ZEPHANIAH: INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERARY STRUCTURE

 

An unedited version of this analysis will be sent to anyone requesting it. Contact elmerphd21@hotmail.com.

The first controversy to face in deciding how to “rightly divide” this book of prophecy is whether any such controversy exists. Childs states, “There is general agreement on the structure of the book.” Berlin , after reviewing the literature on the subject, comes to quite a different conclusion: “The lack of agreement in dividing so small a body of text is truly amazing.” The latter opinion appears to be much closer to the mark.

A minority view divides the book into six or seven sections, but comparison of four such schemes shows virtually no agreement as to where the lines should be drawn. At the other extreme are those who see only two major divisions, representative of the two major themes of the book: judgment (1:2-3:7 or 3:8) and deliverance (3:8 or 3:9-20). Most commentators have seen Zephaniah as a tripartite scheme with the three sections following, respectively, the traditional prophetic elements of judgments against Judah, judgments against the nations, and pronouncements of hope and salvation. Those opting for a three-part division appear to be evenly split in seeing the first break after 1:18 or 2:3 and the second break at either 2:15 or 3:8. All four possible resulting combinations of opinions are represented in the literature. To muddy the academic waters even further, there are those who would combine either the first or last two of the three divisions together to arrive at a bipartite structure.

Literary Features

            1. The Day of the Lord

It is well recognized that, more than any other OT prophet, Zephaniah narrowed his focus to this one overriding subject, in both its positive and negative aspects. It is then perhaps not accidental that the appearances of the word “day(s)” appear to be carefully placed in the text. Thus, Robertson notes that the specific term “Day of Yahweh” used in vv. 1:7,14 appears to bracket the intervening material and that “day” occurs exactly seven times in the Zephaniah 1:15-16. It should also be noted that “day” also occurs exactly seven times in the text both before and after this passage.

2. Parallels to Other Biblical Material

Although the direction of borrowing is not always obvious, Zephaniah appears to have made extensive use of previous material. As early as Keil, echoes of other prophetic writings were noted in this book “reproducing in a compendious form the fundamental thoughts of judgment and salvation.” Berlin has provided an extensive list of such suspected quotations and influences, especially from Jeremiah. The only pattern revealed by examination of these parallels is that the references to the writings of Habakkuk, Joel and Ezekiel all occur in the opening and closing verses of Zephaniah. The same pattern may be noted in Robertson's list of the similarities between Zephaniah and Deuteronomy; all appear in Zephaniah 1:13-18 and 3:5-20.

The most well recognized biblical parallels found in this book, however, are with the Book of Genesis. As before, most of the correspondences occur at the beginning and ending of Zephaniah.

                        Zephaniah         Genesis

1:2-3                  ch. 1

1:2-3                  ch. 6

1:2-6                  chs. 6-9

                        1:3                     2:7

                        2:5-15               ch. 10

                        3:3-4                 ch. 49

                        3:9-13              11:1-9

                        3:10                  2:13

3. “People”

The two Hebrew words, 'am and gowy, translated “people” appear prominently in Zephaniah. Each occurs exactly seven times in the text, and the two intersect at the passage 2:9-11. The first term generally refers to the Jews alone but, interestingly, its first and final appearances in the book relate to the pagan nations. Judah is thus lumped together with the other nations in terms of its faults and fate. The second term refers only to the Gentiles, who proceed from being not desired (2:1) to being gathered in by God (3:8) in the first and last occurrences of this word in the text, respectively. This important development, the salvation of the nations, is one of the most unusual and dominant features in this book.

4. “Oracle of Yahweh”

In common with the other prophetic literature, Zephaniah stresses that the word he speaks comes not from man but from God. This point is underscored in the text by five occurrences of the phrase “Says the Lord” or “Oracle of Yahweh” bracketed by similar phrases in 1:1 and 3:20 (not coincidentally the first and last verses of the book) to give a total of seven.

5. “Woe”

This key word, so prominent in other prophetic writings, appears only twice in Zephaniah (at 2:5 and 3:1). Although it is not a foolproof indicator, it is one of the few literary clues in the book to signal the possible start of a new section.

6. Similar Beginnings and Endings

Several of the above literary features point to a correspondence between the opening and closing sections of the book. A number of additional parallels have been detected:

Figure 2: Parallels between Zephaniah 1 and 3

Parallel                                             Zeph. 1             Zeph. 3

wordplay on “gather/remove”         1:2-3                  3:18

            Jerusalem’s sins denounced            1:4-13                3:1-7

            “quiet / silent”                                 1:7                     3:17

            social turbulence                             1:9                     3:1-7

            reversal of fortune                          1:10-16              3:14-20

            allusions to man’s haughtiness       1:12,18              3:11

            “warrior”                                        1:14                   3:17

            identical refrain                             1:18b                  3:8d

In fact, there is a whole complex of words such as “gather/remove/jealousy/devour/land” which occurs in Zephaniah exclusively or predominantly in vv. 1:2-18 and 3:8-20. As Robertson states, “So the book of Zephaniah ends where it begins. The prophet opened with a scene of cataclysmic overthrow...The prophet closes with another scene of cosmic scope.” The pictures of the two scenes are, however, quite different in tone in proceeding from despair to hope.

Structure of the Book

Armed with the above observations, we can now tackle the question of the book's overall organization that has divided so many commentators in the past. At first glance, it would appear that some kind of ABA structure best fits the evidence presented to date, with the Oracles to the Nations occupying the center section.

Oracles to the Nations (Zephaniah 2:4-15)

Concentrating on these prophecies first, they are usually broken down by subject as follows:

Against Philistia (2:4-7)

                        Against Moab and Ammon (2:8-11)

                        Against Cush (2:12)

                        Against Assyria (2:13-15)

Two modifications to this outline and a slightly different method of grouping are proposed. First, although Zephaniah 2:4 concerns several locations in Philistia and starts with the word ky, which may be an appropriate way to begin a new subject (if translated “indeed”), it seems more appropriate, in agreement with Berlin, to begin the oracles with the next verse and its warning “Woe.” Next, the structure should reflect the noted similarity between the first and last sections of these oracles. “...the urbanness of Philistia and Nineveh is stressed, in contrast to the grazing lands and animal dens that they will become.” (Berlin)  This similarity is strengthened by occurrence in both subsections of the Hebrew word translated “pasture” or “lie down.”

Another proposed change in the above outline involves Zephaniah 2:11, which should be treated as a separate sub-unit because of (a) its universal scope, (b) its prose character, and (c) the fact that the central appearance of the key words “people” (goyim), “land” ('erets), and the most universal designation for God (elohim) are in this verse.

With these changes, the Oracles to the Nations section can thus be recast as follows:

A. Against Philistia (2:5-7)

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

C. Universal Worship of Yahweh (2:11)

B'. Against Cush (2:12)

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

This scheme also brings out more clearly the geographical basis to the order of the oracles. The center verse is bracketed by nations to the west and east of Judah and by those to the south and north, respectively.

Calls to Repentance (Zephaniah 2:1-4 and 3:1-7)

Working outward in both directions from the “Nations” section, we come across two clear calls to repentance. The first of these units is held together by repetition of the phrase “the day of the wrath of the LORD” and repeated commands to the people. The second section is unified in part by use of the words “accept correction” at 3:2 and 3:7. Dorsey expands on this inclusio and pairs other verses by their use of similar language to yield the following symmetrical architecture:

A. “city” (3:1)

B. “take correction” (3:2)

C. “into its midst,” “judge / justice,” “morning” (3:3)

D. CENTER: corrupt prophets and priests (3:4)

C'. “in its midst,” “judge / justice,” “morning” (3:5)

A'. “city” (3:6)

B'. “take correction” (3:7)

The Day of the Lord (Zephaniah 1:2-18 and 3:8-20)

Remaining to be discussed are the two major sections that bracket the book. Without rehearsing the many parallel words and phrases already noted, the following overall observations are in order: (a) both units are addressed primarily to the people of Judah, unlike the central prophecies to the Gentile nations; (b) both have as their major theme the coming of the Day of the Lord; (c) both are structured with worldwide, cataclysmic scenes bracketing the central injunctions to Judah; and (d) comparison of the commands in these two sections shows an interesting correspondence between “be silent/wail” (1:7,11) and “sing/shout/rejoice” (3:14). This last example demonstrates that, in spite of the similarities between the sections, there is also a deliberate contrast between the overall tones of each. They respectively emphasize the negative and positive aspects of the coming Day of Yahweh.

Overall Structure

The entire organization of the book can now be pictured as follows:

Figure 3: The Structure of the Book of Zephaniah

Superscription (1:1)

I. The Day of the Lord: Judgment (1:2-18)

A. Universal Events (1:2-3)

B. Against Judah (1:4-13)

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

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

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

A. Against Philistia (2:5-7)

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

                C. Universal Worship of Yahweh (2:11)

B'. Against Cush (2:12)

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

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

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

                        A. Universal Events (3:8-10)

                                    B. Regarding Judah (3:11-18)

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

Final Observations

By studying Fig. 3, one reason becomes clear for the lack of agreement among scholars regarding the structure of this book. Many of the variations described in the introduction to this chapter can be seen to arise from attaching either the first or second Call to Repentance onto the Oracles to the Nations section.

The emphasis on Yahweh’s omnipotence over all events and nations that is found in the central verse of Zephaniah, 2:11, is echoed by the inclusio formed from the first and last words of the book:

“The word of Yahweh” (1:1)

            “Says Yahweh” (3:20)

Also, in light of the noted parallels with Genesis, we have a reminder that the Word brought the world into existence and this same Word will usher in the events of the last days.

 

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS: MORAL TEACHINGS

The following "contradictions" come off of an Islamic site on the internet. They all involve moral teachings found in the Bible.

Hatred to the Edomite forbidden: Deuteronomy 23:7

Hatred to the Edomite sanctioned: II Kings 14:3, 7

The episode in II Kings occurred hundreds of years after the pronouncement in Deuteronomy, and by that time the Edomites had proved themselves to be enemies of Judah. In addition, the war against the Edomites in II Kings 14 was carried out at the command of King Amaziah, not God. And verse 3 specifically says that God did not approve of all Amaziah's actions.

The blood-shedder must die: Genesis 9:5-6

The blood-shedder must not die: Genesis 4:15

Genesis 9 lays down the general law for the people to follow in the future regarding capital punishment for the crime of murder. More details are given in Numbers 36:30-34 making sure that a proper trial is first held. However, the particular case of Cain is in God's hands alone, not man's. Cain is indeed cursed, and God says that he will have to pay for his sin eventually, but not at the hand of man. It is a grave mistake to assume that God, in his omniscience, has to follow the exact rules that He institutes for His fallible people. We don't know why God spared Cain for a time period, but we can assume that it has to do with a plan He had in mind for him and his descendants.

Making of images forbidden: Exodus 20:4

Making of images commanded: Exodus 25:18, 20

If Exodus 20:4 existed by itself in a vacuum, it would even forbid any kind of art. But verse 5 clarifies what kind of image is in mind, an image that is worshiped. Thus, the decoration of the ark with the image of a cherubim in Exodus 25 does not at all contradict this injunction since nowhere are the people commanded to worship it.

The author of this contradiction could have also cited Numbers 21 where God himself orders the image of a snake to be lifted up and tells the people to look on it and they will be healed of their injuries. Three comments: (a) they were not told to worship it, (b) this was a type of Jesus being crucified on the cross to save us of our sins for all who “look on” him, and (c) when later on the people did begin to worship the snake image, King Hoshea had it destroyed.

Improvidence enjoined: Matthew 6:28, 31, 34; Luke 6:30, 35; Luke 12:30

Improvidence condemned: I Timothy 5:8; Proverbs 13:22

I first had to look up the definition of “improvidence” since it is not a word we commonly use. It means acting rashly without thinking things through. The two groups of Scripture given above actually represent two different situations. The first group concerns our giving attitude toward others and our proper reliance on God to meet our individual needs. The second group also concerns love toward others, but this time involving our duty to provide for our family's needs. In that sense, we are to act as God does toward us.

Anger approved: Ephesians 4:26

Anger disapproved: Ecclesiastes 7:9; Proverbs 22:24; James 1:20

In terms of the second group of Scriptures, they all say the same thing: don't get angry quickly and don't associate with those who do so on a regular basis. Notice that none of them says to avoid anger, just to keep it in check. Turning to Ephesians 4:26, we get the consistent message there also: you can get angry but don't let it fester inside of you.

Judging of others forbidden: Matthew 7:1-2

Judging of others approved: I Corinthians 6:2-4; 5:12

Jesus, in Matthew 7:1-2, explains that individual believers are in no position to rightly judge the behavior of their brothers and sisters because of the blinders that are on their own eyes. I Corinthians 5 gives the example of gross immorality within the congregation. Paul has no trouble giving his apostolic opinion / judgment on the offending party; however, he leaves it up to the congregation as a whole to pass official judgment. Similarly, in I Corinthians 6, Paul teaches that it is appropriate to bring disputes within the body to the whole church or their leadership for judgment. Note the distinction between an individual judgment and the collective judgment of the body of Christ.

Christ taught non-resistance: Matthew 5:39; Matthew 26:52

Christ practiced physical resistance: Luke 22:36; John 2:15

The Matthew passages do teach that Jesus' followers are not to respond in kind against physical violence directed toward them. In Luke 22:36, Jesus uses obviously figurative language (New Oxford Annotated Bible calls it a striking metaphor) to warn his followers that they must be on their guard against the actions of the hostile authorities. They take him literally by hauling out two swords, and Jesus basically says, “Enough of that.” Their response is typical of their repeated incomprehension of Jesus' teachings.

The driving out of the money changers in the temple is often cited as an example of Jesus' hypocrisy regarding non-violence. First to note is that it nowhere says that Jesus used a whip to physically attack the money changers, just to drive them out. Secondly, this is not at all an example of physical resistance to a personal attack on his person. It is an example of righteous indignation directed toward those who were disgracing God's temple and preventing Gentiles from coming there to worship in peace.

Even righteous indignation can lead fallible humans like ourselves into committing ungodly acts, as witnessed by the storming of Congress recently. Being truly indignant about a perceived wrong does not prevent one from being truly deluded. That is why only an infallible person such as Jesus could do what he did without fear of committing sin.

Hatred to kindred enjoined: Luke 14:26

Hatred to kindred condemned: Ephesians 5:25, 29; 6:2

The problem passage in Luke does indeed have Jesus saying that those who come to him must hate their earthly family. Some scholars state that in Jewish thinking, comparatives and superlatives were seldom used, and so alternatives are sometimes expressed as absolute statements instead. Whether or not that is the case here, the parallel passage in Matthew 10:37 clarifies this hyperbolic language when Jesus states that his followers cannot love his family more than they love him. The reason is spelled out in the earlier verses in Matthew 10 as being due to the fact than the unbelieving members of a follower's family can and will actually betray them to the authorities. This is precisely the sort of action that happened in Hitler's Germany to opponents of fascism.

 

DOES GOD APPROVE OF LYING?

There are at least 100 verses in Scripture showing that God condemns the practice of lying and point to Satan as the father of lies. So this preponderance of evidence must be weighed against those few biblical passages that might point in another direction.

There are a number of examples of Patriarchs and other Old Testament “heroes” lying for one reason or another, but they are never commended for doing so. Some commentators suggest that the Bible teaches that telling a lie is the lesser of two evils if the other alternative is death and cite the story of Rahab and the spies, for example. But note that James (2:25) and the author of Hebrews (11:31) commend her for welcoming the spies, not for lying. The only instance in which it might be argued that God teaches deception in this circumstance is found in I Samuel 16:1-3, where God suggests a subterfuge, but not an actual lie, to keep Samuel from being killed by Saul.

The most problematic verses are three that involve God sending a deceiving spirit to cause false prophets to give false testimonies. This happens in I Kings 22:19-23 (parallel passage in II Chronicles 18:18-22); Deuteronomy 13:1-3; and Ezekiel 14:7-11.

In the first of these passages, a heavenly agent of God (probably an angel) volunteers to lure the evil King Ahab to his death by placing a lying spirit in Ahab's prophets so that they will falsely prophesy success in battle. God agrees to the plan. As in Job 1-2, God is seen to be ultimately responsible for all actions in heaven or on earth, whether we interpret them as good or bad from our perspective. However, much of what we call evil falls under God's permissive will accomplished by other parties rather than as a result of His direct will and action.

In the Deuteronomy passage, Moses states that if false prophets tell the people of Israel that they should turn to other gods, they should not listen to them because God is testing their loyalty to Him. These prophets, however, still apparently have control over their own actions since they are to be stoned as punishment. It is uncertain, then, whether God actually enticed them into speaking falsehoods, especially in light of the direct teaching in James 1:13 that “God tempts no man.”

The Ezekiel passage concerns a situation in which people reject the teachings of God's true prophets and seek after false prophets instead. Ezekiel states that God will mislead them even further into speaking falsehoods and that they will be punished along with those who consult them.

All three of these passages are similar to the Exodus story of God's hardening pharaoh's heart after pharaoh had already hardened his own heart in order to show up his disobedience in even stronger contrast before judging him. John Wenham in his book The Enigma of Evil puts it this way: “Language which speaks of God sending lying spirits highlights the fact that God's attitude toward sin is not passive, allowing it to go on undisturbed. God is active; he so orders circumstances that sin is brought out into the open and judged. From the standpoint of those who listened, therefore, the lying spirits are said to have been sent by God, though from the viewpoint of the spirits themselves they were merely allowed to do what they wanted to do.” This same general process is taught in the New Testament in 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.

Exodus 3:18-19

In this particular passage, it has been suggested that God was telling Moses to deliberately lie to pharaoh, indicating that the people would return to Egypt after a few days when they had no intention to do so. There are several possible answers to this apparent moral lapse by God:

1. R. Alan Cole (Tyndale Commentaries) suggests that this was merely meant to be the first offer in a series of typical elaborate Oriental bargaining sessions (note the counter offers by pharaoh in Exodus 8:25, 8:28, 10:11, and 10:24).

2. Since it is stated that God knew beforehand that pharaoh would not agree to any form of exodus, no subterfuge was needed in the request. The purposely modest offer of just a three-day journey, and the subsequent rejection of it, showed up clearly his hardness of heart from the very start.

 

ELDERS

Old Testament (zaqen)

They were appointed by Moses to help him rule the people: The Spirit was poured out on them (Numbers 11:25).

After the wilderness period, elders handled legal matters in each city (Deuteronomy 19-22).

Elders are mentioned throughout the period of kings, the Exile, and through the Hellenistic period in Israel.

Classical Greek (presbyter)

The word first had the meaning of comparative old age (probably over 46-50). It then took on the meaning of importance, and later of honor. The combined idea is one who possesses the wisdom that comes from experience.

New Testament (presbyter)

The early church modeled its practices after those in the synagogues, where a council of elders governed under the ruler of the synagogue. Interestingly, there is now strong archeological evidence that some women in the Jewish synagogues in Jesus' time held the office of elder. Perhaps these were being referred to by Luke in Acts 17:4. (Dictionary of NT Background, pp. 1232-3)

New duties not associated with Jewish elders included visitation of the sick (James 5:14) and perhaps preaching or teaching (I Timothy 5:17).

Elders are always always referred to in the plural, even within a single congregation (Acts 11:30, 14:23; and Titus 1:5).

They commissioned special offices by the laying on of hands (1 Timothy 4:14).

Their primary task, however, was general oversight of the congregation. The verb episkopein describes this function (I Peter 5:2). The root verb in classical Greek meant to observe, review, superintend, watch over, inspect or examine. The elders at Ephesus are also called episkopoi or overseers (often translated “bishops”) (compare Acts 20:17 and 28).

The Apostle John calls himself a presbyter in the openings of 2 and 3 John, probably in the sense of one honored and respected by the Christian community.A group of 24 elders appears 12 times in the Book of Revelation, probably representing symbolically the combined leadership of the Old and New Testament people.

NT (episkopos)

In I Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the shepherd and guardian (episkopos) of your souls.

Pastoral oversight was binding on all members at first (Hebrews 12:15) but soon became the task of a special office in the church, as seen in Acts 20:28.

One duty was to encourage others and refute opponents of the faith (Titus 1:9)

Multiple bishops are present in a single congregation (Philippians 1:1).

The terms elder and bishop appear to be synonymous in the Bible. “Elder” speaks more to the qualifications of the position while “bishop” deals more with the duties of the position.

Early Church

St. Jerome: The supremacy of a single bishop arose “by custom rather than by the Lord's actual appointment,” as a means of preventing schisms in the Church.

Clement and the Didache (early church documents) state that bishops were appointed by popular election. The latter source indicates that they may have received monetary support from the congregation.

Qualifications of an elder/bishop

Compare lists. One can rightly assume that elders must also meet the qualifications listed for deacons.

I Timothy 3:1-7 (bishops): blameless, husband of one wife, manage their family well, children show respect, hospitality, vigilant, sober, good behavior, patient, teach, good reputation with outsiders.

Not a drunkard, violent, quarrelsome, lover of money, or recent convert

I Timothy 3:8-13 (deacons): husband of one wife, manage their household including their children, worthy of respect, keep hold of the faith, sincere, wives also have qualifications.

Not a drunkard, pursuing dishonest gain, recent convert (must first be tested).

Notes:

I Timothy 3

v. 1 May indicate that many were desiring the "charismatic" gifts rather than the administrative ones.

v. 2 Husband of one wife may either mean: no polygamy, no keeping of mistresses, faithful to one's wife, no remarriage after death of spouse, or no remarriage after divorce. This last possibility fits Jesus' teaching, the next to last has good cultural evidence, and the first two are probably givens for all Christians.

v. 6 “puffed up” is a mistranslation; should be “beclouded or blinded.”

v. 11 May refer either to deacons' wives or to deaconesses.

Titus 1:7 “greedy for gain” may indicate that the bishops had charge of church funds.

Titus 1:5-9 (bishops): blameless, husband of one wife, children are believers, hospitable, loves what is good, self-controlled, upright, holy, disciplined, holding firmly to the faith.

Not a drunkard, violent, or pursuing dishonest gain

 

PARABLE OF THE WAITING SERVANT (MATTHEW 24:45-51; LUKE 12:42-46)

There are five parables in the gospels involving a servant and a master's return.

This particular parable is found in both Matthew and Luke, but for convenience sake, we will follow the account in Luke. There are only minor differences the two versions: (1) The evil servant is assigned to the lot of the hypocrites in Matthew, but with the unbelievers in Luke. This difference is probably due to the different audiences for each Gospel. (2) Matthew adds, “There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” This expression appears six other times in the Gospels, always in the context of the Last Judgment. Weeping is due to everlasting hopelessness; gnashing denotes pain and anger.

Contexts

There is an ABA structure in which two longer parables involving slaves waiting for their master's return bracket a shorter parable of the thief breaking into a house. The first and last parables both contain “Amen, I say to you” followed by a blessing and reward.

The whole context of Chapter 12 involves teachings regarding Christ's Second Coming and the Last Judgment.

The previous verse has Peter asking who the parable is addressed to, but Jesus doesn't answer except through this current parable. That “heightens the reader's engagement with the relevance and applicability of that material and what follows.” (Snodgrass)

Betz has pointed out the striking parallels between this parable and Psalm 37. There the righteous wait patiently for the LORD, give generously, and shall inherit the land while the wicked abuse others, shall perish, are cut off, and gnash their teeth.

The parable may also refer back to Genesis 39:4-5. The Greek phrase “all that he had” in v. 44 is found in Septuagint only one other time: Genesis 39:5b.

Audience

The liberal view is that this parable was fabricated by the Gospel writers to address the problem of Jesus' delayed return. But the story doesn't put the stress on the delay itself; it is just a detail needed to make the story work.

Albright and Mann speculate that this parable was told by Jesus and was originally addressed to the Jewish leaders of the time warning them of the imminent coming of the Kingdom (with Jesus' death and resurrection). Then the Gospel writers re-applied it to the time of the church until the Second Coming. One of the main reasons they and others think this refers to Christ's first coming is that they refuse to accept the possibility that Christ knew he would be coming again.

They add that the original context may have been addressed to Jews of the time who were not prepared for Jesus' first coming, Jesus' death and resurrection. The signs have already been given so there only remains the timing. “It is Jesus' hearers who will be on trial, not Jesus. Those who have been set over the Lord's household are indeed in a perilous position.”

On the more conservative end of the theological spectrum, dispensational teachers also feel this parable is addressed to the Jews, but for different reasons. Dwight Pentacost: The servants are Jews who will be God's stewards during the Tribulation.  J. A. Martin (Bible Knowledge Commentary): This is directed toward Jewish leaders at the time and those at the time of the Second Coming.

Hill feels that the parable was originally addressed to Jewish leaders of the time as well as the Twelve Apostles. The parable could apply specifically to Jewish or Christian leaders, but a more general audience is probably in mind. (Snodgrass) And finally, Ellison feels that the specific audience was the Twelve Apostles but also church leaders and all Christians (almost all other commentators agree). This contains a warning to those in positions of authority in the church that the church is not theirs but belongs to God.

Verse-by verse

verse 42: The sense is “Who then is willing to be a faithful steward?” (Marshall)

A delay in return of the master is part of the story, but it is more about the preparedness once he does return, i.e., the time during the interval. “The focus on faithfulness reminds us again that Christian faith is not about believing certain ideas but about living out convictions over the long haul.” (Snodgrass)

The primary emphasis is on faithfulness and prudence, not on the reward. There is the minor theme of individual faithfulness in light of one's unexpected death. (Fitzmyer)

See 2 Timothy 4:1-5 for spiritual feeding of the flock.

“Will set” suggests position of responsibility in the church after Jesus' departure.

verse 43: “blessed” or “happy” This is a beatitude.

verse 44 is a paraphrase of v. 42.

verse 45: As an example, see the Corinthian church (I Corinthians 11:21). This shows that the parable could be applied to all Christians.  Marshall on “Say in his heart”: “Now what a man says to himself is often even more important than what he says openly.” 

verse 46: “Cut in two” is never used metaphorically. It is only found elsewhere in the Bible for a ritual vow while walking between pieces of animals, but Jeremiah 34:18 takes that as a model for human punishment. This is either an example of hyperbole or fits the historical cruelty shown by some masters toward their slaves.

The apocryphal book Susanna and the Elders says, “The angel of God is waiting with his sword to split you in two, and so destroy you both.”

“This is the form of execution in Hebrews 11:37 and Luke 19:27. However, the servant is still alive afterward; so "cut into pieces" may mean “ to punish with the utmost severity.” (as in “I'll tan your hide.”) (Marshall) “Cut to pieces” may also mean cut off from the church (excommunication). (Hill)

Verses 47-48 distinguish between unwitting sins and witting sins. (Marshall) There is a distinction between mere folly and outright rebellion.

verse 48: “Does not Christ's promise also imply the assignment of certain specific tasks in the life hereafter, each task a matter of pure delight and satisfaction and each in harmony with the individuality of the person for whom it is marked out?” (Hendricksen)

However, there is just as much danger in the opposite error in which one misbehaves because they feel the Second Coming is just around the corner (charging extravagant purchases and neglecting the normal Christian duties). That indicates the importance of prudence (v. 42) in case there is a delay as well as faithfulness for the long haul.