NOTES ON GENESIS 12-50

Genesis 13:10-12 Geography fits a location for Sodom north of the Dead Sea where land is much more 

fertile than in the south.

Genesis 14:10 Liquid asphalt seeps through planes that bound the Dead Sea basin even today. These 

may be equivalent to the “slime pits” in this verse.

Genesis 17:14 Uncircumcized males will not have any children?

Gen. 17:15 Sarai = contentious? (Babylonian cognate); Sarah = princess.

Genesis 18:3-6, etc. Many parallels with the Exodus story, including fleeing from city, plague on the

people, use of the rare words "pass by," "cakes," "hurry," "unleavened bread."

Gen. 18:19 “So that” hints that the promises are conditional.

Gen. 18:25-32 Supposed basis for minyan, the quorum of ten men required for Jewish religious 

services.

Genesis 19 See note for Gen. 13:10-12. BAR article in 2013 proposes a particular tell for the site of 

Sodom north of the Dead Sea (rather than south as previously proposed). It is the only city site in the 

Dead Sea area having city gates such as described at the start of the story. The city was destroyed by a 

very hot fire—3 ft. deep ash layer. The only problem is that the destruction circa 1600 BC appears to 

have preceded the Genesis time frame.

Genesis 21:9 The Septuagint and Vulgate versions have words that are not found in the Hebrew test:

missing in MT: Sarah noted that [Ishmael] was playing with her son Isaac. If this has a sexual 

connotation deleted in the Hebrew, then it better explains Sarah's anger.

Gen. 21:9-21 Since sending someone out into the wilderness was tantamount to killing them, this 

episode is a preliminary test for Abraham. It prepares us for the events in Gen. 22

Genesis 22 See note to Gen. 21:9-21

Genesis 24:6 Why shouldn't Isaac himself go? Perhaps there was the danger that he would fall in love 

with a Canaanite woman while away from home.

Gen. 24:21 Even though the sign is given, the servant still looks for other credentials (no daughter of 

Canaan).

Gen 24:27 There is a different word order in KJV: "I, being in the way, was led."

Gen. 24:30 Laban is introduced as a greedy man

Gen. 24:45 "what you have done"

Genesis 25:1 The name Keturah appears in a recently published Ebla document.

Gen 25:28 Loving someone for what they do rather than who they are.

Genesis 27:1 Parallels to the sale of birthright in ch. 25: physical hunger, blindness, contemplation of 

death, exchange intangible for tangible, carelessness, dishonesty, resulting discord.

Gen. 27:5-6 his son and her son

Gen. 27:12 burnt finger morality only

Gen. 27:13 curse on her–she will not see her son again after he leaves.

Gen. 27:15 She practices an old sheepherder's trick used to pair an orphaned ewe with a lamb whose 

own ewe has died. The latter is skinned to cover the orphan so that mother will accept it.

Gen. 27:20 Note "your God" and also using the Lord's name in vain to deceive.

Genesis 28:3 This is a more spiritual blessing than in 27:27-28.

Gen. 28:12 "Ladder" should be translated as stairway as in the NIV. The same image as the Tower of 

Babel, a stepped ziggurat.

Genesis 29:21-25 Poetic justice for Jacob's trickery earlier: substituting one sibling for another, 

trickery due to one party not being able to see.

Gen. 29:26 These words of Laban may have convicted Jacob of his own sin.

Gen. 29:29. Bilhah as a name appears also in the Ebla tablets.

Genesis 30:13 Like the names of the seven dwarfs, they express their personalities.

Genesis 31:19 Rachel may have wanted them as fertility aids; Laban wanted them for legal reasons.

Gen. 31:32 Jacob unwittingly condemns Rachel by his oath, which he must have realized when she 

turned in her idols (Gen. 35:2). Out of guilt she showed favoritism toward Joseph and Benjamin and 

later adopted her grandsons by them (Gen. 48:1-12). (Gordon Tucker)

Genesis 32:1 God meets Jacob before he gets to the Promised Land. This indicates that God is not 

localized, unlike Sarah's concept of household gods.

Gen. 32:6ff  Plan A-tactical, prayer next (theologically sound, but really felt?); Plan B: bribery; Plan 

C: hide family

Gen 32:24ff See Hosea 12:3-4 for comment on this event. The angel asking for his name reminds us of 

Jacob's father asking him earlier. Divine retribution of sorts for his lie. Also like Peter's denial three 

times and subsequent conversation with the risen Christ.

Danger comes from an unexpected source despite all his planning.

Ernest Jones -- Jacob has been searching his whole life for a blessing (from his father, marriage, riches) 

but still needs God to give him the real blessing. Wrestling must stop before daybreak or Jacob will see 

his face and die (see verse 30). The long period of wrestling was so that God could reduce him to the 

place of helplessness. God purposely limited himself to be an even match for a man (Like Jesus' 

incarnation). Strangely, the ancient rabbis held that the wrestler was in fact Esau.

Psychologists propose that he is wrestling with himself.

Phyllis Trible uses this story as an analogy with wrestling with the Bible and not letting go until it 

blesses you. But in the process you will be changed forever.

Gen 32:27 The name is given after a struggle -- like Gen 25:26.

Gen. 32:28 He is no more Jacob ("the deceiver").

Genesis 34 This story shows that there are two visions of how to deal with strangers in the Bible: make 

war with them or make peace.

Gen. 34:1 suggests she may have been guilty to some extent since women were not to be 

unaccompanied in those days.

Gen. 34:5 The word "defiled" indicates elsewhere forbidden sexual contacts, not rape.

Gen. 34:24-26 The use of a sacred ritual in this manner is not only a dirty trick but also sacrilege.

Genesis 35:2 See note to Gen. 31:32

Gen. 35:16-17 Probably a description of a breech birth. Only in a breech birth would the midwife be 

able to tell the sex of the baby well before actual delivery. It also explains Rachel's death after 

childbirth. (Dr. Joseph Jacobs)

Genesis 37:11 This is like Mary pondering these things.

Gen. 37:34 see Job 1:20.

Genesis 38:15 There is no evidence that this was a temple prostitute. (BAR)

Genesis 40 This is a type of Jesus sandwiched between two thieves. One will live and the other one die.

Genesis 41:14 This custom is confirmed by Egyptian records. Shaving was a ritual before appearing 

before Pharaoh. It probably had to do with removal of all body lice. Also, removal of all body hair was 

a ritual for all newly ordained Egyptian priests.

Genesis 48:7 See note to Gen. 31:32

Gen. 48:15 or "who has been my shepherd?"

Genesis 49:10 This may be read as styloh (Shiloh) or say loh (tribute to him) depending on whether 

there is a word division in the text.

 

MIRACLES IN THE BIBLE: A LESSON STUDY GUIDE

Below is the outline of a series of 1½- hour lectures I once gave at our church. Obviously, these would have to be broken into much smaller chunks for any other kind of individual or group setting.

1. Introduction

    Definition of “miracle”

    How does God act in the world?

    Miracles and Science: Can they be reconciled?

2. The Believability of Miracles

    Proto-Scientists in the Bible

    Criteria for Believability

3. “Natural” Miracles

    Miracles that may not be miracles

    Miracles of knowledge

    Miracles of timing

4. Two Astronomical Miracles

    The Long Day of Hezekiah (II Kings 20: Isaiah 38)

    The Long Day of Joshua (Joshua 10:12-13)

5. Distribution of Biblical Miracles

    Negative vs. Positive Miracles

    Symmetrical Pairing of Biblical Miracles

6. Problem Miracles

    The Boys and the Bears (II Kings 2:23-25)

    The Floating Axe-Head (II Kings 6:1-7)

    Daniel 3 and 6 Parallels

    The Death of Uzzah (II Samuel 6:1-11)

7. New Testament Miracles

    Matthew

    Mark

    Harmony of the Gospels (Matthew 15:21-28; Mark 7:24-30)

    John

    Acts

8. New Testament Healing Miracles

    Characteristics

    Faith and Healing

    Diversity

    John 9

    A Two-Part Healing (Mark 8:22-25)

    Illness and Sin

    Illness and Demon-Possession

    Practical Application (Luke 8:22-25; Mark 6:47-51

Some posts on this site may provide additional background for this study. The titles are listed according to the corresponding lesson plans above. Most consist of teachings, but some refer to collages I have made with the theme of the pertinent Scripture passages.

Lesson Post

1.   A Scientist Looks at Miracles

2.   Gideon: Part 2

     Judges 6-7

     Acts 12

3.  Miracles of Knowledge

4.  Joshua 10

     Joshua's Long Day

     Hezekiah's Long Day

5.  Acts 4-5

6.  II Kings 6:1-7

    II Kings 2:23-25: The Boys and the Bears

    II Kings 2:23-24

    II Kings 6:1-7: The Floating Ax Head

    II Samuel 6: Death of Uzzah

7. Miracles in Matthew's Gospel

    Miracles in Mark's Gospel

    Miracles in Luke's Gospel

    Miracles in John's Gospel

    John 2

    John 5

    Acts 3-4

    Mark 5: Healing of the Demoniac

8. Faith Healing in the Bible

    Mark 8:22-25

    John 9

   Mark 9:11-29

 

"DON'T BE OVERLY RIGHTEOUS OR OVERLY WISE" (ECCLESIASTES 7:16)

 

A few weeks ago our Sunday school class was studying Ecclesiastes 7. When our teacher came to this particular verse, he said that if I had been there (I was watching it on-line) he would have asked me to explain this really strange statement. Fortunately for me, I didn't have to admit my ignorance in public. But since I was not there I had the advantage of being able to consult my “brain” (i.e. my home library of Bible study resources). And after canvassing a number of commentaries, I have come to the conclusion that there are three basic approaches to interpreting this verse.

Approach #1: A.G. Wright holds to the interesting position that the advice in these two verses “is not Qoheleth's [the Teacher's] message at all, but is something he judges as not helpful...Similarly, the various collections of proverbs are not 'Qoheleth's favorites' offered by way of advice as previously treated.” In other words, this is another way of stating the popular liberal two-author approach to Ecclesiastes. It states that an orthodox Jewish author took a cynical document written by an unbeliever or disillusioned Jew and attempted to correct its faulty theology by occasionally inserting some corrective teachings here and there.

Thus, according to this view, the present book is a strange patchwork of contradictory opinions which really leaves the reader in a quandary as to which ones to believe and which ones to reject. My post “Ecclesiastes: Introduction to the Literary Structure” offers one argument against this view.

A milder form of this approach is expressed by Caneday: “His literary image reflects the harsh realities of this present world as he places side by side contradictory elements to portray the twisted, disjointed and disfigured form of this world.”

Approach #2: A somewhat more satisfactory interpretation has been credited by many writers to R.N. Whybray. This view is explained by Kaiser: “The real clue to this passage is to be found in the second verb of Ecclesiastes 7:16, 'to be wise.' This form must be rendered reflexively according to the Hebrew verb form: to think oneself to be furnished with wisdom. As such, it makes the same point as the famous text in Proverbs 3:7 does, 'Be not wise in your own eyes.'” Similarly, Eaton says, “'Do not be greatly righteous' must be taken ironically and must refer to the way a person thinks about himself and presents himself.”

Tremper Longman III states, “Interpreters who want to guard Qohelet's piety or orthodoxy have adopted this...approach.” These would include such names as Stedman, Bridges and Castellino. But Longman himself rejects it in favor of the following interpretation.

Approach #3: Longman explains this view as expressing a warning by Qohelet “against seeking righteousness and wisdom with too much fervor,.” Before quoting from some of those scholars who agree with Longman, it may first be asked why they do not espouse Approach #2 instead.

The reasons for rejecting Approach #2 are mostly too technical for me to understand or convey in my own words. Brindle is probably the clearest in expressing these reasons: “It is perhaps obvious by now that Whybray's interpretation of the passage 7:16b depends almost entirely upon a highly questionable meaning of one word in the passage. Having concluded that this word refers to 'pretensions of wisdom,' he reasons that 7:16a is parallel and that it should therefore read, 'Do not pretend to be righteous' or 'Do not be self-righteous.' This is an unwarranted leap...Whybray's solution fits neither the context not the details of the passage.”

Both Longman and Seow offer similar arguments against Approach #2, and an impressive list of Bible scholars weighs in on the side of this third interpretation, even though they may express it in somewhat different ways.

Scott: “...it is as unprofitable for men to exhaust themselves in struggling for moral perfection as it is to hasten their demise through folly. True reverence for God is shown by a moderation which is not moral indifference but the recognition that, while wisdom is important, no man can be perfect.”

D.G. Moore: “Trying to be good in our own strength is not only exhausting; it is impossible. Furthermore, righteousness, even the godly variety, ought always to be in tandem with mercy and kindness.” I would add that this very idea is expressed in James 1:27.

Seow: “The issue here is not hypocrisy but boasting...not in the sense of pretense but pretentiousness (so NEB: 'flaunt not your wisdom').”

Brindle: The expressions 'excessively righteous' and 'make yourself overly wise' are best understood as an exaggerated striving and seeking after perfection and super-wisdom.”

Hendry: “There is need of humility and restraint in both the thought and the practice of morality. It must be remembered that all moralities are conditioned by man's finitude and tainted by his sin. We must be careful to avoid moral pride.”

Niebuhr: “Moral pride thus makes virtue the very vehicle of sin.” C.S. Lewis in The Screwtape Letters shows the demons switching gears as soon as one of their victims becomes a Christian. Instead of tempting him to commit sensual sins, they now try to lure the person into committing spiritual sins such as pride.

Kwakkel: “...it warns against excessiveness in pursuing righteousness and wisdom. Such zealotry ends in bewilderment or self-destruction because it does not take into account that no one on earth is so righteous as to do good without sinning. Moreover, it gives evidence of too high a view of what people can achieve, which contrasts with the humility of those who fear God.”

Fleming: “The author observes that righteousness does not always lead to happiness nor wickedness to suffering...This prompts the author to suggest a middle course, where one's enjoyment of life will not be ruined either by an over-zealous concern for righteousness and wisdom or by a too tolerant attitude toward wickedness and folly. The person who avoids both extremes and who obeys God will be successful in the end.”

IF JESUS WAS FULLY GOD, WHY DID HE HAVE TO GROW IN WISDOM? (LUKE 2:40, 52; HEBREWS 5:8)

A closely related question is “If Jesus was fully God, in what manner did He have to learn obedience?” (Hebrews 5:8)

Luke 2:40,52

These similar statements that close sections of Luke's Gospel relating to Jesus' early life actually have their background in certain OT passages:

    I Samuel 2:21,26: “And the boy Samuel grew up in the presence of the LORD...Now the boy Samuel grew in stature and favor with the LORD and with people.”

    Judges 13:24: “The boy [Samuel] grew, and the LORD blessed him.”

    Isaiah 11:1-2: “The spirit of the LORD shall rest on him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding...” This passage is a description of the coming Messiah.

Turning now to Luke's Gospel, we have:

    Luke 1:80: “The child [John the Baptist] grew and became strong in the spirit...”

    Luke 2:40: “The child [Jesus] grew and became strong, filled with wisdom, and the favor of God was upon him.”

    Luke 2:52: “And Jesus increased in wisdom and in age/stature, and in divine and human favor.” (NRSV)

If we compare Luke 2 with the OT passages, we can see that Luke may have been borrowing somewhat stereotyped language regarding the early childhood of those destined by God for important tasks. Thus, Marshall states, “The intended picture is one of perfect development.” If that is the intent, then one should not read too much into the exact description of that growth.

If we compare Luke 2 with Isaiah 11:1-2 specifically, then the intent of Luke's descriptions may have simply been to point to Jesus as the prophesied Messiah.

Next, let us see what can be learned from the progression of the three similar statements found in Luke 1-2. Fitzmyer notes that the description filled with wisdom in 2:40 “is not said of John, but it prepares for the next episode, Jesus sitting among the teachers in the Temple.” Marshall echoes this thought: “wisdom is singled out in view of the following narrative.”

Marshall brings out another implication from a comparison of Luke 1:80 with Luke 2:40: “Above all, God's favor rests on Jesus. So he is superior to John in that from childhood onwards he possesses both wisdom and grace.” Thus, the emphasis in 2:40 is on the wisdom that Jesus had even at an early age rather than His lack of wisdom. (J. A. Martin)

Raymond Brown puts together the three passages in Luke: “It is easy to see that 2:40 repeats 1:80 and expands it, while 2:52 takes the expansion in 2:40 and expands it even further...The new term in 2:52 is 'maturity'...which is quite appropriate for describing a transition from boyhood to manhood...Another new aspect in 52 is the shift from being 'filled' with wisdom and favor (vs. 40) to making progress in these aspects.”

But the above does not fully explain the original question posed above: Why did Jesus have to grow in wisdom,” as it states in Luke 2:52? And this verse does clearly picture “the continuation of what has already been described in 2:40.” (Marshall)

Bringing another passage from Luke 2 into the picture, Brown summarizes the situation with the words: “It is not possible to argue from vs. 49 ['I must be about my Father's business'] that Jesus as a boy knew he was the Son of God. It is equally impossible to argue from vs. 52 (which is a standard description of growth) that Jesus grew in human knowledge. At most one can argue that Luke's appreciation of Jesus did not cause him to see any difficulty in stating that Jesus grew in wisdom and God's favor, and that Luke's christology did not cause him to see any difficulty in affirming that, already as a boy, Jesus was God's Son.”

One possible answer to the question of Jesus' growth is provided in a piece of information relayed by Ellis: “In the literature of later Judaism Wisdom and Spirit became virtual personifications of God in action in the world.” If that same thought was present in Luke's day, then he may have been communicating the thought that with time Jesus developed more opportunities to exercise the wisdom He already possessed, not that He obtained more internal wisdom as he grew.

But perhaps the best answer of all to the question is that summarized by Geldenhuys: “As a true human Child He passed through a process of physical and spiritual growth and increase. This verse [Luke 2:40] expressly tells us that the intellectual, moral and spiritual growth of Jesus as a Child was just as real as His physical growth. He was completely subject to the ordinary laws of physical and intellectual development, except that in His case there was nothing of the influence of sin or 'shortcoming.'”

In commenting on the Chalcedonian Creed, Michael Agapito says, “God does not cease to be divine. Rather, he lays aside the explicit use or exercise of his divine attributes in order to relate to us on a human level, while remaining divine.” This, in fact, is just what Paul states in Philippians 2:5-8 when he says that Christ Jesus was equal with God, but He emptied Himself and took on all the attributes of a human being.

To insist that for Christ to truly be God, He must still possess all the power, knowledge, and wisdom He had on heaven even when just a physically and mentally underdeveloped child is (1) to deny the truth of the statements in Luke 2 and Philippians 2:5-8 and (2) leads to positing just as bizarre a sort of Christ child that is described in the apocryphal Infancy Gospels who kills three of his little friends when they happen to annoy him, causes other friends' toys to fly away, and blinds some parents who had the nerve to criticize his behavior.

Hebrews 5:8

This verse reads: “Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.” And commentators have even more to say regarding this passage. They are all in general agreement as to the meaning although some feel that the reference is to the general sufferings in Jesus' life while others apply it to His prayer in Gethsemane, and still others to the suffering on the cross.

    Stibbs: “...by the experience of such a discipline He, Son of God though He was, learnt the full meaning and cost of human obedience, and was thereby perfected in His human character...”

    Gess: “...when Heb. 5:8 declares that Jesus learnt obedience through what he suffered, there is no thought of our concept of character-formation. It is probably linked with the Son's obedience to the Father tested in temptation.”

    Stott treats this verse as a parallel to Hebrews 2:10 which says that the Father made Christ perfect through suffering. “Not of course that he was ever imperfect in the sense that he had done wrong...It was rather that he needed further experiences and opportunities in order to become teleios, 'mature'...He was never disobedient. But his sufferings were the testing ground in which his obedience became full-grown.”

    Hawthorne: “...the writer is saying that He, now in the sphere of humanity, must, as must all 'sons,' learn what it means to obey God when encircled by human sufferings and temptations.”

    Hodges: “His unique relation to God notwithstanding, He had to experience the true meaning of obedience in terms of the suffering it entailed...That there is an element of mystery in all this need not be denied, but it is no greater than found in [Luke 2:52]...In a real sense not fully comprehensible, the Incarnation gave the already infinitely wise and perfect Son of God the experiential knowledge about the human condition.”

    Bruce: “...we learn to be obedient because of the unpleasant consequences which follow disobedience. It was not so with Him: He set out from the start on the path of obedience to God, and learned by the sufferings which came His way in consequence just what obedience to God involved in practice in the conditions of human life on earth.”

    Ellingworth: “The present verse...probably implies a contrast between [Christ's] eternal status on the one hand, and the learning process of Christ's earthly life on the other.”

I will close with Peter Davids' restatement of the original question and subsequent reply:

    “Wasn't Christ already obedient in becoming incarnate? Was there anything that the Son of God had to learn? Can God learn? Can we hold an orthodox view of the divinity of Christ and still accept this Scripture?”

    “The obedience Jesus learned was the obedience of suffering. It is one thing to obey when there is no resistance; it is another thing to obey when that very obedience will bring you pain. Before the Incarnation who resisted the Son? Only in his life on earth did he suffer for his obedience. In other words, there are some things that even God can experience only by becoming a human being with all of our human limitations.”

Our options are either to do as Job did and demand that God give us an explanation of all his actions in terms that we can rationally understand with our limited capacities, deny the plain truth of what He has already revealed in Scripture, or accept the fact that we are often confronted with verities that we may only dimly comprehend and leave the rest to God in faith.

 

HOW LONG IS 1,000 YEARS? (REVELATION 20:2-7)

The above question may seem like a strange one. However, in terms of the “1,000 years” found six times in Revelation 20:2-7, it is still a debated issue. Thus, in a difficult book such as Revelation, “Revelation 20:4-6 is one of the most difficult passages...” (Dodd) Part of the controversy regarding the length of time involved arises from the preconceived eschatological approaches of the commentators who have dealt with this passage. Without describing all that these theologies involve (see my post “Book of Revelation: Theological Stances.”), we can summarize their respective interpretations of “1,000 years” as follows:

Amillennial: This group of interpreters as well as others, beginning at least as early as St. Augustine, read most of what is in Revelation, including the numbers, symbolically and not literally.

    “Hoekema: “The book of Revelation is full of symbolic numbers. Obviously the number 'thousand' which is used here must not be interpreted in a literal sense. Since the number ten signifies completeness, and since a thousand is ten to the third power, we may think of the expression 'a thousand years' as standing for a complete period, a very long period of indeterminate length.”

    Ruiz: “The period of a thousand years is symbolic both here [20:2-3] and in vv. 4-7, suggesting a temporary time of righteousness and tranquility before the final eschatological consummation.”

Postmillennial: This shrinking group of commentators are divided as to whether the number is meant to be literal or figurative/symbolic.

    Boettner: “It is to last an indefinitely long period of time, perhaps much longer than a literal one thousand years.”

Historic Premillennial: This group is represented by a very impressive number of evangelistic scholars. In general, they are also divided in opinion as to whether exactly 1,000 years will be involved. They tend to not be overly dogmatic on the issue.

    Payne: “...the precise lapse of the years that are involved may be subject to modification...”

Dispensational Premillennial: This probably represents the most popular view among evangelical Christians today, at least among the laity. And they hold to a literal interpretation of most of the Bible, including both words and numbers.

    Walvoord: “While amillenarians and others have tended to view this as nonliteral, there is no evidence to support this conclusion...”

But while they claim to hold to a literal understanding, it is really impossible for them to keep this up consistently. And any study of their writings will soon reveal that what they sometimes call “literal interpretation” in reality means the most “reasonable” interpretation, whether it is strictly literal or figurative. Thus, the dispensationalist John Phillips after first taking it for granted that “1,000 years” is a literal time designation in 20:2-7 then states that the reverence to Gog and Magog in v. 8 are “obviously symbolic.”

Idealist View: And finally, there are those who are sometimes aligned with the amillennialists, at least to some extent. These commentators usually do not see any sort of future timetable in the Book of Revelation but treat the details as only a means of communicating spiritual verities.

    Jensen: “The abundance of life in the age to come is symbolized by thousand.”

    Gunner: The number 1,000 doesn't stand for any time period but is a symbolic way of stating that Satan will be completely bound.

    Ellul: “...we are not at all in the presence of an epoch fixed in advance as far as duration is concerned (the 1,000 years appears to me related to the biblical meaning of the figures 10, 100, 1,000: a long duration, not more)...”

So let us consider the two extreme views here: Walvoord says that there is no reason to expect that “1,000 years” is anything but a literal time frame, while Hoekema says that it is obvious “1,000 years” is to be taken figuratively. Which one is correct?

Figurative View

Articles in various word study books all weigh in on this side of the debate:

    Jenson: “Arithmetical precision is not of great significance in traditional cultures except in specialized genres, such as censuses and military reports.”

    Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: “Most scholars doubt that John intends to specify the length of time...To summarize, thousand means “large quantity.”

    Colin Brown: “The plural cheliades ['thousands'] is often used for very large numbers which cannot be measured.”

    Gunner: “...a thousand, ten thousand (Dt. xxxii; Lv. xxvi.8), and forty thousand (Jdg. v. 8) provide instances of round numbers which indicate an indefinitely large number.”

Another powerful piece of evidence supporting a figurative understanding is to simply look (using an analytical concordance) at all the instances in the Bible where the number 1,000 occurs. Statistically, over half of these cases (not including those in Revelation 20) obviously intend the number to be read as simply “a large number” and not to be taken literally. But even more significant is that in all twelve passages (again excluding Rev. 20) in which the number is used to describe a time period, the meaning is figurative, not literal. These Scripture references include Exodus 6:6, 20:6, 34:7; Deuteronomy 5:10, 7:9; I Chronicles 15:15-17; Psalm 84:10, 90:4, 105:8-10; Ecclesiastes 6:6; Jeremiah 32:18; and II Peter 3:8. So right off the bat, one would have to say that one can safely assume that the time references in Revelation 20 should also be taken figuratively unless proved otherwise.

Next to discuss is the matter of genre: “...certain important principles can guide one's exegetical conclusion. Perhaps the most important of these is to take into account the genre of literature of the passage. Poetry and apocalyptic use many different types of images. If a text is highly figurative in general, and if other numbers are used figuratively in the text, then that would predispose the reader to treat a number as symbolic.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Since Revelation (Apocalypse) obviously fits the definition of an apocalyptic text, chances are that the language used in that book is symbolic or figurative in nature, including the numbers. But although almost all scholars agree that poetic and apocalyptic literature needs to be interpreted differently than the historical books and epistles in the Bible, dispensationalists remain unconvinced. So let's turn to the literal view now to see what proofs they have to offer to the contrary.

Literal View

Walvoord's Arguments #1 & 2: “...the fact that it [thousand years] is mentioned six times and is clearly described as a period of time before which and after which events take place lead to the conclusion that it means a literal thousand-year period.” These are actually two rather weak arguments.

The fact that events happen before and after this time says nothing regarding the actual length of “1,000 years.” At most, it could be used for an argument supporting the idea that some sort of time period is in mind, expressed either literally, figuratively, symbolically, or as an approximation.

Next, just because something is mentioned multiple times has nothing whatsoever to say as to whether it is literal or figurative. And actually, this argument boomerangs on itself since the number of times a particular word is used in a biblical passage often has strictly symbolic significance, as my many years of analyzing the literary structures in the Bible have demonstrated. For example, if a word is repeated exactly seven times in a passage, it often signifies completion or perfection. In fact, the whole Book of Revelation is based upon series of sevens (See “The Book of Revelation: Introduction to the Literary Structure.”) Also, several times in the Bible, a word will be used exactly 12 times in a passage that concerns the people of God and their actions. In the case of Revelation 20, the fact that “thousand years” appears six times has the same significance as the notorious case of the beast's number 666. Six is one short of perfection and thus symbolically represents imperfection. In other words, “one thousand years” does not represent the end or perfection of history, but only an intermediate step, an imperfect time period.

Walvoord's third argument is even more flawed than his first two: “Since other time designations in Revelation are literal (e.g., '42 months,' 11:2; 13:5; '1,260 days,' 11:3: 12:6) it is natural to take ' a thousand years' literally also.” This is a classic example of circular reasoning since he has never proved that those other time indications are literal, and in fact can't do so. Actually, it is almost certain that these other time indications are figurative also since 42 months = 1,260 days = half of seven years. In other words, 3 ½ is a symbolic way of expressing a time that is short in duration and will not last forever. The OT occasions where 3 ½ days or years occurs are all times of testing for believers but also periods of witness. Daniel 12:7, 12 provide other examples. Also, during the time of Elijah, God withheld rain from the land for 3 ½ years.

And to make it four strikes against Walvoord's contention, he finally states, “If the term 'a thousand years' designates a nonspecific but long period of time...then one would expect John to say simply that Christ would reign 'a long time,' in contrast to the 'short time' of Satan's release (20:3).” In the first place, why would one expect John to state the fact simply when virtually nothing else in the whole book is just stated simply? That is the very nature of apocalyptic literature – to use pictures and symbols to indirectly explain something that is really beyond human understanding. Secondly, to address his point where he contrasts the references to “thousand years” with the simple statement in Rev. 20:3, Ruiz points out that this passage in Revelation is a pointed reference back to Daniel 7:25 where the ultimate evil king is allowed to exercise his powers for a time, two times, and half a time (yet another way of expressing the limited symbolic period of 3 ½ years).

In addition to considering the literary genre of a passage, another standard test for distinguishing figurative from literal language in the Bible is to consider the immediate context for examples of obviously figurative language. In fact, Revelation 20 is filled with objects and incidents that one would be hard pressed to consider in a strictly literal manner. These include a chain strong enough to bind Satan, a literal pit in the ground that somehow has no bottom to it and can be sealed with a lock and key, an earth with four corners to it, Gog and Magog which even one dispensationalist commentator admits have to be figurative, as many warriors as there are grains of sand in the sea, a lake of everlasting burning sulfur, the earth and heaven running away from the One seated on a white throne, and literal books containing the deeds of all mankind which need to be consulted before deciding everyone's fate.

The dispensationalists brag that they are the only group that reads the Bible in a strictly literal way. But not only is that patently not true, it is nothing whatsoever to brag about. They bring everything down to their level of understanding by doing so and in the process run the risk of totally leaving out the spiritual message that God is communicating through His word.

 

NOTES ON GENESIS 1-11

Genesis 1 See Nehemiah 8:13

Gen. 1:1 Friedman (BAR) notes, “The very fact that the Bible's sources start off with the creation of 

the earth and all of humankind instead of starting with Israel itself is relevant here. If any of us were 

asked to write a history of the United States, would we start by saying, 'Well, first there was the Big 

Bang, and then...'?”

Gen 1:1 Don Curtis: Some rabbis have noted that the first Hebrew word after “In the beginning 

God created…” is ta. This word is rarely translated into English, because it is redundant with the h^ 

prefix of the next word. But this word, ta, is made up of the Hebrew letters aleph and tov, which are 

the first and last letters of the Hebrew alefbet. By extension, the first and the last include all the ones in 

between. So one might mystically read, “In the beginning God created ta.” That is He created the 

capacity for language in the Universe by which it could respond to “God said.” What is behind the 

capacity for language? For John, it is, perhaps, the eternal Word.

Gen. 1:5 Evening and morning = nighttime only, the end of a work period. Psalm 90 by Moses uses the 

two nouns in the same manner.

Gen. 1:9 Indications elsewhere in Scripture that a struggle was involved here. Psalm 104:6-9; Proverbs

 8:29; and Job 38:8-11.

Gen. 1:26-27 

    26. creep = to walk lightly

    27: One of Hillel's interpretation  rules -- "the general and the particular" -- explains why Genesis 

2:7 and Genesis 2:21 are not second creations, but a further explanation of the general creation of 

mankind first given here.

Gen. 1:31 “Very” is added because humanity was now included.

Genesis 2 Alternative theory by Sasson: Eve misidentifies the two trees. They really eat of the Tree of 

Life (which is why they don't die). Then verse 22 means "lest they continue to eat of the tree of life."

Andy Crouch: Genesis I is creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) whereas Genesis 2 is creatio ex 

creatis. “A garden is nature plus culture. The first gardener—the first one to plant, to water, to select, 

protect, weed and nurture—is not Adam. It is God.”

Gen. 2:2 Apparent contradiction in that God is still finishing work on seventh day. (the Septuagint and 

Samaritan Pentateuch say "sixth day.") Medieval rabbi Rashi solved problem was postulating that what 

God created on the seventh day was Rest. Another possibility is a textual confusion between sixth 

(hashishi) and seventh (hashebi'i).

Gen. 2:7 See John 9:6.

Gen. 2:9 Good and evil are opposites, indicating complete knowledge (Sasson). [doubtful]

Ryken, Windows to the World, p. 73: “A double concern, you will note – both functional and 

aesthetically beautiful. The conditions for human well-being have not changes since that moment in 

Paradise.”

Gen. 2:12 Andy Crouch-- “Why does the author indulge in this metallurgical excursion—with its 

digression within an excursion? ...Note that these are not particularly useful minerals or substances... 

These are substances whose only real value is in their beauty.”

Gen. 2:15 “Keep” is same Hebrew word as in “The Lord bless you and keep you.”

Gen. 2:18 Freedman argues that "fit" should better be translated "equal." Also that the word translated 

"helper" usually connotes "savior" or "strength." The latter is preferred in this case. Eve is a power 

equal to Adam. This equality is also stressed in the Genesis 1 version of the creation and in Adam's 

phrase "bone of my bone",etc. "Fit helper" -- word for helper is most often used for God himself. So it 

does not connote inferiority by any means.

Gen. 2:21 BAR Sept/Oct 2015: Ziony Zevit proposes that “rib” should be translated as “baculum” 

(penis bone) instead.

Genesis 3:1 Ancient Jewish seals picture snakes with sets of wings (perhaps identical to the winged 

poisonous serpents of Numbers 21:6-9 = serephim, lit. "burning"). The snake is perhaps punished by 

having its wings removed?

Gen. 3:7 Andy Crouch-- “And what is the first thing that happens after the man and woman have 

eaten? Culture... They make something of the world to ward off their sudden exposure to one another 

and to God. Culture is no longer the good, gracious activity of tending a good, gracious world. It is a 

defensive measure...to ward off the world's greatest threat—the threat of being known, of trusting one's 

fellow creatures and one's Creator.”

Gen. 3:14 Fossils from Australia have provided first evidence that snakes had hind legs.

Gen. 3:21 Animal skin is God's way of reminding them of their proximity to the animal world they had 

sought to escape. (Sasson)

Gen. 3:22 comment "Behold, man is become one of us" should be taken as irony. (Kaiser)

Gen. 3:23 The earliest Aramaic inscription found in Syria, dating to the 10th cent. BC may explain the 

root word for Eden as "freshness" or "dewiness."

Genesis 4:1 Her statement is either an expression of faith or one of independence from God --  "I have 

gotten a man like the Lord." (Matt Cassidy)           

Gen. 4:1-2 Play on words: Cain = kaniti, "gained." There is a similar meaning to Abel that is not 

pointed out specifically. Hevel = vanity, breath or vapor. He will soon disappear. (Joseph Klein)

Gen. 4:17 The city considered by archeologists to be one of the oldest in Mesopotamia has as its oldest 

attested name UNUG.

Gen. 4:23-24 The word for man ('ish) appears in Chapter 4 twice, once here and once in verse 1, 

referring to Cain. Verse 15 is ambiguous in referring to either Cain or his future killer who will suffer 

7-fold vengeance. There is the possibility that Lamech has killed Cain.

Genesis 6:6 There is a wordplay between remorse (nhm) and Noah.

Gen. 6:11 This is the reverse of “God saw it was good” in chapter 1

Genesis 8:4 “Mountains of Ararat” is the literal translation, denoting a mountain range. There are three 

peaks in the range: Ararat, Cudi and Nisir (where the ark rested according to the Babylonian flood 

story.

Genesis 9:20 The earliest known site for wine production has just been excavated (ca. 2009) 60 miles 

from Mt. Ararat and dated by ceramic and carbon remains to about 4100 BC. (BAR Sept/Oct 2011)

Genesis 10:32. The division in this verse is contrasted to the unity of mankind in Genesis 11:1. The 

same cognate verb "scatter" appears in Genesis 9:19 and Genesis 11:9. It "clearly reflects a desire to 

join the anticipation of scattering following the Flood with its reality after the Babel judgment." 

(Cassuto).

Genesis 11 Andy Crouch-- “In Genesis 11, culture will reach its apex and its nadir at the same time. 

The exploration and excavation yield not gold, bdellium, and onyx, but brick and bitumen, clay and 

asphalt, the dull and useful stuff of tower building, useful for building ourself... a name for 

ourselves...We will steal back enough of the world from its Maker to be able to eke out life 

ourselves, self-naming, self-contained.”

Gen.11:1-4 “What he (Jesus) disturbs is an artificial peace, one achieved through conformity and 

uniformity – foundational characteristics of the Tower of Babel. Since it depends on establishing and 

maintaining sameness, this peace can't offer a violent and divided world healing or reconciliation, not 

even when it's embraced by people who happen to identify as Christ followers.” (Judy Wu Dominick, 

CT, Nov. 2018, p. 55. comment on Matthew 10:34-36)  

Gen. 11 “The tower limited humanity from encountering the diverse beauty of creation, and so God 

hindered communication to encourage their spread.” (Kendall Vanderslice, CT Nov. 2018, p. 60)

Gen. 11:2 further distancing themselves from Eden

 

NAHUM: NEW TESTAMENT ECHOES

I will have to admit that, aside from the Book of Jonah, I have not really spent a whole lot of time studying the Minor Prophets. One of the most minor, in my mind, is Nahum, and so I thought I would at least approach it from an interesting angle. So below is what little I could dig up in the literature concerning the implications of Nahum's writings for the New Testament.

Nahum 1:1 We know virtually nothing concerning the author. There is another Nahum appearing in Jesus' genealogy (Luke 3:25), but the two should not be confused with one another. We are told that Nahum came from called Elkah. St. Jerome, writing in the 4^th century AD, identified this with a town in Galilee called Elkese. If that is true, then we have a sort of negative reference to Nahum in John 7:52 where Nicodemus states that no prophet ever came from Galilee. Now Nicodemus may have simply been mistaken in his belief or, in view of the fact that there are at least two other proposed candidates for the identity of Elkah, he may have been correct in his assertion. And finally, Mobley simply says that the location of Elkah is unknown.

Nahum 1:2 Weima states, “The theme of God as a judge who exacts vengeance is widely found in the Old Testament.” This verse is one of the references he cites, and the theme also appears in I Thessalonians 4:6b.

Nahum 1:2-3 “The whirlwind or tempest (supa) and storm (sara) appear totally arbitrary in their meanderings, striking first here then then there without rhyme or reason. But God is ordering them. Without confusion they follow the path of divine ordering (cf. Amos 4:7-6; Matthew 10:28-30)...When the NT depicts the Christ ascending in the clouds and promises his return in the same manner (Acts 1:, 11), this picture of the prophet has reached its highest level of fulfillment.” (Robertson)

Nahum 1:3 “Even when reference is made merely to a 'cloud' in conjunction with a heavenly being's advent, that being is always God (Revelation 10:1).” (Beale and McDonough)

The description of God as being “slow to anger” here and in other OT passages serves as a model for believers who are also urged to be “slow to anger.” (James 1:19)

Nahum 1:5 “The terrors of the Lord in judgment cannot be restricted to one single area of the world. According to this verse, the very foundations of the world are disturbed by his wrath...From a new covenant perspective, Peter speaks in climatic, cataclysmic terms of the final destruction of the earth as it is presently constituted (2 Pet. 3:10-13).” (Robertson)

Nahum 1:5-6 “The description from Joel [2:11] is supplemented in [Revelation] 6:17 by a phrase from the oracle of judgment on Nineveh...The judgment in Nahum is linked to that nation's idolatry (Nah. 1:14).” (Beale and McDonough)

Nahum 1:6 G. H. Guthrie on Hebrews 12:26b: “In the OT certain passages point to the use of fire in dealing with the enemies of God, and this thought is echoed in the NT in passages such as 2 Thess. 1:7, which asserts that when Jesus is reveled from heaven he will come with his angels 'in flaming fire' (cf. Rev. 8:5-7).”

Nahum 1:7 “Jesus' answer, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone' (Luke 18:19) echoes that OT theme of the goodness of Yahweh.” (Pao and Schnable)

“So when Nahum says “The LORD is good (7a),” he may well have the perfect goodness of a holy God in mind, in contrast to the sinful nature and evil deeds of humankind.” (Bridger)

Nahum 1:8 D.A. Carson on II Peter 2:9: “Other writers in the OT refer back to the flood to testify to Yahweh's omnipotent rule over creation...in order to provide imagery to depict the judgment of God that will overtake the wicked.”

Beale and McDonough in discussing Revelation 12:15 describe the three types of metaphorical uses of the image of an overflowing flood. One is referring to an army that spreads out to conquer a land.

Nahum 1:10 “God's enemies will be gathered together as thorns and consumed as fire burns the dry straw after harvest (v. 10; cf. Mt. 13:10).” (Fraser)

Pao and Schnabel: “Several OT passages compare faithful Israel with a green and fruitful plant...while unfaithful Israel is described as dry and unfruitful...If God allows Jesus, who is innocent, the 'green wood' to suffer the fate that Jerusalem is preparing for him, what will be the fate of Jerusalem, the 'dry wood? [Luke 23:31]”

Nahum 1:11,15 “Belial” appears in v. 11 as “wickedness” and in 1:15 as “the wicked (one).” “This is cited by Cheyne as an illustration of the transition to the use of the word absolutely as a title for Satan.” (Hughes) The latter usage is seen in II Corinthians 6:15: “And what agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what portion does a believer have with an unbeliever?”

Robertson confirms the importance of these verses: “Nahum alone of the prophets uses the term beliyaal, and he employs it twice.”

Nahum 1:15a “Specifically by a quotation of these very words, the new covenant believer also is summoned to enter this celebration of salvation (Rom 10:14-15). It is true that Paul uses Isaiah's 'How beautiful are the feet...' rather than Nahum's 'Behold the feet...' But the substance of the quotation is the same, one prophet giving expression to the positive side of deliverance, and one emphasizing the negative side.” (Robertson)

Seifrid: Although Romans 10:15 is a quotation from Isaiah 52:7, that OT passage “itself is an echo of an oracle to Judah promising the defeat of Nineveh and the Assyrians (Nah. 1:19).” “...just as the 'word of faith' brings the confession of the true God to the human mouth...so also it creates the beautiful 'feet' of its messengers, who now 'run' to announce the good news, not to shed blood as Paul once did...”

Marshall similarly notes that “proclaiming peace” in Acts 10:36 is derived from Isaiah 52:7 and Nahum 1:15.

The verb euangelizo (“to announce good news”) appears about twenty times in the Septuagint version of the OT. “All of these references relate similarly to the announcement of good news, often brought at the hands of a messenger.” (Schenck)  Of course, this Greek word takes on special significance in the New Testament writings.

Nahum 1:15b “No message could be more repulsive to the modern mind than the idea of retributive justice...It finds no contradiction in the Scriptures of the new covenant, but only repeated reinforcement (2 Thess. 1:6-10; 2 Cor. 5:10).” (Robertson)

Nahum 1:15 “Nahum's words...point forward to salvation and peace beyond the deliverance from the Assyrians or even the Babylonians, to salvation in Christ and peace with God, and all that follows in the life of the spirit.” (Bridger)

Nahum 1:15-2:13 Robertson: “Nahum has done all mankind a noble service through his vivid description of the outpouring of the wrath of God on the city of Nineveh. By this very concrete, physical portrayal of the event, he has come closest to that consummate description of divine judgment reserved for the lips of Our Lord alone (Matt. 13:40-42, 48-49).”

“Few voices among the pre-exilic prophets have resounded with such immediacy of divine vindication as Nahum.” (Bullock)

Nahum's prophecies act as “a dramatic illustration of the final eschatological triumph of God over all his adversaries.” (Childs)

Nahum 2:11-13 Fraser says that this provides the prototype of Jesus' later saying that “all who take up the sword will die by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52)

Nahum 3:4 Robertson: “Although Babylon rather than Nineveh is the subject of the Bible's final expose' of the sensual human heart, the description of its destruction no less fits the point of Nahum's condemnation.” See Revelation 18:11-13.

Keener: “The Old Testament often speaks of spiritual adultery, especially in the contest of Israel's unfaithfulness to God...but occasionally other people's also (Is. 26:16-18; Nahum 3:4).” He states this in the context of discussing Jude 3-4,6 and Revelation 2:14,20-23. He also feels that the whole description of Babylon in Revelation 17:1-6 may have been partially drawn from the prostitute Nineveh in this verse of Nahum.

Beale and McDonough, writing on Revelation 2:20, state, “The spiritual sense of porneia as idol worship is attested in...Nah. 3:4. The spiritual nuance is also borne out in the light of John's figurative use of porneuo (and its word group) elsewhere in the book (thirteen times outside of chap. 2 in contrast to the literal sense only in 9:21; 21:8; 22:15, though even the last two are questionable.”

And then they comment in regard to Revelation 14:8, “Tyre's benefiting from the wealth of the nations is pictured as a 'harlot' receiving 'harlot's wages' (see Isa. 23:1-18; so also Nineveh is regarded in Nah. 3:4).” In both these passages “Nineveh and Tyre are called harlots because they cause ruin and uncleanness among the nations by economically dominating them and influencing them by their idolatry.”

Nahum 3:5-7 “Nineveh is portrayed as a disgraced prostitute, as were other cities in other prophetic indictments such as Revelation 17:1-6; 18:11-24. (Mobley)

Nahum 3:10   Luke 19:44 – “They will crush you to the ground, you and your children within you” – echoes this verse in Nahum. (Pao and Schnabel)

Nahum 3:12 “This imagery of falling fruit has such a vividness about it that it was naturally picked up in the book of Revelation to describe the cataclysms associated with the end of the present age.” (Robertson) See Revelation 6:13.

Nahum 3:13 Pao and Schnabel state, “Jesus' sayings about the coming crisis contain several OT allusions. Verse 49 [of Luke 12], 'I came to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! echoes OT passages that speak of fire as a figure of judgment.” These include Nahum 3:13.

Nahum 3:18 “In [Revelation] 21:21a the call to flee to the mountains is a common OT and apocalyptic image.” (Pao and Schnabel)