ECCLESIASTES 9

This literary section can be diagrammed as the ABA form outlined below:

A. There is a common fate for all (9:1-10)

    1. negative (9:1-6)

        2. positive (9:7-10a)

    1'. negative (9:10b)

                B. Time and chance happen to all (9:11-12)

A'. There is a common fate for all (9:13-10:4)

    1. negative (9:13-16)

        2. positive (9:17-18a)

    1'. negative (9:18b-10:4)

Section A is bounded at start and finish by the words “wise/wisdom,” “love,” “good,” and “know/knowledge.” This unit is also characterized by the 7-fold occurrence of “life/living.”

Section A' is unified by “great and little” in 9:13-14 and “little and great” in 10:1,4 at its boundaries.

9:1 “This counteracts a recent view of God called 'Open Theism,' in which God may voluntarily choose not to know what we will do in some situations.” (D.G. Moore)

It is God's “love or hate” that is being referred to, i.e. His approval or disapproval. (Fleming) By contrast, the same phrase pertains to humanity in v. 6.

Seow: “To be in the hand of God is to be subject to God's power (see Prov 21:1; Deut 33:3). What is in the hand of God or comes from the hand of God is utterly unpredictable.” See Ecclesiastes 2:24.

Similarly, Longman says, Qohelet does not doubt that the righteous and wise are in God's control...but he does doubt whether God is concerned to reward them or is well disposed toward them.”

9:2 Jacques Ellul writes, “Do not these harsh words find their complete and harsh fulfillment in the condemnation of Jesus, who was pure goodness, justice, and love, yet was 'numbered with the transgressors' (Isa. 53:12), crucified with thieves (or terrorists, if you prefer!)?”

9:4 This proverb contrasts the most despised with the most noble beasts in the Near East at the time. Ellul advises: “Do not consider yourself better than a dog; this will give you a good idea of life's humility.”

9:5 “The living have the distinct advantage of being able to reflect on their own mortality. By way of implication from the rest of Ecclesiastes, they also may make wise course corrections to reflect on that undeniable reality.” (Moore) Whybray agrees with this interpretation and adds that “it is because of this knowledge that life should and can be enjoyed to the full.”

By contrast, Longman takes this to be an ironical statement: “The sarcasm seems obvIous to most. What are the living aware of? Death. Thus, while the living may be better off than the dead, they are nonetheless pitiable.”

9:7-9 “There is debate as to whether these passages amount to a positive affirmation of life or an attitude of resignation.” (Lucas)

9:7a This is “not unbridled pleasure for its own sake, but an enjoyment of the good things in life.” (Fleming)

9:7b Commentators have gone to lengths to get around the apparent meaning of the last clause since “it sounds as if he believes that God gives people unlimited approval for their actions.” (Longman) Whybray interprets it to mean that “the enjoyment of God's gifts is something which God has decreed from the beginning.”

9:8 The white garments and oil were signs of rejoicing according to Fleming. Longman explains this verse slightly differently by stating that white clothes are more comfortable in hot climate and oil protects the skin in a dry climate.

9:11,15 Shields: “In a number of places he appears to extol wisdom's virtues [i.e. 9:15]...Whatever merits wisdom may have, however, are only relative, since both fool and sage share the same fate – death – and so wisdom clearly offers no solution to the ultimate problem facing everyone.”

9:11-12 The concept of “time” ties together these two verses. Thus, Prokrifka states, “Viewing the temporal cycle apart from God's good purposes, Qohelet declares the natural cycle of time to be meaningless, wearisome and frustrating along with everything else.”

Whybray treats these as an independent piece inserted here. But that is not necessarily so since it fits in well with the ABA literary form shown above.

9:13-16 Whybray states: “Despite various attempts to find here a reference to a particular historical event, it is now generally agreed that this is not what Qoheleth had in mind.” Thus, Scott calls it perhaps a parable And Seow adds, “Even if the story was based on historical reality, it has been shaped by the narrator's purpose.”

Working off of Seow's assumption, my own read on the situation is that these verses were actually based fairly closely on the narrative found in II Samuel 20 which relates an event that took place during David's reign. The story involves a “scoundrel” named Sheba who attempted to lead a revolt against the king. David's troops under Joab pursue Sheba to the rather insignificant city of Adam and besiege it. But a wise woman calls down to Joab from the city wall and asks why the men are attacking the city. She learns the reason and suggests to the men of the city that they take hold of Joab, decapitate him, and throw his head over the wall. In that manner, the city is saved. However, as the reader realizes, the name of this heroine is lost to posterity despite her wisdom. Words common to this story and Ecclesiastes 13-16 include “beseiged,” “seige-works,” “against,” and “call/cry” although the Hebrew roots employed are different in each case. However, the same Hebrew words for “city,” “wisdom,” and “heed” are identical in both.

Actually, the only thing that distinguishes the two stories is the fact that the wise person is a man in Ecclesiastes and a woman in II Samuel. This small change is not at all unexpected in light of Qohelet's attitude toward women in general. See Ecclesiastes 7:26-28.

9:11-18 Firth explains that the author “applies a number of different perspectives to wisdom, but his point is precisely that one needs to 'ambiguate' the concept of wisdom. Readers are invited to explore this ambiguity because only through this can they recognize what Qohelet holds to be true; one must see wisdom as a polyvalent concept.”

9:12 Mabie says that “death is personified as a hunter of sorts, complete with traps, snares and netting (Job 18:9-13, Ps. 18:4, etc.). As such death can seize a person suddenly and unexpectedly.”

9:15-16 appear to contradict one another. If his advice saved the city, why does it say that his words were not heeded? Seow and other recent scholars propose that v. 15 should read that he “could have delivered the city.” By contrast, Longman interprets the passage to say that the wise man did save the city but no one remembered his actions afterward. Either way, “wisdom from a person considered unimportant by society is either not heeded, or it is heeded and he or she is not given appropriate recognition.” (Moore)

9:17 In light of the above verses, Scott states, “This proverb is quoted ironically, since in this case the superiority of wisdom went unrecognized.”Gordis is among those commentators who translate the phrase “a ruler among fools” as “the king of fools.”

9:18 Hendry translates the noun as “sinner,” not “bungler” as in NRSV or “mistake” as in NEB and JB. According to Scott, “The Wisdom writers...tend to identify sinners as the morally obtuse (cf. Prov v 22-23, viii 33-36).”

9:17-18 In light of Seow's comment that the “bungler” of v. 18 is the same as the “ruler among fools” of v. 17, these two verses can be diagrammed as follows:

The quiet words of the wise are more to be heeded than

the shouting of a ruler among fools.

Wisdom is better than weapons of war

but one bungler destroys much good.

9:17 Longman says, “it is likely that Qohelet is here saying something to the effect that the words of the wise are 'worth hearing,' not that they are always heeded.”

10:1-4 Most commentators extend this section through these verses also. One good reason for doing this is that 10:5, with its telltale introduction “There is an evil I have seen under the sun,” obviously signals the start of a new major section of the book

 

II KINGS 11-12

II Kings 11-12

These chapters comprise a straightforward narrative covering the reign of Joash, king of Judah, also called Jehoash. The story can be broken down into the following episodes:

    A. Joash escapes assassination (11:1-3)

        B. Joash comes into power (11:4-16)

            C. The house of Baal is torn down (11:17-21)

            C'. The house of God is repaired (12:1-16)

        B'. Joash loses power (12:17-18)

A'. Joash is assassinated (12:19-21)

The overwhelming emphasis in these two chapters is seen by the repeated (38x) word “house.” Of these references, 27 refer to the Jewish temple either as “the house of the LORD” or simply “the house.” In addition, the king's house is mentioned nine times, the house of Baal once, and the house of Millo once.

Section A (II Kings 11:1-3)

Following King Ahaziah's death (see the previous chapter), his mother Athaliah siezes power and plans to secure it by killing all of the king's children, her own grandchildren. This behavior is not entirely unexpected since Athaliah was also the daughter of the wicked Queen Jezebel. However, Ahaziah's sister, Jehosheba, manages to rescue her nephew Joash and keeps him hidden from Athaliah.

11:1 If Athaliah had been successful, it would have meant the end of Davidic kings over Judah.

11:3 Her reign took place from 841/842 to 836/835 BC.

Jehosheba was able to conceal him within the temple since we learn from the parallel account in II Chronicles 22:11b that she was the wife of Jehoiada, the high priest who will figure prominently in the next two sections below.

Section B (II Kings 11:4-16)

The high priest Jehoiada organizes a successful coup against the queen, and Joash is proclaimed as King of Judah. This section “contains a stinging rebuke of the priests' negligence and dishonesty.” (Millgrom) And Martin says, “The story does the priests no credit.” But LaSor merely states, “There may be a hint of mishandling of money.”

11:4 The Carites were part of the royal bodyguard (see II Samuel 20:23). Cogan and Tadmor explain that there is great controversy concerning the country of this group's origin.

11:6-8 By timing the coup for the sabbath at the changing of the guard, all three sections of the guard could become available to help out without raising any red flags.

11:10 By using David's weapons, the coup symbolized the return of the rightful Davidic kingship. (Cogan and Tadmor)

11:14 G.H. Jones suggests that “the pillars were survivals of standing stones witnessing the covenant (cf. Jos. 24:26ff), and so symbolized the covenant between God and his people, and especially between him and the Davidic dynasty.” A pillar is also mentioned in relation to the renewal of the covenant under Joshia (II Kings 23:1). I Kings 7:21 names the two pillars Jachin and Boaz, perhaps the first words of inscriptions on these respective pillars.

Cogan and Tadmor: “People of the land” designated “an elite group of citizens,” not the people of Judah as a whole.

Note the irony here since she was the one who had seized the throne illegally.

11:16 The reference to horses here is a conscious reminder to the reader of how her mother Jezabel died. See II Kings 9:33. (House)

11:17 House also points out that the people “have forgotten who they are because they have forgotten who their God is. Covenant renewal restores, then, the proper sense of reality and identity for the people.”

Section C (II Kings 11:17-21)

Jehoiada purges the land of Baal worship, and the people recommit to following God.

11:17 Most commentators point out that the covenant needed to be renewed after it had been temporarily broken during Athialiah's reign. By contrast, scholars such as Martin feel that this verse indicates it was a regular custom whenever a new king was anointed.

11:18 Some scholars, such as Cogan and Tadmor, note that Mattan is a Phoenician name while others point to known cases where it is a Hebrew name.

11:20 House says that “the city was quiet” is similar to the repeated phrase in the book of Judges: “and the land had peace.”

Section C' (II Kings 12:1-16)

Joash institutes measures to ensure that money given to the house of the LORD is devoted to repairing it.

12:1 The 40-year reign encompassed 835-796 BC, although some commentators feel that 40 is just a round number and not the exact time period.

12:2 “All his days” may either refer to Joash's life or that of Jehoiada. The latter is probably to be preferred due to the notice in II Chronicles 24:2. (LaSor)

12:5-6 There is great uncertainty regarding the meaning of the noun variously translated as donors, acquaintances, assessors, money-changers, clients, or benefactors.

12:9-10 This measure was taken in order to prevent any further misappropriation of funds by the priests.

12:15 In marked contrast to the mistrust of the priests, the workmen were trusted implicitly.

Section B' (II Kings 12:17-18)

To prevent the conquest of Jerusalem by the King Hazael of Syria, Joash gives him all the money in the house of the LORD and the royal treasury. This is the very money that Joash had collected for temple repairs.

It is here that the parallel account in II Chronicles 23-24 differs the most. Joash's reign is given a much more negative spin by including additional information such as the king turning to the officials in Judah for advice instead of the priesthood, abandoning Yahweh worship, and killing Jehoiada's son for trying to turn the people back to the true God.

12:17 Archeological findings have confirmed that Gath was destroyed by fire during the ninth century BC. (Ortiz) the city subsequently disappears from biblical and extrabiblical sources at this time (Ehrlich)

Section A' (II Kings 12:19-21)

Joash is assassinated by his own servants, and his son Amaziah takes the throne. The reason for the assassination is explained in the parallel passage in II Chronicles 22 – it was in retribution for Joash's killing of the righteous son of Jehoiada, an incident only recorded in Chronicles.

Conclusion

In my mind, the greatest lesson for us today to be derived from this passage is found in Section C' where the importance of church leaders to be totally trustworthy in every area of their responsibilities is stressed. Although the clergy are still generally admired, their latest Gallup “rating for ethical behavior has fallen to the lowest level in 40 years of surveying.” And the two biggest areas of concern by the public involve either money or sex. We have examples of both types of misbehavior in the OT, as we can see in this II Kings passage as well as with the sons of Eli. And there are continued warnings in the NT against those church leaders whose reputation is not of the highest caliber.

 

SCRIPTURE TWISTERS: THEIR TECHNIQUES

In my other posts on the subject Scripture twisting, I have demonstrated the number of different ways the Bible can be misused "creatively" and the motives behind this misuse. However, some of these are hard to detect. So I thought it would also be helpful to also identify some general techniques used by Scripture twisters to try to convince others. Many of these are meant to be discussion stoppers without really dealing with the issue at hand.

THROWING UP SMOKESCREENS I ran across a Catholic Q&A pamphlet for children years ago. One of the questions was: “Doesn't Jesus say in Matthew 23:9 that you should call no man your father?” The response was, “Well, you call your Dad 'father,' don't you?” Of course, that doesn't really answer the objection at all and instead really insinuates that Jesus must not have known what he was talking about. In its context, Jesus is clearly saying that no one should call a spiritual leader “father.”

RELYING ON SIGNS OF THE TIMES instead of the timeless word. Postmillennialism is a view of the future that says the world will get better and better every day until we have a heaven on earth. At one time period in US history before the world wars, it was the most popular theological view of the future in most denominations, including the Southern Baptists. But they were all misled by the optimistic worldview around them at the time. The problem is that this view has virtually no support anywhere in the Bible. Today, however, it is another scheme of prophecy that holds popular sway, premillennialism, which fits in better with the more distressing and pessimistic times we live in. But our beliefs, whatever they are, shouldn't be mainly determined by what is currently happening in the world.

This next technique is so common that it goes by many different names: the fallacy of the excluded middle, FALSE DICHOTOMY, false dilemma, or setting up a straw man in order to knock it down. Take the issue of a young earth vs. an old earth. After a presentation at our church on the biblical evidence for an old earth, I overheard someone say, “That is giving in to the spirit of the age,” which was basically to say that you either believe in six literal days of creation or you are siding with Satan. There are actually a wide variety of Christian views regarding the Creation, and it is by no means a black-and-white, all-or-nothing issue. The issue of faith vs. works also brings out its extreme views so that some people consider practically anything a work that must be de-emphasized, including faith itself.

CONDESCENDING SARCASM: A Presbyterian friend and I would occasionally get into a discussion on the proper mode of baptism. He would always cut off the discussion by quoting an old pastor of his who said, “Do you really think the Jewish authorities would hand over the entire water supply of Jerusalem to some obscure sect on the Day of Pentacost?” His implication was that it would take that much water to immerse the 3,000 believers who came forward that day whereas it could be done easily if they were only sprinkling them. Leaving aside the sarcasm, archeologists have unearthed many ritual immersion baths in Jerusalem dating back before the 1^st century. After all, there needed to be enough of them to accommodate the Jewish purification rites for the many pilgrims coming to town for the major feasts.

DEMONIZING YOUR OPPONENTS: This is a great way to cut off all discussion, and it is especially prevalent during war time. Unfortunately, it also occurs in religious settings. One picture on the internet lumps together Catholic leaders with Nazis, communists and Zionists. And Cyrus Scofield would be surprised to know that some people consider him to be a member of the mysterious Illuminati. Personally speaking, as much as I might disagree with James Hagee, I would stop short of labeling him a Satanist as another internet site does.

But it isn't only people who can be demonized. There are attacks on modern translations of the Bible due to their supposedly suspicious origins. When the Revised Standard Version first came out, pastors condemned it from the pulpit, and their clinching argument was that some of the Bibles were available in red covers – obviously a tip-off to their communistic roots. This sort of attack is still going on today as various on-line sources attest. One that I have seen states that all modern Bible translations have their origin in a combination of Roman Catholic, pagan, Hindu, and satanist sources while the KJV comes from the Received Text, or Textus Receptus. The real story behind that term is that it started as a marketing ploy by a Dutch publishing firm. And of course, the King James Version is also known as the Authorized Version, implying to some people that it must have been authorized by God Himself. However, the term only means it was officially licensed by officials in King James' court.

INTIMIDATION BY “AUTHORITIES”: This ploy comes in all guises, ranging from overt to mild. The most obvious examples that come to mind are cult leaders such as Jim Jones who enforced group-think. One of his ex-followers recounted the time some people in the congregation were looking up references in the Bible while Jones was preaching. Jones yelled at them from the pulpit, “Put down your Bibles and listen to me instead.” This is certainly a lot different from the story of Paul's preaching to the Bereans. I personally witnessed something akin to this years ago in New England while on vacation. My wife and I found a small church nearby and decided to worship there. We arrived in the middle of Sunday school and were ushered into the college age class where the pastor of the church was the teacher. The passage being considered was I Peter 3, perhaps the most difficult passage in the whole NT. The pastor gave his interpretation and then asked if there were any questions. One young man timidly said that it sounds as if Jesus was preaching to people in hell. The pastor yelled at him, “You've been reading Catholic books, haven't you?” The poor man slunk down in his seat and no one dared say anything after that point.

I witnessed another example years ago in a Bible book store. A customer had cornered the store owner and told him that speaking in tongues was a necessary sign of whether you were saved. The store owner gently replied that such a teaching isn't really found in the Bible. The customer actually said, “Well, I don't know much about the Bible, but you should read what this best-selling author says on the subject.”  I have encountered it while teaching Sunday school. After explaining a particular view of the future once, someone in the class countered with "Well, that isn't what Dwight Pentacost says!" as if that was obviously the last word on the subject.

SENSATIONALISM is the next technique to look out for, and it is often coupled with conspiracy theories to explain why their results can't be substantiated. There is the old story of NASA computers supposedly calculating the position of the heavenly bodies backward in time and being one day off in confirmation of Joshua's long day. The story makes no sense and has been denied time and time again by NASA representatives, but it refuses to die. And then, of course, the remains of Noah's ark were supposedly discovered, but the Christian who found them was not given permission to return to Mt. Ararat due to a conspiracy between Islamic officials in Turkey and communist authorities in the USSR. Or how about the fact that the Russians dug a hole in the earth and reached hell where they could hear damned souls crying in agony. Of course, they filled in the hole to hide this fact from the world. Reports claiming to calculate the date of the Second Coming are probably the most common examples of sensationalism, but I would hope by now that most people are rightly suspicious of such pronouncements.

EXCLUSIVITY You should also watch out for any approach to the Bible that claims to hold the exclusive key to unraveling its secrets. For example, Bruce Wilkinson claims that the prayer of Jabez in I Chronicles 4:9-10 “contains the key to a life of extraordinary favor.” There is nothing wrong with looking at the Bible from a particular viewpoint to get insights (and you can even purchase Prophecy, Apologetic or Archeological study Bibles). I myself have taken mainly a literary approach to the Bible for the last forty years or so but I certainly wouldn't claim that it is the exclusive, or even the best, way to understand it.

 

NOTES ON II SAMUEL

II Samuel 2:1 Hebron was one of the cities of refuge.

II Samuel 5:6 The first possible confirmation of the existence of the Jebusites comes from one of the 

recently translated Mari cuneiform tablets which refers to the Jebusites as a clan of the Amorites.

II Samuel 6:6-7 Uzzah's problem-- He didn't want the ark to be defiled by touching the ground, but 

didn't realize that his own touch would defile it even more.” (E. Jones)

Ch. 6 The ark was left with a Gentile (a Philistine) Obed-Edom, who is blessed by God. This causes 

jealousy among the Jews who then move it to Jerusalem. Finally, Obed-Edom and his family are 

moved to Jerusalem where they minister in the temple (I Chronicles 16). Andrew Wilson (CT, Apr. 

2016) draws a parallel with Paul's teachings in Romans 11.

6:16 Michal's attitude was presaged by her possession of idols (I Samuel 19:13). Three times she is 

pointedly called Saul's daughter instead of David's wife.

II Samuel 9:9 The meaning in this case is “steward.”

II Samuel 11:4 An alternative reading is "when she had purified herself, she returned" --a religious 

ceremony.

11:11 Uriah's answer is an indirect rebuke of David (see II Samuel 11:1).

11:16 Joab is the first spiritual casualty of David's actions. (J. Rose)

II Samuel 12:8 See the note to II Sam. 16:22.

II Samuel 13:21 The Septuagint adds "But David would not say anything to provoke/restrain Amnon 

because he was his first son and David loved him."

II Samuel 16:22 David had earlier done the same thing with a  previous king's "wives." See II Samuel

12:8.

II Samuel 21:1-14 This is a type of Jesus' death by crucifixion. Note especially the similar situations 

in which a subjugated people request a death from their ruler since they are not allowed to carry it out 

themselves (John 18:31).

II Samuel 23:1-7 With different vowel markings on the text, the passage reads, as in JPS,  "David the 

favorite of the mighty One of Israel"

II Samuel 24:9 The apparent contradiction of this verse with I Chronicles 21:5 is explained by looking 

at I Chronicles 27:1.

 

SISTER-WIVES IN GENESIS 12, 20, AND 26

I should state at the beginning that this post has nothing to do with the reality show “Sister-Wives” on TV involving a man with multiple wives. Since each of these accounts is of a patriarch telling a foreign leader that his wife is really his sister, that point needs a little clarification right off the bat. 

Any reputable commentary will point out that in Haran, where Abram lived for some time, there was a custom whereby a man might “adopt” his wife as his sister also which “afforded [her] special privilege and would constitute superior credentials, as in a foreign court.” (Kline) Speiser was probably the first to ascribe that motive to Abram although his theory has come under sharp attack from other scholars. And then there was also the fact that Sarai was indeed Abram's half-sister. Whatever the truth happens to be, Abram's intent was definitely to mislead others in order to protect his own skin rather than trying to claim some sort of protection for her. Hamilton rather pointedly notes that although Abram believed in God's promise that he would father a great nation, he was “giving Yahweh a little assistance” to make sure.

Anyone who is at all acquainted with the histories of the Jewish patriarchs in the first half of Genesis will be struck by the similarities of some of the stories with one another. Especially close parallels exist between the three chapters listed above. I have labeled the major events in each story so that you can see the correspondences more clearly.

Genesis 12-13

A. God tells Abram to leave his country and promises him land.

B. Because of a famine, Abram goes to Egypt.

C. He passes off his wife Sarai as his sister out of fear.

D. Sarai is taken to the Pharaoh's house.

E. Abram's deceit is exposed.

F. Pharaoh sends Abram away.

G. Pharaoh gives orders to his men.

H. Abram is rich.

I. Strife between livestock herders.

J. Agreement between Abram and Lot.

K. Lot chooses Sodom.

L. God renews the promise of land and descendants; altar built.

Genesis 20

B. Abraham travels to Gerar.

C. He passes off his wife Sarah as his sister out of fear.

D. King Abimelech takes Sarah.

E. God reveals Abraham's deceit in a dream.

G. The king tells his servants.

H. The king gives presents to Abraham.

F. The king tells him he can settle anywhere in the land.

J. The king and family are healed after Abraham prays for them.

Genesis 26

B. Because of a famine, Isaac goes to Gerar.

A. God promises him blessings of land and descendants.

C. Isaac passes off his wife Rebekah as his sister out of fear.

E. King Abimelech exposes his deceit.

G. The king warns the people.

H. Isaac becomes rich.

F. The king sends Isaac away.

I. Strife over wells with the Philistines.

L. God renews the promise of land and descendants; altar built.

J. The king makes a covenant with Isaac.

K. Esau marries two Hittite women.

Most of the same elements are present in each of the three narratives. However, only Genesis 12-13 and 26 mention a famine as the reason for moving, and both conclude with a close relative choosing to live among pagan people; Genesis 12-13 and 20 both involve Abraham and Sarah; and Genesis 20 and 26 both involve King Abimelech and an account of strife between two groups.

Source-critical scholars often label two similar accounts found in the Bible as “doublets.” They explain their existence by proposing that the recollections of a single historical event circulated in two slightly different oral or written forms for a number of years before a final editor put together the present version we possess. Sometimes this editor stitched the two accounts together to form one continuous narrative, as in the story of the Flood, but scholars feel that they can pull out the individual sources by looking for duplications, contradictions, and characteristic language. However, in other cases the editors just recorded the two versions separately as if they were different events, as in the “triplet” described above.

Evangelical scholars take a more conservative approach and begin with the assumption that the biblical accounts, as we now have them, accurately represent the historical truth. “But if so, how do we explain the close similarities in the three accounts above? One approach is the literary method. I have demonstrated elsewhere that the Abraham Cycle takes the form of a completely symmetrical, mirror image composition in which Genesis 12-13 and 26 are placed in a parallel relationship to one another. Thus, the two stories and their main themes reinforce one another. However, that does not imply that the author of Genesis made up one of the two stories in order to create that symmetry. It just confirms the fact that God not only inspired the form of the writing of Genesis, but also inspired the events themselves.

Another approach is to demonstrate that the source-critical assumptions and “findings” are not immune to criticism themselves. Here are a few examples:

A. In the first place, the Documentary Hypothesis which proposes multiple sources for the Book of Genesis remains just that – a hypothesis.

D.F. Payne comments on that theory in relation to chs. 12 and 20: “The argument as such is a barren one, for neither proof not disproof is possible.” Allen Ross agrees that “there is no compelling reason to doubt that three incidents occurred that were very similar.” Hamilton also compares the events in chs. 12 and 20 and asks “Who is to say that an individual caught in a potentially dangerous situation, is not capable of stooping twice to use other people?” Wenham adds, “Nor can comparison of the form of these stories actually prove whether they are versions of the same incident, as assumed by most writers.”

B. Secondly, there are as many differences between the three stories as there are parallels.

Payne points out that “conservative commentators have been quick to point out how widely the details vary” between the three accounts. The chart above reveals just some of those differences. Hamilton says that “although sharing some common motifs, the episodes are each unique and probably contemporaneous.”

C. Next, there are some details that make more sense if the three accounts are each historical than the idea that they are all variant versions of the same event.

Carr notes that “Abraham's brief request in 20.2 that Sarah claim to be his sister would not make sense without the explanation of a similar request in 12:11-13.” Wenham picks up on this same point: In 12:11-16, a much fuller account of Abraham's remarks and the royal actions is provided. Without the earlier account, this verse [Gen. 20:2] would be cryptic...” Wenham similarly adds on 12:13, “'When God made me wander from my father's house' shows that the narrator knows the story of 12:10-20.”

Moving to the comparison of chs. 12 and 26, Hamilton says, “26:1 refers clearly to the first incident (ch. 12), and Abimeleck's annoyance with Isaac, as expressed in vv. 10-11 makes most sense if Abimelech (or his namesake) has already had (or almost had) contact with a Hebrew's wife. Thus ch. 26 refers to the incident in ch. 12 and presupposes the incident in ch. 20.” By the way, Kline and others feel that Abimelech may have been a royal title such as “pharaoh” and thus may have been a different person in ch. 26.

D. The aspect of form-critical theory which has drawn the most criticism from evangelical scholars is its misunderstanding of repetition in the Bible.

Garrett has expressed this criticism the most directly: “The use of doublets and repetition as evidence for multiple documents in Genesis is perhaps of all the arguments the most persuasive for the modern student, while in fact being the most spurious and abused piece of evidence...It is an entirely modern reading of the text and ignores ancient rhetorical concepts. In an ancient text, there is no stronger indication that only a single document is present than parallel accounts.”

Allen Ross: “[R]epetition is the essential feature of Hebrew rhetoric, which extends to repetition of motifs and stories.”

Kaiser says regarding critical theory: “Such an attitude betrays a lack of feeling for Hebrew rhetoric, in which repetition was a favorite device.”

If you want numerous biblical examples of the use of repetition rhetorically to stress main points of the text, see my many blog posts with the sub-title “:Introduction to the Literary Structure.”

E. Lastly, we might rightly ask along with Allen Ross: Why bother including all three accounts in Genesis (unless it is just to stress some common point)? The reason is seen in the different ways the similar stories function within their various contexts. As Payne says, “It is certainly right to concentrate attention on the distinctive features of each story, and in particular to investigate the theological purpose of each.”

Genesis 12

Payne notes that in this chapter, “Abram is at the mercy of forces beyond his control...This was an important lesson here for Abram's descendants, who were all too often tempted to pride and self-sufficiency.” Kline adds, “The patriarch's weakness gave occasion for a manifestation of the Lord's faithfulness...” Cassuto sees foreshadowing in this chapter of subsequent events in the history of the patriarchs in Egypt.

Genesis 20

Comparing this account with the first one above, Allen Ross says, “Outside the land [of Canaan], God would protect the blessing, in spite of Abram's deception; inside the land, God would also preserve the purity of the ancestress, in spite of Abram's deception.” In addition, “The story makes it very clear that life is in the hand of God, and for any violations God can interrupt life and the life-giving process.” Finally, he states: The narrative is also about guilt and innocence.”

Hamilton stresses the way this story functions in its immediate context and shows parallels to the previous events in ch. 18-19: Abraham's making intercession, behavior toward a resident alien, sacrificing a woman to preserve a male's life, and the question whether God will destroy innocent parties. He pointedly notes that here “the scriptures are showing that the postcovenant Abraham, for all his spiritual maturation (Gen 15:6), is still much like the precovenant Abraham.”

Wenham similarly looks back two chapters to make the point that “not all foreigners were as godless as Sodom. Thus this incident makes us realize that Abraham is not such a saint as we might have concluded from Chapter 18, nor were all the inhabitants of Canaan so depraved as those who lived in Sodom.” Also, he remarks: “God's mercy is not restricted to Abraham's family; it extends also to the king of a righteous God-fearing nation” and “Abimelek's speeches are not simply harsh condemnation. Rather, they mix moral indignation with a sense of shock, and Abraham's lame replies tend to increase our sympathy for Abimelek.”

Abraham's descendents...had a duty toward foreign peoples...and could bring an Abrahamic blessing upon them.” (Payne)

Wenham also looks forward one chapter when he notes that 20:17-18 ends the chapter with a hint that at last God may open the womb of Sarah in addition so that she can at last give birth to the promised heir.

Genesis 26

Ross expresses the opinion of many commentators regarding the main function of this story when he says, “the central point of the story concerned the development of the promise: the continuation of the blessing. Genesis 26 convincingly reveals that the promises extended to Isaac. Even though he failed as his father failed, the Lord preserved him and blessed him.”

Payne puts it this way: “The repetitive character of the chapter is intended to teach that God's promise is renewed for each new generation.”

Schnittjer: “The ongoing pattern of extended echo-effect stories trains readers to expect that children will act like their parents and God will act again as he has acted.”

The context of this particular story is also significant. Wenham notes that this chapter appears to interrupt the Jacob and Esau stories preceding and following. But in its present location, “chap. 26 serves a most important function, locking together the Abraham and Jacob cycles and highlighting the parallels between Abraham and his son.” Also, occurring right after the strife between Jacob and Esau, “this chapter presents us with an interlude. We see Isaac as a timid, peace-loving man who avoids conflict whenever possible.”

Hamilton, on the other hand, brings out another aspect to the placement of this story in the text by stating that “this chapter provides a pungent illustration of a reversal of fortunes for Isaac. Both chs. 26 and 27 are laced with the theme of deception. The difference is that Isaac is the deceiver in ch. 26 but the deceived in ch. 27.”

In addition, Fishbane feels that there is a larger chiastic (mirror-image) structure to the Isaac Cycle in which ch. 26 is placed in a parallel relationship to ch. 34. This is analogous to my own finding that chs. 12-13 are placed parallel to one another in the chiasm that makes up the Abraham Cycle.

In summary, a conservative approach to Scripture that treats each “triplet” on its own terms leads to much richer understanding that merely dismissing the three stories as variations of the same folktale.

 

GALATIANS 4:1-7, 4:21-5:1

I have already written posts on “Galatians 4:8-20” and “Galatians 4:21-5:1."  Now I would like to complete the picture with some comments on the first seven verses of Galatians 4 as well as including a few additional comments on 4:21-5:1. As an introduction, it should be pointed out that the whole of this section is put together in an ABA sort of organization:

    A. We are children of God and no longer in slavery (3:39-4:7)

        B. Paul's personal note (4:8-20)

    A'. We are children of God and no longer in slavery (4:21-5:1)

Confirmation of this general breakdown is seen in the fact that “child/children” appears four times in Section A, only once in B, and 13x in A'. Language found only in A and A' includes “slave” (2x in A and 5x in A'), and “heir/inheritance”” (twice in A and once in A'). Appearing once each in A and A' are “promise,” “Abraham, and “born.”

Galatians 3:39-4:7

3:39 Paul transitions from one subject to the next sometimes without clear breaks in between. Thus, this verse could easily belong with the rest of ch. 3 as well as introducing the material in ch. 4.

4:1-2 The “date” set may have been the child's 17^th or 18^th birthday. Until that time, Paul characterizes the heir as a child who is no better than a slave, under the control of guardians..

4:3 The disputed phrase “elemental spirits” also appears several times in Paul's Colossian letter. Some of the suggested meanings are: the basic elements making up creation, evil spirits, Old Testament customs and laws, angels who mediated the law, or basic truths (i.e. the ABC's). Esser says that this phrase “covers all the things in which man places his trust apart from the living God revealed in Christ.”

4:4 This order of events may come from Luke 1:262:24: God sent his son in the fullness of time (Luke 1:26-38), born of a woman (Luke 2:1-20), born under the law (Luke 2:21-24). (Bornhauser)

4:4,6 The parallels between God sending his Son and sending the Spirit of his Son gives clear evidence “that for Paul the Spirit is not thought of as 'it,' but as 'person.'” (Fee)

4:5 This verse may imply that Jesus' earthly ministry was to be directed mainly to the Jews in contrast to Paul's primary ministry to the Gentiles.

“When Galatians 4:1-2 is properly understood not as an illustration from Greco-Roman law but as an allusion to the Old Testament, it is clear that Galatians 4:5 is set within a context framed by Exodus typology (Gal 4:1-7).” (J.M. Scott)

4:5-6 Fee says in regard to our adoption, “Here we note that vv. 5 and 6 together give solid evidence of the distinctions made about the objective and subjective dimension of conversion.”

4:6 The Aramaic word “Abba” used by Paul is commonly translated as “Daddy.” Its more familiar occurrence is in Jesus' model prayer given during the Sermon on the Mount. Hofius suggests that Paul may have actually been thinking of the Lord's Prayer at the time he wrote.

“In Gal 4:6 the introductory conj. hote is ambiguous: It could mean 'the fact that' and describe the factual ontological status of Christians...; or it could mean 'because' and thus state that the gift of the Spirit is the basis of adoptive sonship. Here in Romans 8 [v. 14] Paul clears up that ambiguity: Spirit-led Christians are children of God. The gift of the Spirit constitutes the sonship, and it is thus the basis of huiothesia [adoption].” (Fitzmyer)

Galatians 4:21-5:1

4:21 Paul basically alludes to two different aspects of the “law,” commandments from God and the Pentateuch.

4:21-31 Hanson, quoted by Peisker, discusses the controversy as to this passage, whether it constitutes an allegory or a type. Hanson “concludes that the 'allegory' is 'rather an elaborate piece of typology.'”

Calvert feels that “Paul's apparently arbitrary exegesis in this allegory may indicate this was not his choice of text.” Thus, Turner explains that “it is now generally accepted that Paul's allegory...is a rejoinder to an argument of his Judaizing opponents, who were appealing to the same scriptural examples.” But he admits that “their precise argument is unavailable to us.”

4:24-25 Paul associates the slave Hagar with the location where the law was given and with Jerusalem where the temple sacrifices were still being carried out. Thus, she and her children are those still in bondage to the OT laws and customs taught by the Judaizers who are troubling the Galatian church.

4:26 Sarah, the free woman, is associated with the New Jerusalem, the goal for all Christians who accept God's grace through Christ instead.

F.F. Bruce: “Both in Jewish and in Christian thought the heavenly counterpart of the earthly Jerusalem is familiar – the rabbis inferred the existence of the heavenly archetype from the words of Ps. 122:3, which they rendered: 'Jerusalem which is built like the city that is its fellow' – the oldest datable reference to it being Paul's words in Gal. 4:26.” Also see Hebrews 12:18-24.

4:27 Paul breaks into song at this point by quoting Isaiah 54:1. Silva notes that outside of Genesis, Sarah is only mentioned in the OT in Isaiah 51 where it says that she gave birth to those who do what is right (or “pursue righteousness”) and seek God. “Indeed, it has been argued that in the book of Isaiah the themes of Sarah's barrenness is transformed from a past story of a child to the future story of the birth of a people.” Jobes explains that this “development made it exegetically possible for Paul to dissociate the Isaiah proclamation from ethnic Israel exclusively.”

Although Calvert's negative assessment of Paul's interpretive method is quoted above, Oswalt does not agree. He states, “While Paul's use of Isa 54:1 in connection with his exposition of the meaning of Hagar and Sarah manifests a greater freedom than most modern exegetes feel comfortable with, his interpretation is still well within the fundamental sense of the verse.

4:28 For the second time in the chapter (see v. 12), Paul addresses the audience as “beloved.”

4:29 Hamilton: “Paul does not contrast flesh with Spirit, as elsewhere in Galatians, until v. 29; rather he contrasts flesh with promise.” R.E. Brown refutes the suggestion that the Jews considered Isaac born of the Spirit without the action of Abraham (as in Jesus' birth).

Ross says that Paul's “choice of words [persecute] to describe what Ishmael was doing is interpretive – it attempts to express what Sarah perceived to be the real threat to Isaac...to supplant this new heir.” For more on this subject, see my post “What Did Ishmael Do to Isaac? (Genesis 21:9).”

4:29-30 Wagner notes that this negative judgment on Israel is shared in I Thessalonians 2:16 but somewhat contradicted in Paul's later writings in Romans 9-11 by which time Paul had changed his mind and now saw a future for Israel in God's plan. This remains a supposition since other commentators feel that Paul's message here in Galatians is not for the Jews at all but for those Gentiles who want to be under the Jewish law.

4:30 Wilk points out that “will inherit” in Galatians 4:30 also frames Isaiah 53:12-54:3.

5:1 Just as Galatians 3:9 can be considered as part of either chapter 3 or 4, so this verse could be seen as either the end of chapter 4 or the introduction to chapter 5.

 

II CORINTHIANS 8-9

 These two chapters constitute what is in many ways a doublet, giving rise to various theories concerning the origin of its composition. The two most attractive choices are to either view these verses as a unity or treat ch. 9 as a separate message to the Corinthians written soon after ch. 8 was complete, perhaps to a slightly broader audience. There are able defenders of both positions as well as those scholars who feel that there is not enough evidence to decide between the two options. The analysis below supports the unity theory.

Perhaps this section’s most obvious common factor outside its main theme of the collection for the Jerusalem church is the repetition of key words and phrases to mark its borders. Some examples of these include: “the grace of God” (8:1; 9:14), “abundance/abound” (8:2; 9:12), “test” (8:2; 9:13), “generosity” (8:2; 9:11,13), “ministry” (8:4; 9:13), “to the saints” (8:4; 9:12) and “fellowship” (8:4; 9:13). The first cited example is important since it associates God’s grace with the willingness of Paul’s congregations to contribute to the needs of others. The last example above (koinonia) not only serves as an (set of bookends) for the center Section III, but also closes out the whole letter (13:13). The Greek word for “grace/gift” appears exactly ten times in Section III. Quotations from and allusions to the Book of Proverbs figure prominently in both these chapters.

The next factor to consider is the above-mentioned two-part nature of this section, divided along chapter lines. Both 8:1 and 9:1 have all the earmarks of opening remarks. II Corinthians 8 begins with an address to the “brethren” and the phrase “we want you to know.” Similarly, ch. 9 uses the key word “concerning” which also played a prominent role in delineating the divisions of the First Letter to the Corinthians. These two chapters also open with much of the same language – “brothers” (8:1; 9:3,5), “saints” (8:4; 9:1), “urge” (8:6; 9:5), and “Macedonia” (8:1; 9:2,4), as well as the common theme of a delayed collection (8:6; 9:2). Within this section, language unique to ch. 8 includes “Titus” (vv. 6,16,23), “earnestness” (vv. 6,16,23), “your love” (vv. 7,8,24), the noun “comfort” (vv. 4,17) and “churches” (vv. 1,18,19,23,24). The last example acts as an inclusio for ch. 8. “Ministry” and “saints” serve the same function for ch. 9 (see vv. 1 and 12-13).

“The structure of the two chapters is virtually the same: theological warrant, derived argument, practical directives, but it is varied in part by a chiastic arrangement.” (Childs) These perceptive words provide an excellent introduction to the treatment developed below. It is this combination of parallel and chiastic (mirror-image) elements which reinforces the thematic unity of this extended passage. In addition, chapters 8-9 are characterized by an alternation between subsections written in the singular and plural first person. These literary elements are all summarized below.

The Structure of II Corinthians 8-9

Plural          Introduction: The Macedonians held up as an example (8:1-7)

Singular          A. The Corinthians’ willingness to give, not by command (8:8-12)

                            B. God blesses those who give – “as it is written” (8:13-15) 

                                C. “Thanks be to God” (8:16)

 

Plural                              D. Brothers sent to take up collection (8:17-23)

                                            E. Paul’s “boasting” about the Corinthians (8:24)

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

Singular                              E'. Paul’s “boasting” about the Corinthians (9:1-2) 

                                     D'. Brothers sent to take up collection (9:3-5a)

Plural             A'. The Corinthians’ willingness to give, not by command (9:5b)  

                            B'. God blesses those who give – “as it is written” (9:6-14) 

                                C'. “Thanks be to God” (9:15)

Clines points out that the sections labeled B and B' above are important to Paul’s argument in that they lay out the general principles for Christian giving. The phrase “supply...want” appears in this epistle only in these two subsections (at 8:14 and 9:12). Each of these theological passages is appropriately followed by a doxology reminding the readers that we owe all things to God, even the generous promptings of our hearts. Martin notes that 8:16-24 and 9:1-5 (Sections D-E and E'-D', respectively) can be viewed as letters of recommendation for the prominent Christians Paul is sending to Corinth.

Below are some specific comments on individual verses within these two chapters:

II Corinthians 8

8:1-2 Paul expressed this same general idea earlier in I Thessalonians 4:9.

8:7 “Faith” in this verse does not refer to saving faith but to a special gift of the Spirit, as with speech and knowledge. (Hillyer)

8:8 Paul stresses here and in 8:24; 49:3,13 that action is the proof of their love. “Others” would include the Macedonians.

8:9 See Philippians 2:5-8.

8:10 “Apparently the Corinthians did not heed Paul's instructions given to them in I Corinthians 16:1-4 or he would not have needed to bring up the subject again,” according to Colin Brown.

8:10-11 “Began...finish” is equivalent to “beginning...complete” in 8:6.

8:13-14a See the example in Acts 4:32 for the sharing of available resources within the church. Bella points out that “one has to discern when to give help and when to receive it.” Both are important within the Christian community.

8:15 This is a quotation from the middle of Exodus 16:18. The context involved God's provision of manna to the Jews in the wilderness. Each person only gathered enough for his or her own family to eat that day. Furnish notes that Philo quotes the same OT verse to demonstrate that God distributes wisdom equally in his Word. See I Corinthians 4:7.

8:18 This mysterious “brother” is probably included with the equally anonymous “brothers” mentioned in 8:22 and 9:3. Hillyer notes that Luke is “a widely-held guess” as to the identity of this person. However, both Luther and Calvin thought that it was Barnabas instead.

8:20 Calvin: “There is nothing which is more apt to lay one open to sinister imputations than the handling of public money.”

8:21 “This verse is a free quotation from Proverbs 3:4.” (Hillyer)

8:23 The word apostoloi is usually translated as “messengers” here. Barnett explains that it is one of only two occasions when Paul used the term “apostle” in a non-technical sense, the other being in Philippians 2:25 referring to Epaphroditus.

II Corinthians 9

9:1 This verse “seems to be a new beginning, perhaps because this chapter was written somewhat later.” (Bella) Another theory is that ch. 9 actually comes from another letter of Paul that was included here by a later editor. A third possibility is that the duplications between chapters 8 and 9 were intended by Paul for literary reasons (as in the proposed structure shown above).

9:6 The “sowing and reaping” theme in v. 6 comes from Proverbs 22:8 as does the phrase “cheerful giver.” In the Hebrew, Proverb 22:8 reads “He who sows injustice will reap calamity and the rod of his fury will fail” while the Greek Septuagint adds “God blesses the cheerful and giving man, and he will end the futility of his deeds.” Paul borrows from both versions. (Bella)

9:8 Osborne points out that “all sufficiency in all things” is panti pantote pasan in the Greek, an example of paronomasia, “words chosen to catch the original readers' attention and drive home the point.”

9:9 This verse comes from Psalm 112:9. “His righteousness” can be the righteousness of a pious man or of God. Bella notes that “in the Old Testament context the main message of the text is about God's powerful, effective word which will make all his promises come true...through the forces of nature.”

9:10 is derived from Isaiah 55:10.

9:10-12 There is a divided opinion as to whether there is an eschatological meaning behind Paul's offering to the Jerusalem church. In other words, did he intend it to lead to the conversion of the Jews? Balla is doubtful, but S. McKnight feels it might be one of his motives.

OLD TESTAMENT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA: TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS

These Jewish writings were composed at various times from perhaps 100 BC into the Christian era. They were not even considered authentic enough to be included in the Greek Septuagint and thus into the Roman Catholic canon. I thought it might be interesting to see if any of them possessed the sort of literary symmetry found in the books of the OT and NT. As two likely candidates, I examined two of the twelve writings supposedly containing the last will and testaments of the twelve founders of the tribes of Israel. Each of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs follows the same general pattern:

    The Patriarch calls his sons together.

    He relates pertinent events in his life (lacking in the Testament of Asher).

    He warns them against a particular vice or exhorts them to be virtuous.

    He prophesies the future of his sons.

    He exhorts them again (also lacking in the Testament of Asher).

    He dies and is buried.

With such a strict structure in place, it is of interest to see if there are also any underlying symmetrical patterns in place. And if there are, does this perhaps help resolve the question as to whether suspected later Christian interpolations (given in italics below) were added to an originally Jewish text. The short Testament of Asher was chosen as a typical example for analysis, with the following results:

The Testament of Asher

    A. Patriarch with his sons (vv. 1-2) “I will declare to you”

        B. Two inclinations (vv. 3-10)

            1. Evil actions (vv. 11-17) “This...hath two aspects, but the whole is evil.” (6x)

                2. Such men are hares (vv. 18-19) “clean, unclean, ” “God...in the commandments”

                    3. Double-faced men (vv. 20-22) “my children”

            1'. Good actions (vv. 23-25) Two aspects “but the whole is good (3x)

                2'. Such men are like stags and hinds (v. 26) “clean, unclean,” “God...by His commandments”

                    3'. Be single-minded (vv. 27-32) “my children” (2x)

    B'. Eternal consequences of actions (vv. 33-37) “meet the angel(s)” (2x), “evil” (2x), and an inclusio:     “my children”

        1. Negative consequences (vv. 38-39)     “I know you shall sin,” “ye shall be scattered”

            2. Positive consequences (vv. 40-41)     “He shall save Israel”

                3. Exhortation to “little children” (v. 42)

        1'. Negative consequences (vv. 43-44) “I know you shall be disobedient,” “ye shall be scattered”

            2'. Positive consequences (v. 45) “The Lord will gather...Jacob”

A'. Patriarch with his sons (vv. 46-48) “When he had said these things to them”

Section B'2 prophesies God coming down to earth as a man and saving both Israel and the Gentiles. The standard scholarly position is that this is a typical Christian interpolation in an earlier Jewish document. However, if the above analysis is correct, one can see that there is no way to remove vv. 40-41 without disrupting the symmetrical literary pattern. This could indicate that either (a) an originally Jewish writing was thoroughly reworked by a later Christian hand, (b) it was a Christian document to start with, or (c) it is a genuine prophecy of Christ's coming. However, the departures in the Testament of Asher from the general structure of the Twelve Testaments noted at the start of this discussion may label it as an outlier, in which case the above options do not necessarily apply to the other Testaments.

Testament of Benjamin

Since this document follows the general pattern much closer than the Testament of Asher and since it contains even more extensive prophecies of Christ, it was chosen as the next test case. Fortunately, in this case there are a number of verbal clues to guide the proper division of the writing.

A. Benjamin's birth (1:1) “125 years”

        B. Keep the commandments (1:2-20)

                            Prophecy of Christ (1:21)

                C. Two ways (1:22-2:3)

                    1. Doing “good” (1:22-39) “good” (10x)

                    2. Doing evil (1:40-46) “evils” (2x), ”seven” (4x), “Beliar” (3x)

                    3. Conclusion (2:1-4) “evil-doing,” “love,” “fornication,” “defilement” – 2x each

                            Prophecies of Christ (2:5-10)

        B'. Keep the commandments (2:11-29)

                1. Exhortations (2:11-17)

                            Prophecies of Christ (2:18-23)

                1'. Exhortations (2:24-25)

                            Prophecies of Christ (2:26-29)

A'. Benjamin's death (2:30-33) “125 years”

(a) Section B is unified by the following chiastic references to the patriarchs:

    Jacob (v. 2)

        Joseph (v. 4)

            Joseph...brother (v. 7)

        Joseph (v. 12)

            Joseph my brother (v. 14)

        Joseph (v. 18)

    Jacob (v. 19)

(b) Sections B and B' are seen as parallels by the numerous references to the patriarchs in both and the similar pronouncements “I was called Benjamin” (1:6) and “I shall no longer be called a ravening wolf” (2:25).

(c) The six occurrences of “my children” appear at the exact center of B and the beginnings of C1, C2, C3, B'1, and B'1'. Their immediate contexts also form a chiastic set:

love...commandments (1:12)

    see (1:22)

        flee (1:41)

        flee (2:1)

    know (2:12)

walk in commandments (2:24)

Units B' 1 and 1' begin with references to Jacob/Israel.

One could argue that the above structure makes sense even if the suspected Christian additions are included. Thus, (a) Section B', as it is, forms a regular a-b-a-b pattern and (b) the prophecies at 1:21 and 2:5-10 could be considered as either a framework for Section C or as parallel codas to sections B and C, respectively. Working against that analysis are the considerations that (a) none of the verses in italics is involved in any of the various word patterns listed above and (b) these prophecies do not fit in thematically with any of the other material in sections B, C or B'. So the evidence is again ambiguous if only structural considerations are taken into account.

 

 

II CORINTHIANS 7

This chapter can be outlined as follows:

    A. Paul boasts in the Corinthians (7:2-5)

    “I have great pride in you”

            B. Paul is comforted (7:5-12)

    A'. Paul boasts in the Corinthians (7:13-16)

    “I have complete confidence in you”

The root Greek word for “console/consolation” appears exactly seven times in this chapter. Supporting evidence for such a three-fold division is seen in the vocabulary unique to each literary unit.

Words appearing only in A and A' include “boast,” “heart(s)” and panta (“all/every”). Section B contains “grieve/grief” exactly seven times; “eager longing” twice; “zeal” four times; and “earnestness” twice. The phrase “on behalf of” in vv. 7 and 12 serves as an inclusio for B.

7:2 Hughes states that “it seems likely that it is in fact a three-fold repudiation of charges which had been made against him, and the tenor of which had been conveyed by Titus when he and Paul met in Macedonia (cf. vv. 5ff).”

7:2-3 The phrase “have said before” probably refers back to 6:11-13, according to Clines.

7:3 The word die precedes live “to emphasize this bond with the Corinthians through identification with Christ's death and life.” (Wann) Other explanations have been given for this order by different scholars.

7:4 The themes of boasting, affliction and consolation were first introduced in 1:3-7.

7:5-13a Clines and others note that these verses continue the story of Paul's trip to Macedonia (see 2:13-14).

7:5 See Acts 20 for more background information.

7:6 The Greek word alla, translated as “not only” or “what,” appears six times in this verse. Hughes says that this repetition “powerfully conveys the impression that Paul is at this moment writing in a mood of exalted delight.”

7:7 The emphasis on their response is seen in the three-fold repetition of “your,” as pointed out by several scholars.

“Previously the longing, lamentation and eagerness had been Paul's, and it was a delight to his emissary to find similar feelings in the Corinthians.” (Plummer)

7:8 Hughes feels “it is both reasonable and satisfactory to identify the letter” mentioned here and in 2:1-4 with I Corinthians. Others such as Tasker disagree and think that it was a letter of which we have no copy.

7:9 “It was not their sorrow but the fruit of their sorrow that gave him joy.” (Clines)

7:10 See the contrast between Peter (godly sorrow in Matthew 26:75) and Judas (worldly sorrow in Matthew 27:3-5). Hillyer explains the difference between the two as follows: “Worldly grief is merely remorse; it has no place for hope, forgiveness, or grace and simply produces death and despair because it cannot result in positive action.”

7:11 Porter: “Although Paul may be referring here to fear of God, the context of Paul's commendation of the Corinthians' change of heart makes it likely he is referring to their fear of him as an apostle, whether as God's comforter or punisher.”

7:12 If the harsh letter referred to I Corinthians, then “the one who did the wrong” was the man mentioned in I Corinthians 5:1-2 who committed incest. But if it refers to an unknown letter instead, then the one who was wronged was perhaps Paul himself and we have no information on the one who wronged him. (Wan)

Several commentators point out that the thought here is best expressed by translating the repeated phrase as “it was not entirely on account of the one...”

7:13 A double comparative is used here by Paul meaning literally “more overflowing more.” (Barth and Blanke)

7:15 “Titus had grown to love the Corinthians during his stay.” (Hillyer)   Hodge explains the phrase fear and trembling as “solicitous anxiety lest love should fail in doing all that is required.”

7:16 It is generally felt that this chapter was intended to prepare the Corinthians for the appeal to aid the Jerusalem church which he makes in chapters 8-9.