GALATIANS 2:11-21

The usual placement of the events described here is somewhere between Acts 14 and 15, and related in the first part of Acts 15. In any case, it must have transpired early in Paul's career as missionary since Barnabas was only connected with Paul's first missionary journey.

Verse 11 Peter had already been given directions from God respecting the full acceptance of Gentiles, and so he was being inconsistent and knew it (see Acts 10-11). The Greek word for “condemn” only appears in the NT here and in I John 3:20. There are three possible meanings: accuse, declare guilty, or pronounce sentence against. In this case, the second definition probably fits best.

Verse 12 A number of reliable Greek manuscripts read “man” in place of “men.” However, Metzger feels that the sense demands the plural reading.

Blue: “By implication, these men came from the church in Jerusalem, perhaps as an official delegation.” James should not be blamed for the actions of these men since “it is probable that they had exceeded the terms of their commission.” Davids feels that (a) the delegation was indeed sent by James but for a different reason, and (b) their objections may have been focused on a concern for how Paul's actions might affect future outreach to the Jews.

“Those of the circumcision” may refer to those sent from James, the Judaizers or Jews in general. (Campbell)

Verse 13 “even Barnabas” Paul takes this as an amazing fact, considering the known conciliatory personality of Barnabas.

Verse 14 “not consistent, or straightforward” = not correct, with no suggestion of a moral misdeed. (Mikalowski) This word appears only here in the NT. Kilpatrick suggests that the phrase means “not on the right road to the truth of the gospel.” The truth of the Gospel here means the common fellowship of all who have accepted God's grace, not all who obey the OT regulations.

Note that even Peter the apostle must adhere to the truth of the Gospel as the norm. Some later Christian writers such as Clement of Alexandria could not accept the fact that Peter might have been doing wrong. To get around this, they proposed that Cephas and Simon Peter were in fact two different people. (J. R. Michaels)

Verses 15-21 This is a heavily theological section felled with key concepts and words such as law (6x), faith (3x), works (3x), justify / justification (5x) and Christ (8x).

Verse 15 This is a somewhat sarcastic comment aimed at the Jews who felt they were superior to Gentiles merely by the fact of their birth. Alternatively, it is possible to argue, with Barth and Blanke, that “sinners in this sentence applies to both Jews and Gentiles.

Verse 16 This is an allusion to Psalm 143:2 with Paul's addition “through deeds of the law.” He says the same thing in Romans 3:20. “He means thereby that no one will attain the status of uprightness before God's tribunal by performing deeds mandated by the Mosaic law, or by 'all that the law says.'” (Fitzmyer) By contrast, Dunn feels that this three-fold mention of “works of the law” does not refer to the Mosaic law as a whole but only those sociological issues that would separate the Jews from Gentiles (i.e. circumcision, ritual purity, food restrictions and observance of the Sabbath). Schreiner takes a third approach by concentrating on the fact that no one can fully live up to the demands of the law.

Another controversial issue concerns the proper translation of another phrase in this verse: Is it “faith in Christ” or “faith(fulness) of Christ.” The Greek preposition can be taken either way. The traditional view is to go with the first possibility, and Murray has heavily critiqued and rejected the second translation in his commentary on Romans, pp. 363-374. But, for those who might be inclined to accept “faith(fulness) of Christ” instead, that would, according to Ciampa, certainly include his death on the cross, “the act of obedience which is the ground of the justification available to those who believe in him.”

Verses 17-21 Justification, “though a legal term...expresses a moral and spiritual reality.” (Mikolaski) He also notes that this remaining argument is quite similar to the one Paul uses in Romans 3:21-31.

Verse 17 The expression “Certainly not, or God forbid” is a favorite one of Paul. It appears ten times in Romans, once in I Corinthians, and twice more in Galatians (at 3:21 and 6:14). All three of these last usages are symmetrically disposed within the overall structure of Galatians (see Galatians: Introduction to the Literary Structure).

Verse 19 Stott: “That Jesus Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate is an established historical fact; but what could Paul possibly mean by writing that he had been crucified with Christ? As a physical fact it was manifestly not true, and as a spiritual fact it was hard to understand.” Paul explains this in Romans 6 and in the larger context of Galatians 2:15-21.

Verse 20 “Son of God” points to Jesus' divinity. In that context, see especially Philippians 2:6.

Christ giving himself for us may be an echo of Isaiah 53:12 where the Servant pours out his life. “On the human level, Judas gave him up to the priests, who gave him up to Pilate, who gave him up to the soldiers, who crucified him. But on the divine level, the Father gave him up, and he gave himself up, to die for us.” (Stott)

Luther's commentary on this verse was instrumental in Charles Wesley's conversion.

 

I KINGS 20-21: AHAB AND JEZEBEL

The stories involving Elijah and Elisha are among the more interesting portions of the books of Kings. But these two chapters leave Elijah for a while in order to relate the story of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel. But Elijah re-appears for a few verses at the conclusion of Chapter 21.

It is possible to see Chapter 20 roughly in terms of two parallel cycles, as below:

    First attack of Ben-Hadad (1-6)

        Elders advise not to give in (7-12)

            Prophet predicts victory (13-15)

                Defeat of Aram (16-20a, 21)

                    Ben-Hadad escapes (20b)

                        Prophet predicts another attack later on (22)

        Servants of Ben-Hadad counsel war (23-25)        

Second attack of Ben-Hadad (26-27)

            Prophet predicts victory (28)

                Defeat of Aram (29-30a)

                    Ben-Hadad escapes (30b-34)

                        Prophet predicts death for Ahab (35-43)

20:1 This may refer to either Ben-Hadad I or II. “Kings” probably means tribal chieftains or sheikhs.

20:2 In the books of Kings, “Israel” sometimes applies to the Northern Kingdom only (as in these chapters) and sometimes to the combined Kingdoms.

20:4 McConville points out that Ahab is repeatedly referred to as just “the king of Israel” (vv. 4,7,11,22) whereas the king of Judah, Jehoshaphat, is always designated by his name. McConville feels this is an ironic reference to the fact that Ahab is king in name only.

20:4-5 When Ahab readily agrees, Ben-Hadad decides to get even greedier, and that will be his downfall. There is a consistent pattern of behavior for Ahab in these chapters: he constantly gives in to others or lets them make his decisions for him. See his actions in relation to Ben-Hadad here, the elders and people (20:9), a prophet (20:14), Ben-Hadad again in 20:24, Naboth (21:4), Jezebel (21:7,16,25), Elijah (21:27). And he sulks when he can't have his way in 20:43; 21:4.

20:8 “Do not obey and do not consent” is an unusually strong statement.

20:10 “May the gods (or God) do thus to me and more” was a standard oath calling down punishment if one violated his word. It is also found in the previous chapter (19:2).

20:10b This is a somewhat obscure boast meaning that the city would be destroyed to dust and the dust carried away.

20:11 In other words, the time to brag is not before the battle but after it is all over.

20:12, 16 McCarter defends the KJV use of Succoth in place of the modern translation “booths” since the Valley of Succoth was a strategically located position (compare different translations).

20:14 Charles Martin calls this a “suicide squad.” This is similar to other accounts where, by God's divine aid, a small force is able to conquer a much larger one.

20:15 Compare the Assyrian monolith (ca. 840 BC) which lists 10,000 foot soldiers of King Ahab. Ellul offers three possibilities for understanding the significance of the number 7,000: (1) as the symbolic multiple of 7 (completeness) and 1,000 (a figuratively large number), (2) as reference back to I Kings 19:18 to the 7,000 loyal followers of God showing that all the army is, in fact, loyal, or (3) referring to a reserved number, the saved remnant, whose presence sanctifies all the people. It is this last meaning that Paul utilizes in his reference to I Kings 19:18 (see Romans 11:1-5).

20:22 That was the typical time for war (see II Samuel 11:1).

20:27 Victor Hamilton suggests the alternative translation “like two prematurely born (goat) kids.” In any case, this verse shows that Israel was badly outnumbered.

20:28 Cogan feels that this was the same person as the prophet of verses 22 and 22. The motive for God acting on Israel's behalf is because the enemy had maligned God's power by restricting its geographical range.

20:32 The ropes over their heads demonstrate that they are prepared to be prisoners.

20:33 This is an example of cledonomancy – seeking for signs in casual words one hears. The expression “my brother” means that Ahab considers them to be kings of equal status.

20:34 Ben-Hadad offers to remove any trade barriers existing between the two kingdoms. This alliance continued through their combined war against Assyria (see 22:1), but broke up later when Ahab attacked Ben-Hadad, perhaps to claim the land promised him but never delivered. The word translated bazaar or street actually designated a street lined with vendors of various goods.

20:35 The “sons of prophets” referred to a group of followers of more prominent prophets. They will later appear in the Elisha Cycle of stories.

20:36 God also uses a lion to kill in I Kings 13:24 and II Kings 17:25.

20:37 One rabbinical writing states that the blood of this stricken prophet atoned for all Israel. (Watts) If that were so, then how much more would the blood of the Son of God atone for it.

20:41 Josephus says that this prophet was Micaiah, probably based on the statement in I Kings 22:8.

21:3 Old Testament law (Numbers 36:7-9; Leviticus 25) stated that the property had to remain in the family. However, Martin notes that by the time of these events, it is doubtful that the law was still in effect. It is interesting that a private citizen could actually stand up to a king for his property rights.

21:7 Jezebel's words are rendered in NJB as “Some king of Israel you make!”

21:8 There are few pre-exilic references to the “nobles;” this is the first. A seal marked “Jezebel” has been uncovered, but it may not refer to this particular Jezebel.

21:9 Fasts were proclaimed in times of crisis.

21:10 There was the necessity under the law to produce two witnesses. (Deuteronomy 19:15) In the Hebrew, this accusation actually reads, “You have blessed God...” “Bless” was used as an euphemism for “curse” in several other OT passages.

21:13 II Kings 9:26 adds that his sons were also killed to prevent their inheriting the land.

21:14 Note that the elders sent the message to Jezebel, not to Ahab. Cogan deduces that they obviously must have known who was behind the whole plot.

21:19 A problem arises here for those who always look for a literal fulfillment of all OT prophecies. Dogs did literally lick Ahab's blood, but it was in Samaria, not Jezreel. On the other hand, Ahab's son Joram is killed later and his body dumped on Naboth's field. This has been explained in various ways:

    “Complete fulfillment does not necessarily involve literal fulfillment.” (LaSor)

    “Sometimes prophecies are fulfilled in essence, but not with the precision one might expect.”

    Renza suggests that Elijah in 21:20-24 perhaps exceeds God's charge (given in 21:19) in his condemnation of Ahab and his family.

21:21 The details in this sordid story strangely parallel those in the episode of King David and Bathsheba. Drinkard enumerates them as follows: a king desires and gets what doesn't belong to him; misuse of royal power; an innocent man is set up to die; a prophet confronts the king (see my post on Old Testament Parables); death is the judgment; a woman is involved in the sin; the king repents; and the death penalty falls on his descendant instead.

21:25-26 In Revelation 2:20, a church member is called Jezebel because she seduced others “to practice fornication.” This is probably a metaphorical term for idolatry since that is what the OT Jezebel did.

R. E. Brown draws attention to the parallels between King Ahab, led by his wife Jezebel, having an innocent man put to death and King Herod Antipas being forced by his wife Herodias into putting John the Baptist to death. Both kings were specifically said to have committed evil deeds (compare I Kings 21:25-26 with Luke 3:19).

21:16 It is not quite understood by exactly what right the king could lay claim to Naboth's land.

21:20 Cogan suggests that it should be translated “Have you found me out?”

21:25 Later (II Kings 21:3), Manasseh is called the worst of Judah's kings and is compared to Ahab.

21:27 This time the fast indicated a form of penance.

 

BIBLE INTERPRETATION: HISTORY BOOKS (PART 2)

Understanding and Applying Biblical History

As I stressed in another lesson, always keep the context in mind: Historical, Cultural, Biblical, and Geographical. A very useful one-stop shopping resource that will address all these issues is a Bible dictionary. They contain articles on people, places, and the material culture of the Bible and come in a variety of sizes from compact dictionaries to excellent one-volume dictionaries (some profusely illustrated) to multi-volume sets.

Remember that the biblical context also includes the consideration of parallel accounts in the Bible. In that regard, I have always found Segal's (tongue-in-cheek) Law helpful to keep in mind:

“A man with one watch always knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never quite sure.”

There are two kinds of people – those who demand to know the exact truth and those who are able to live with a certain amount of ambiguity. The problem is that when there are multiple accounts of the same events in the Bible, they don't always agree 100% in the details. When that happens, various approaches to interpretation can be taken.

Use parallel accounts (Harmonization)

OT Example:

    “Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, 'Go, count the people of Israel and Judah.'” (II Samuel 24:1)

    “Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to count the people of Israel.” (I Chronicles 21:1)

1. Liberal or skeptical approach: They would conclude that one or both accounts are in error.

2. Scholarly: Chronicles was written after Samuel, and the author probably changed the actor from God to Satan because he was disturbed with the idea that God could incite anyone. If this sounds far-fetched, consider that “bless God” is often substituted for “curse God” in the Hebrew Bible.

3. Conservative: Wrestle with the apparent contradiction to get a deeper understanding. For example, this may be similar to the Book of Job in which God uses Satan to accomplish His will.

4. Fundamentalist (Extreme Harmonization): These must be describing two entirely different historical events As evidence, note that the Chronicles account only involves Israel while II Samuel includes Judah as well.

5. Chronological Bibles: These attempt to put together all the events and teachings in the Bible according to a consistent time line. These can be very useful tool for understanding the sweep of biblical history, but they tend to leave out any somewhat contradictory elements present in parallel accounts. For example, The Daily Bible interestingly ignores the Samuel account altogether and opts for “Satan,” as in Chronicles.

NT Example: (The Wording on the Cross)

    This is Jesus the King of the Jews (Matthew 27:37)

    The King of the Jews (Mark 15:26)

    This is the King of the Jews (Luke 23:38)

    Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews (John 19:19-20)

Approach 1: The differences don't result in any contradiction of facts but actually show that the four writers wrote independently of one another and used different sources (giving us more witnesses to the event).

Approach 2: John 19:20 states that there were actually three inscriptions: in Latin, Aramaic and Greek. Since the Gospels were written in Greek (or maybe Hebrew in the case of Matthew), we have the possibility that the three notices varied slightly in their original wording or were translated loosely later on into Greek.

Approach 3: The original may have read “This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews,” with each Gospel writer only quoting part of the inscription.

Why would they edit the inscription differently? Keep in mind that Mark usually gives the briefest summary account of the four. Also, John uses the phrase “Jesus of Nazareth” more than the other gospel writers, and this occurrence at the end of his gospel matches its appearance at the start of the gospel at 1:45 (the literary device of inclusio).

The other problem sometimes encountered with parallel accounts is one of chronology, the exact order of events.

The Temptation in the Wilderness

Let's revisit the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness. You can see that Matthew and Luke disagree in the order of the last two temptations. The reason is that throughout the Bible, events sometimes are grouped together thematically, not in the order of exact occurrence.

Matthew: ends with the promise of Satan to give Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world.” This is directly followed by Jesus preaching that “the kingdom of heaven has come” (Matthew 4:17), “proclaiming the good news of the kingdom” (Matthew 4:23), and bestowing beatitudes on those who possess the kingdom of heaven (5:3,10).

Luke: ends with a challenge for Jesus to jump off the pinnacle of the temple to see if angels would save him. This is followed by Jesus' first teaching in the synagogue which causes the people to try to throw him off a cliff, but Jesus is miraculously saved (Luke 4:29-30). Both these cases demonstrate that in the historical accounts there may be minor changes in chronology in order to make a smoother transition from event to event.

Here is a more extreme example from the Book of Judges of events being given outside their normal order: “A number of scholars have pointed out that chapters 19-21 are out of place chronologically, that, despite their placement at the end of the book, the events themselves would have taken place early in the period of the judges.” (David M. Howard, Jr., An Introduction to the OT Historical Books, p. 101) I won't rehearse all their reasons for saying this, but there are many. So why is it given at the very end of the book?

A. Conflict with Other Nations (Judges 1:1-2:5)

B. Israel Worships Foreign Gods (Judges 2:6-3:6)

                        C. Israel under the Judges (Judges 3:7-16:31)

B'. Israel Corrupts the Worship of Yahweh (Judges 17-18)

A'. Conflict within Tribes (Judges19-21)

So the order here is obviously literary, not chronological. 

 

Application of the Narrative Texts: Two Approaches

The actual understanding of the stories is usually fairly straightforward, so we need to also discuss 

their application to our lives as well.

A. Analyze the actions and words of the main characters.

    1. They may be given as good or bad examples. Paul talks about the Israelites' disobedience in the wilderness: “Now these things occurred as examples for us, so that we might not desire evil as they did.” (I Corinthians 10:11)

    2. Distinguish what is taught from what is merely recorded (i.e., the difference between prescription and description).

Examples of contrary examples in Acts:

James is killed by the authorities (12:2) vs.

        Peter is rescued from prison (12:3-19)

Paul refuses to leave town quietly after being mistreated (16:35-40) vs.

        Paul leaves in the night to avoid persecution (17:10)

Believer with incomplete knowledge does not need re-baptism (18:24-26)

        Believers with incomplete knowledge do need re-baptism (19:1-7)

Almost magical healings using handkerchief (19:11-12) vs.

        Attempt at magical exorcism fails (19:13-20)

    3. God's approval of an individual does not mean approval of all his/her conduct. Look at Gideon as an example. Some Christians follow his practice of casting a fleece. I like this quote in this regard: “God will tolerate our fleeces, but He cherishes our faith.”

    4. God is the only hero in the Bible. Rabbinical teachers sometimes went to great lengths to explain away the questionable behavior of OT characters such as Abraham or David. And it is still going on today. Abraham may not have out-and-out lied to Abimelech and Pharaoh, but he sure tried to mislead them. And then you have some Christian commentators who insist that Rahab was only an inn-keeper, not a prostitute. This approach might be appropriate to a works-based theology, but not a grace-based one.

    5. Examine the participant's choices in light of the current culture. What other options were open to the person at the time? Could Paul have successfully led a slave rebellion throughout the Roman Empire at the time if he disagreed with the institution of slavery (and we get hints from his writings that he did disagree)?

    6. Use the text to determine if the choices were appropriate: example of David and Bathsheba.

        a. Author's comment: “But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD.” (II Samuel 11:27)

        b. God's subsequent judgment on the person: The prophet Nathan confronts David with his sin (II Samuel 12:1-15)

        c. Consequences of the act: David disrupted one man's family so David's own family life went downhill from that point on. His newborn child dies, his son Ammon rapes his half-sister, another son Absalom has Ammon killed and rebels against his father.

B. The Second major way to utilize the narratives is to look at God's actions for theological truths (Theological Interpretation) . Two problem areas sometimes arise at this step.

    1. “Over-involvement” of God: Hardening Pharaoh's Heart (Exodus) Look at the progression here, which indicates that through Exodus 9:35 Pharaoh still had free will to act otherwise.

“I will harden” 4:21, 7:3 This is a prediction of future action, not a case of predestination.

“His heart was hardened” synonymous and alternating with “he hardened his (own) heart” -- 

next 7occurrences

“The LORD hardened” 9:12

“He sinned yet again and his heart was hardened” 9:34-35

“I will harden” or “The LORD hardened” – next 7 occurrences

    2. “Under-involvement” of God: The Book of Esther

As I mentioned elsewhere there is no mention of God or even prayer in the book. Does that mean these are totally random events taking place outside of God's control? Actually, YHWH is in the text four times, as noted years ago by rabbis, but it is hidden – which is the whole point of the book (God's providence).

    Hy' Wkl Hnsym Ytnw (1:20)

    Ybw' Hmlk Whmn Hywm (5:4)

    zH 'ynnW swH lY (5:13)

    kY kltH 'lW hr'H (7:7)

Rachel Sabua sees another possible instance of the “hand of God” literally portrayed in the Book of Esther. Six times in the Hebrew text the word for Jews, y'hudim, is misspelled with a double yod in place of one. Since the letter yod also means “hand” in Hebrew and the tetragrammaton is often abbreviated in Jewish prayer books by a double yod, this provides, in her mind, additional evidence that the intent is to show God's hidden direction behind the Jews' deliverance.

                                           Utilize Archeological Results Cautiously

Resources: Consult books on biblical archeology, but make sure they were published recently.

Biblical Archeology Review magazine

The Archeological Study Bible (Zondervan NIV)

There should be no ultimate contradictions between archeological findings and the biblical accounts, but the findings may influence how we interpret those events.A prime example of this is the excavation of Jericho (see my post on the battle of Jericho for details).

And there is, of course, an inherent limitation to the amount of information that we can learn from

archaeology.  For example, an inscription with Pontius Pilate's name on it was useful in disproving the 

earlier contention of skeptics that he was only a fictional character. However, that does not prove that 

he tried to prevent Jesus from being crucified.

 

 

BIBLE INTERPRETATION: HISTORY BOOKS (PART 1)

The Nature of Biblical History

One way to look at the distinctives of Biblical history is to contrast it to similar early “historical” accounts that didn't make it into the Bible.

Apocryphal additions to Esther

Let's start out with the Old Testament writings known as the Apocrypha, which you will find in Catholic and Episcopalian Bibles. They include nine additions to the book of Esther written around 100 BC, some a chapter long. They were apparently felt to be needed in order to beef up the book by adding some of the missing religious elements. We'll just look at the accounts of Esther's preparation to go before the king so you can compare their style of writing with that of genuine OT historical accounts.

Biblical: “Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and neither eat no drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will also fast as you do. After that I will go to the king, though it is against the law; and if I perish, I perish.” (Esther 4:16)

Apocryphal: “And Esther the queen, seized with deathly anxiety, fled to the Lord; she took off her splendid apparel and put on the garments of distress and mourning, and instead of costly perfumes she covered her head with ashes and dung, and she utterly humbled her body, and every part that she loved to adorn she covered with her tangled hair. And she prayed to the Lord God of Israel, and said...(followed by sixteen verses of prayer).” (Esther 14)

Notice that the added adjectives and adverbs make it read more like a romance novel.

The Pseudepigraphical NT

There are also various writings from the second century AD through the Middle Ages, purporting to come from apostolic sources. Renewed interest in these has come about for at least two reasons: the publishing of Dan Brown's novel The DaVinci Code and the discovery of the Gospel of Judas, a Gnostic document dating from the late 2^nd century. In fact, there were very good reasons these were not included in today's Bible, and it has nothing to do with any conspiracy. Besides the different style of writing such as shown in the above example, there is another difference with the genuine article. This time we will concentrate on the content of these writings rather than their style.

Biblical: “And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.” (Luke 2:1-7)

Notice the straightforward account and all the underlined historical details of specific time and place.

Pseudepigraphical: Consideration of the birth stories in the Protoevangelium of James (140-170 AD) and the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (600-625 AD) demonstrates how incidents were manufactured to address concerns and beliefs of the later church:

    Joseph's son leads the donkey on which Mary is riding.

    Mary has a vision which explains that the Jews will lose the salvation given to the Gentiles.

    They stop at a dark cave which conveniently lights up when Mary enters it.

    A midwife conveniently shows up and doubts that Mary is still a virgin after the birth so she performs a gynecological exam.

    God sets her hand on fire (or dries it up) for her lack of faith.

    The midwife prays to God and He promises her eternal salvation if she just touches the baby.

This account is totally lacking in any specific historical details, but just happens to “prove” later doctrines such as Mary's eternal virginity; the fact that the Jews are cursed by God (leading later to widespread persecution in Europe); miraculous events involving Mary; and the idea of salvation by works or rituals.

Biblical faith is rooted in historical events

In the Old Testament, all of the religious observances looked backward to God's saving acts.

    “Throughout your generations you shall observe it [Passover] as a perpetual ordinance. (Exodus 12:14)”

Paul stresses the vital importance of historical events to our faith.

    “If Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain.” (I Corinthians 15:14)

Christianity, as an historical religion, is more vulnerable to the results of historical investigation than other religions such as Buddhism. One can be a good Buddhist without even believing that the Buddha ever existed. That is not true of Christianity.

All history is interpretative

“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are are not written in this book. But these are written so that you might believe...” (John 20:30-31)

Secular scholars often distrust the historical accounts in the Bible since the authors “had an ax to grind; They had a point to make.” That is very true but it is also a false argument. To begin with, all historical accounts have a certain degree of subjectivity to them.

Examples: Edward Gibbon wrote his Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire to blame Christianity for weakening the glorious Roman empire. H.G. Wells started his book The Outline of History in prehistoric times so that he could help popularize the theory of evolution.

Totally unbiased accounts are very rare. Secondly, it is illogical to expect than someone like the apostle John who had witnessed the life of Christ first hand would still be able to remain a totally impartial observer and recorder of those events. His emotional involvement with what he had seen actually proves the reliability of his account rather than disproving it. Some skeptical historians apparently are demanding the testimony of someone who witnessed the deeds of Christ and then recorded them without believing them.

Interpreting and Applying Old Testament Narratives

As a summary of this important subject, here are some general principles gleaned from How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart (Zondervan Publishers):

    1. An OT narrative usually does not directly teach a doctrine.

    2. An OT narrative usually illustrates a doctrine or doctrines taught propositionally elsewhere in the Bible.

    3. All narratives are selective and incomplete. Not all the relevant details are always given (compare John 21:25). What does appear in the narrative is everything that the inspired author thought important for us to know.

    4. Narratives are not written to answer all our theological questions. They have particular, specific, limited purposes and deal with certain issues, leaving others to be dealt with elsewhere, in other ways.

    5. Narratives may teach either explicitly or implicitly.

    6. In the final analysis, God is the hero of all biblical narratives.

    7. Narratives record what happened, not necessarily what should have happened or what ought to happen every time. Therefore not every narrative or every piece of a narrative has an individually identifiable moral.

    8. What people do in narratives is not necessarily a good example for us. Frequently, it is just the opposite.

    9. Most of the characters in OT narratives are far from perfect and that is reflected in their actions.

    10. We are not always told at the end of a narrative whether what happened was good or bad. We are expected to be able to judge that on the basis of what God has taught us directly and categorically already in the Scripture.

 

PARABLE OF THE PHARISEE AND TAX COLLECTOR: LUKE 18:9-14

verse 9  Who were the “some?” This parable continues to have application to Christians. The identification of the audience is kept purposely vague by Luke, who “wanted his Christian readers to know that they were equally in danger of the failure it depicts.” (Snodgrass)  Luther preached 13 different sermons based on it. This verse lays out the two-fold meaning to this parable in advance. The main morals from this story are (a) the contrast between self-righteousness and spiritual humility and (b) condemnation of those who show disdain toward others.

verse 10  “Going up” refers to the temple altar.

 “Perhaps no aspect of interpretation illustrates the importance of historical background more than [this] parable.” (Grant Osborne)

The tax collector had either contracted out with the government to collect various taxes at a set fee while he could pocket any additional money he managed to get, or he was an underling hired out to do the actual collection (like today's repo man). We are so used to viewing Pharisees in a negative light, it is almost impossible for us to realize the utter shock this parable would have caused for his audience. Ellis calls this the parable of the Churchman and the Politician. But I would go even farther in trying to get us into the right mindset. What if, as we read this story, we instead try to imagine the Pharisee as Billy Graham and the tax collector as Charles Manson. Do that and you will get a small idea of the impact this parable must have had on the original audience.

verse 11a There are two textual readings with equal evidence on each side:

1. “having stood, these things he prayed to himself” (NASB)

2. “Having stood to/by himself, these things he was praying” (TEV, NIV, NRSV)

The first possibility can also be translated as “he prayed about himself.” (Fitzmyer, HSB) “He glances at God, but contemplates himself.” (Plummer) “He thanks God for what he is, not for what God is.” (Darby)

The second possibility may indicate his unwillingness to become ritually contaminated by others or that he took up a prominent position. (NBC) The unclean had to stand in the Eastern Gate. The Pharisee stood at a distance to avoid becoming contaminated by them. Or the Pharisee probably moved to the front of the Court of Israel.

And finally due to the great uncertainty regarding the word “himself,” NEB leaves it out entirely

verse 11b   The Pharisee “was using other people as his standard for measuring righteousness...On the other hand, the tax collector used God as his standard.” (J. A. Martin)

verse 12a The Pharisee fasted much more than was required. This is the first historical reference to anyone fasting twice a week. But that fact is confirmed in the early first century Christian writing (Didache 8:1): “Let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays, but you fast on Wednesdays and Fridays.”

verse 12b  He also exceeded the required tithe. That has been explained in two different ways. It may mean that he tithed on all his purchases, whether or not that item had already been tithed by its previous owner. Or it may mean that he tithed on all his income, not just on those required by law: livestock and crops such as olive oil and wheat. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith.” -- Matthew 23:23

verses 11b-12 The Pharisee's self-righteousness is shown by his five-fold use of “I, my.” “What may have started as legitimate affirmation that he has kept the covenant has detoured into disdain and self-congratulation.” (Snodgrass)   I need to remind myself of this every time I drive to church and pass people outside jogging. Some people feel that the picture of the Pharisee is an unfair caricature, but first consider the prayer of at least 1,000-2,000 years ago which required all Jewish men to recite daily and which starts in a similar manner: “Thank you God, that I am not a woman, a Gentile, or ignorant.” And many orthodox Jews continue to recite it today. It is recorded in the Talmud that one rabbi stated that if the saved only numbered “a hundred, I and my son are among them; and if only two, they are I and my son. (Dictionary of NT Theology, 3, 161)

Many sources attest to the belief that the Pharisees possessed superior righteousness. Look at the testimony from one ex-Pharisee: “as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.” (Philippians 3:4ff)

Snodgrass quotes one commentator as saying, “the modern-day counterpart of the Pharisee would be welcomed into any respectable community, religious or social, and given a responsible position. It is surprising how much egotism and rigorous devotion will be tolerated if a person is just and clean-living and gives of her or his substance.”

verse 13  “At a distance” may mean in the Court of the Gentiles. (Marshall) “The Pharisee's posture is described briefly while his prayer is long; the tax collector's prayer is brief, but his posture is described at length.” (Snodgrass)  As far as their relative posture, look at what Ezra said in 9:6: “I...fell on my knees, spread out my hands to the LORD my God, and said, 'O my God, I am too ashamed and embarrassed to lift my face to you (as was the normal posture), my God, for our iniquities have risen higher than our heads, and our guilt has mounted up to the heavens.'”

“He asked for God's mercy because mercy was the only thing he dared to ask for.” (T. W. Manson)

verse 14 Some scholars suspect that this verse did not belong to the original setting. However, there are verbal clues tying it together with the parable such as “went up” (v. 10) and “went down” (v. 14a). Also, “this tax collector” in v. 11 and “this one” in v. 14a. They show that the explanation at the end is original. (Snodgrass)

verse 14b: The passive verbs (justified, humbled and exalted) point to God as the one doing the act.  “justified” = acquitted.

The final comment is the same as 14:11.

The Pharisees would have demanded that the tax collector make monetary reparations first, but look at Zacchaeus who returned money after Jesus accepted him. (Marshall)

Verse 14b generalizes the teaching to Christian disciples as well. “There undoubtedly remains in everyone more than a little of the Pharisee.” (Fitzmyer)

So what was the Pharisee's main problem that resulted in his being humbled by God? Notice that the Pharisee expresses his righteousness in terms of the bad things that he hasn't done and then in terms of the good things he has done. Unfortunately, he left out the bad things he had done and the good things he hadn't done.

(Fitzmyer) “Righteous acts without compassion and love are not considered righteous by God.” That is taught even in the OT “Though I say to the righteous that they shall surely live, yet if they trust in their righteousness and commit iniquity, none of their righteous deeds shall be remembered...but they shall die.” Ezekiel 33:13.

The Pharisees were following God's requirements laid out in Deuteronomy 10:12 to love God and keep His commandments. But they ignored much of the teachings of the later prophets.

“He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" (Micah 6:8)  The New Oxford Annotated Bible explains that this verse summarizes a century of brilliant prophecy. Similarly, if you look again at James' summary (in 1:27) of God's requirements, they include both remaining unstained by the world and being sensitive to the needs of others.

“Confidence about God precludes confidence in God. This is the fatal misunderstanding of all 'merit' religion.” (Ellis)   But I would extend that idea to those like the “name it, claim it” believers who are not at all works-oriented but who have an attitude that I have actually heard and read from some of them: “God has to do such and such for me...because I found a verse in the Bible that I am going to hold Him to.”

However, for those who maintain the attitude of the sinful tax collector, “Every moment before God is an opportunity to have life determined by the future rather than by the past.” (Manson)

Gordon Fee tells the story of a Sunday school teacher who presented an excellent lesson on this parable and then closed in prayer, saying “Thank you, Lord, that we are not like the Pharisee in the story.” 

BIBLE INTERPRETATION: PROPHECY

    

Recommended Reading:

A Guide to Biblical Prophecy by Carl E. Armerding and W. Ward Gasque

This very usefulbook contains a series of articles by responsible scholars trying to counter some of the more sensational and speculative teachings on the subject.

Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament by G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson

Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy by J. Barton Payne

The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views by Robert G. Clouse, ed.

 

The Nature of Prophecy

Prophecy is Foretelling and Telling Forth

nabi (Heb.) = one who is called, who has a vocation

The Former Prophets: include Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings.

In the books of the Prophets, roughly half of verses involve telling forth rather than foretelling the future. Most of teachings involve a cry for individuals to return to the true worship of God, his high ethical standards, and for the nation as a whole to recognize God as their only true leader and strength.

prophetes (Gr.) = public expounder, one who speaks forth

Today's preachers follow in the tradition of the prophets.

Typical Three-Part Structure to Prophetic Literature

1. Indictment of Israel for her sins

2. Indictment and punishment of the nations

3. Future promises for Israel

It proceeds from doom to hope. There is some predictive prophecy in step 2 and even more in step 3. Most of the problems in interpretation involve these last two steps so we will concentrate on the predictive aspect of prophecy.

Popular Understanding of Predictive Prophecy

Right off the bat, I feel it is necessary to counter the popular idea that prophecy is very clear and straightforward. Thus, it has been said that it can be used as an accurate guide to predicting future events or events as they unfold. Hal Lindsey: “To the skeptic who says that Christ is not coming soon, I would ask him to put the book of Revelation in one hand, and the daily newspaper in the other, and then sincerely ask God to show him where we are on His prophetic time-clock.”

Most prophecies are ambiguous and not merely 

“a straightforward history of events before they come to pass.”

Here is one of the most literally fulfilled prophecies concerning the life of Jesus that I could find: “But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel....” (Micah 5:2) The time frame is ambiguous as well as the nature of the coming “rule.” We can almost forgive Herod's misguided response in attempting to wipe out a possible threat to his earthly dynasty, since that seems to be the obvious interpretation of Micah's prophecy.

“He was despised and rejected by others; a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity; and as one from whom others hide their faces he was despised, and we held him of no account.” (Isaiah 53:3) From this, you could predict that the coming Messiah would be a hermit who would be either hated or ignored by the general populace. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. Early in his life he “grew in favor with God and man” and had large crowds following him everywhere during his three years of ministry. This verse in Isaiah is only true of the last day of Jesus' life. Note also the use of the prophetic past tense (“he was” for “he will be”) indicating that this future event is so sure to happen that the prophet can act as if it already has happened.

Most prophecies are poetic in form and language.

Form: parallelism of thought

He was assigned a grave with the wicked,

                                                       and with the rich in his death.     (Isaiah 53:9)

Taken as prose, it is a false prophecy. Taken as poetry, it is a fulfilled prophecy. The poetic meaning is that in the circumstances surrounding his death and burial, he will be associated with the extremes of society.

Language: Figurative

    Though you soar aloft like the eagle,                  (simile)

    Through your nest is set among the stars,          (metaphor and hyperbole)

        From there I will bring you down,

            Says the LORD.   (Obadiah 1:4)

Edom's main cities were located on high rock formations.

Many prophecies are typical in nature – types of what is to come.

“And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. He blessed him and said, 'Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth'...And Abram gave him one-tenth of everything.” (Genesis 14:18-20)   Few of us would understand this passage as a prophecy at all, but it is referred to in Psalm 110:4 and subsequently quoted in Hebrews 7:17 as relating to Jesus: “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”

Over half of all OT prophecies relating to NT or later times are types of things to come, not easily understood as prophecies at all in their original settings.

Prophecies may be telescoped in time.

“The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed... to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God.”

            Isaiah 61:1-2, quoted by Jesus in Luke 4

After reciting these verses to the audience in the synagogue, he added “Today this has been fulfilled in your hearing.” But he purposely stopped his quote before the last phrase since that event was saved for a later time period even though the Isaiah passage would tend to make you believe that the events followed one another directly.

Another example is Peter's speech on the Day of Pentacost in which he quotes extensively from the end of Joel 2 regarding the spirit coming on the people. “Then afterward I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy...Then everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved...”

However, he stops without continuing the quote into Joel 3 where it says, “For then, in those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all the nations and bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat, and I will enter into judgment with them there...”

The standard way of picturing this phenomenon is to imagine the prophet seeing a series of future events that look from his perspective as if they were happening one immediately after the other when in actuality they may be separated by many years. This is another factor that makes it almost impossible to read an OT prophecy and come up with a time-table in advance.

Prophecies are usually conditional.

Conditions are almost always stated (“If you do this, then I will do that...”) but sometimes are unspoken.

    1. “The LORD will bring you back in ships to Egypt, by a route that I promised you would never use again and there you shall offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as slaves.”

            Deuteronomy 28:68, with reference to Exodus 14:13 and Deuteronomy 17:16

God appears to be breaking His promise, but is that true?

    2. The Davidic Covenant is established in II Samuel 7 without any conditions attached. But when it is restated in I Kings (2:1-4; 8:25 and 9:4-5), there are definite expectations of behavior that seem to limit that promise.

    3. This principle can work in the opposite direction also. “'Forty more days and Nineveh shall be overthrown.' And the people of Nineveh believed God...When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it.” (Jonah 3:4-5,10) E. C. Lucas (New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, p. 234) says, “Even when the prophets declared what seemed to be a settled decision of God, the possibility of the hearers' responses changing things seems always to have been implied.”

    4. Micah 4:12 predicted unconditionally that Jerusalem would be destroyed, but Jeremiah 26:18-19 says that it did not happen when King Hezekiah heard it and repented.

Don't expect mathematical precision in prophecies.

“Your offspring shall be aliens in a land that is not theirs, and shall be slaves there, and they shall be oppressed for four hundred years.” (Genesis 15:13)  However, the time that the Israelites had lived in Egypt was 430 years. (Exodus 12:40)  Those who see a contradiction here usually state that the first 30 years weren't as bad as the last 400.  It is more likely that in Genesis, 400 is a round number standing for 10 generations.

For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:39-40)

Some scholars attempt to fit in three whole days and nights into the Gospel accounts, but it is difficult to do so. An alternative is to consider that in Jewish thinking, a part of a day counted for the whole day.

Theological Viewpoints on Prophecy

So how do you approach Biblical prophecy in order to interpret it correctly? It depends greatly on what your theological view of the future is. You almost have to consciously decide first which camp you want to be in. And your decision will greatly affect your view of the future.

    Complete Preterism: All OT and NT prophecies have already been fulfilled.

    Amillennialism: Only 10% have yet to be fulfilled since we are now living in the millennial period. (approximate statistics derived from J. Barton Payne)

    Historical premillennialism: 37% of prophecies were fulfilled in OT times, 45% in NT times, and 18% have future fulfillment (Only four of these last category come from the OT)*

                Both amillennialists and historical premillennialists could be called partial preterists.

    Dispensationalism: Almost all OT and NT prophecies will be literally fulfilled for the people of Israel sometime in the future.

Somewhat related to these differing views are the four options regarding the OT promises and prophecies regarding the Jews.

    a. covenant, reformed, fulfillment theology: credits Israel with being chosen by God for redemptive purposes, which were all fulfilled in Christ, the representative of perfect Israel, and by his church.

    b. supersessionism or replacement theology: no correspondence between old and new Israel

    c. remnant, dispensational theology: present age of grace is a mere “parenthesis” in God's overall plan for Israel, which will be fulfilled literally during the Millennium.

    d. dual-covenant theology, separation theology, two-people-of-God theology: separate plans of salvation for Jews and Gentiles. Mosaic Covenant is still valid for Jews.

Why do they differ so much? A lot of the reason boils down to the use of different hermeneutical approaches. And this is best illustrated by taking a typical prophecy and looking at how different groups might approach it. But before that, I would like to briefly explain two views of the future that I will say very little about for reasons that will soon become obvious.

Minority Views:

Postmillennialism: An optimistic view of the future that says the world will become better and better every day through the influence of Christians until we have a heaven on earth. Christ will come down at that time and bless what has already been accomplished. Where would they get this idea? It was based mainly on observations concerning current events with little support from Scripture. This view was very popular between the Civil War and WWI (even among Southern Baptists) and more recently among some Pentacostals.

Complete (or Full or Consistent) Preterism: This view relies on somewhat convoluted chains of reasoning using both overly-literal and overly-figurative interpretations to make its point. It is dealt with in some detail in several other posts (search for "Preterism"). This view has never been embraced by any Christian denomination and is generally labeled as a heresy since it denies a future coming of Christ, the Last Judgment, destruction of the earth, bodily resurrection of believers, and for some preterists the reality of hell.

A Typical Example of Predictive Prophecy

Therefore, the days are surely coming, says the LORD, when it shall no longer be said, “As the LORD lives who brought the people of Israel up out of the land of Egypt,” but “As the LORD lives who brought the people of Israel up out of the land of the north and out of all the lands where he had driven them.” For I will bring them back to their own land that I gave to their ancestors. Jeremiah 16:14-16

Liberals / Skeptics

There is no such thing as prediction of future events in the Bible. Therefore one of the following three must be true:

    1. Jeremiah took a lucky guess or logically figured out that most likely future scenario was that the Jews would eventually return from the Babylonian exile.

    2. There were many “prophecies” and “prophets” at the time, but the Jews only preserved those predictions that came true later and discarded the rest.

    3. The book, or at least this particular passage, must have been written after the return from exile had taken place, not before it.

Amillennialists

They would apply this prophecy to the return of the exiles to Israel using the principle that the closest adequate fulfillment is the preferred one. Almost all OT prophecies were adequately fulfilled in OT times. Others were figuratively fulfilled by Christ or the institution of His church, or remain to be fulfilled at the Second Coming.

Historical Premillennialists

The closest adequate fulfillment is the preferred one, but it may possibly point to a later similar fulfillment, perhaps during the Millennium, an ill-defined interim kingdom of Christ on earth (principle of multiple fulfillments)

Dispensationalists

All OT prophecies must be literally fulfilled. At best, the return from Babylonian Exile is a dim type of what is to come during the Millennium.

In treating this passage, dispensationalists get highly literal to prove their point. They say that the word “all” can't refer to the Babylonian captivity since the Jews were only sent into a few lands to the north. It also can't refer to the establishment of the modern state of Israel since that doesn't encompass all of the territory that God originally promised Israel. Thus, this predicted event has not yet happened.

Here is another example to illustrate dispensational hermeneutics:

A voice cries out: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; the uneven ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain. Then the glory of the LORD shall be revealed...” (Isaiah 40:3-5)

Mark quotes the first part of this verse in his first chapter and then goes on to explain in 1:4, “John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.”

Most dispensationalists say that although this event may have happened figuratively when John the baptizer prepared the people for Jesus, that is not really what Isaiah was talking about. We have to wait for a future time when an earthquake changes the topography of the land around Israel, and Elijah literally returns to earth. Because of their demand for mainly literal fulfillments, the dispensational scenarios for the future tend to be much more detailed than others, and their believers are much more certain of themselves than proponents of other views. Which is part of why their approach is so appealing.

Most prophecies can only be recognized after they have been fulfilled.

By contrast, my own personal opinion based on NT examples is that the only sure guide to fulfillment of prophecy is found in the New Testament if it actually states that a particular event is a fulfillment.

Now when looking at how NT authors treat OT prophecies, there are a few things you might find confusing.

    Unity of Authorship for OT Prophecies:

Look at the various citations found in the Epistle of Hebrews. Someone has testified somewhere (2:5) (Psalms); Jesus said (2:13-14) (Psalms and Isaiah); The Holy Spirit says (3:7-11) (Psalms), He (God) says through David (4:7) (Psalms)

The point is that the actual human author is not really important since God is the ultimate author.

    Compound Citations:

Some of the OT scriptures quoted are actually combinations taken from several different places, and sometimes only the name of the most important prophet is cited.

Mark 1:2 starts out by saying he is going to quote Isaiah, but his quote is actually a composite citation from Isaiah 40, Exodus 23, and Malachi 3-4.

In Acts 15:15-18, Peter lumps together quotes from Amos 9:11-12, Jeremiah 12:15, and Isaiah 45:21.

Hebrews 1:2b-14 strings together seven different OT passages.

    David may speak for the coming Christ in the Psalms:

I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.” (Psalm 2:7-8, quoted in Hebrews 1:5 and Acts 13:33)

David's words were interpreted by the Jews as messianic prophecies since these promises were never given to David himself. The author of Hebrews quotes this verse to prove that Jesus was superior to the angels since he was called his son. Paul applies these verses to Jesus' resurrection in Acts 13:33

   OT prophecies appear to be used out of their original contexts:

In referring to the Holy Family's flight into Egypt and return, Matthew says: This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, “Out of Egypt I have called my son.” (Matthew 2:15, quoting Hosea 11:1) These are two totally different events. But Christ is the representative of the nation of Israel, both of which were called into and then out of Egypt. Christ is reliving the history of Israel. Both are called “My Son.” In both cases, a powerful ruler was trying to destroy them but they were protected by God.

    Quotes are usually from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament (LXX):

“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.” (Matthew 1:23, quoting Isaiah 7:14)

The Hebrew word almah simply means young woman, but LXX translated it specifically as “virgin.” The Septuagint (LXX) was the Bible of the time for most of the people.

Another example: “Hearing you shall hear and shall not understand, and seeing you shall see and not perceive.” (LXX)   Here it is given as a mere statement of a future fact.

"Hear indeed but do not understand; and see indeed but do not perceive." (Hebrews) In this case it appears as a command from God.” (Luke 8:10 quotation from Isaiah 6:9)

Luke follows the LXX, which may actually be a superior text. The NT writers were not fudging the facts by using a Greek translation in place of a Hebrew original. Actually, the Dead Sea scrolls in Hebrew are sometimes closer to LXX than our standard Hebrew text and may actually reflect a better reading.

    New Testament authors may borrow OT prophetic language and imagery:

Zechariah 1 and 6: scouts in chariots with multiple horses each: white, red, black and dappled gray who are sent out by God 70 years after the first destruction of Jerusalem and right before the fall of Babylon.

Revelation 6: riders on individual horses (white, red, black and pale green) usher in the judgment on the world and the figurative Babylon.

Similar imagery is used to hearken back to similar events, but not necessarily the same events.

As another example: “So when you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place, as was spoken of [Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11] by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains...” (Matthew 24:15-16)

    (a) Fulfilled in the time of Antiochus IV

    (b) Applied to different event in 70 AD

    (c) To be fulfilled in the future? See my post on Matthew 24, where this issue is discussed.